421–430 of 963 posts
Spotify: Provide service that costs labor, resources, licensing, etc. Spotify: Use ads for non-paying users to help cover the costs Freeloading Users: Use third party software to sidestep this source of revenue, essentially getting the product for free. Spotify: Ban these users. Freeloading Users: shocked_pikachu.jpg
Users: Blocks known malware vector.
Spotify and 'the usual' HN crowd: shocked_pikachu.jpg
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anyone offering the complete collection of any artist including bootlags, unreleased tracks, artwork and in some cases images of used tickets of the shows?
If bootlegs and unreleased tracks were officially released, they would become official and released tracks. If there's a specific unreleased track you want, fine, pirate that. I don't think there's anything wrong with pirating content that's not available for sale (as long as you buy it if/when it does become available for sale). However, the existence of some unreleased tracks do not give you license to pirate track…
A good example is Morphine's The Night. We're not talking about a bootleg record, it's a proper studio album owned by UMG. Yet it's not available on Spotify, Google Music or Amazon Music. It's on iTunes, but that requires installing a native app, which doesn't run on any of my devices, including the most popular OS in the world (Android). Alternatively I can buy a CD, which will cost me something like $50 with shipping, and rip it myself - and that's only because I still happen to own a desktop with a CD drive.
Good. Spotify has a pretty cheap paid option that removes all of that. To those who justify wanting the paid service for nothing by saying Spotify won't "take responsibility" or "assume liability" for their ads or those ads "might deliver malware" or are "intrusive" as a weak rationalization, you present a false dichotomy. There are at least three options: 1. Pay for the service 2. Suffer through the ads 3. Don't use…
Years ago, a Windows virus slipped on to three family machines I'm the go-to-guy for, due to Spotify using IE to display ads, and not vetting its ads properly. My answer was two-fold - never use Spotify, and always use an ad-blocker.
I feel like I hold an opinion no one else reading hacker news has, I believe website owners should be able to deliver ads and website visitors should be able to block them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I typically buy at least 1 coffee a day for $7 at starbucks. Without this, I cannot function. I still cannot justify paying for any media. Certainly not $10+/month for Spotify or Netflix. Sorry. I don't care this seems inconsistent, its consistent to my own beliefs.
Your beliefs are that coffee is infinitely more valuable than media, even though you need both in your life?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Contrary to popular belief, ads can be delivered without arbitrary code execution. The Spotify app already has the ability to deliver audio and video, that's all they need. The mistake here is letting third-parties onto users devices. It's a disgusting industry-wide practice that needs to stop. Using the existing audio/video delivery system would render "ad blockers" useless. "thrid-party blockers" would still work a…
And if the approach is “I won’t use services that want to use 3rd-party-RCE-style ads”, it makes sense to me. But the folks who are blocking ads are taking Spotify’s offer (pay us, let us run our ads, or don’t use our service, pick 1) and trying to shoehorn a 4th option that Spotify doesn’t offer: get the content w/o Spotify getting paid. To tell Spotify “I’d use your service if you added an option where the ads didn…
I personally chose not to use Spotify at all, but I'm not going to fault anyone for using it with a thrid-party blocker. Even if Spotify didn't also do advertising the right way (e.g. branded playlists (I believe paying users get those too)), no one is obligated to subject themselves to personal harm, even if someone is dumb enough to expose people to that risk as a subsidy for their service, no matter how useful the service is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The simple solution is that Spotify accept liability for any malware delivered via their ad system.
woah woah woah, you can't go expecting a company to take responsibility for what their service does. I think there's a constitutional amendment about that.
They allow advertisers to run JS on your device, and ads are a trendy way to deliver malware. People are using ad blockers not just to hide annoyances and to improve performance, but to protect themselves from bad actors. https://spotifyforbrands.com/en-US/ad-experiences/ > JavaScript or iFrame Tags: All third-party tags and tracking URLs need to be in https format. I was on the fence about this because there is a le…
I can just about understand this attitude with services that do not have an ad-free subscription option, but Spotify does! How do you reconcile that you deserve to be able to use Spotify both without paying them money and without them monetising you via ads?
Not that I have ever used Spotify, but that would be how I would defend it. If I did, I would just move on since my account would soon be suspended.
So how does Spotify defend running potentially malicious ads from 3rd party providers on end-user systems? Do they even vet those ads? Are they even aware of what code will be running on users computers that they are serving via the ad frameworks?
Good. Spotify has a pretty cheap paid option that removes all of that. To those who justify wanting the paid service for nothing by saying Spotify won't "take responsibility" or "assume liability" for their ads or those ads "might deliver malware" or are "intrusive" as a weak rationalization, you present a false dichotomy. There are at least three options: 1. Pay for the service 2. Suffer through the ads 3. Don't use…
Contrary to popular belief, ads can be delivered without arbitrary code execution. The Spotify app already has the ability to deliver audio and video, that's all they need. The mistake here is letting third-parties onto users devices. It's a disgusting industry-wide practice that needs to stop. Using the existing audio/video delivery system would render "ad blockers" useless. "thrid-party blockers" would still work a…
What popular belief is this? The ready counterexample is the delivery of an ad to a vaccuum-tube TV in 1950.
Spotify: Provide service that costs labor, resources, licensing, etc. Spotify: Use ads for non-paying users to help cover the costs Freeloading Users: Use third party software to sidestep this source of revenue, essentially getting the product for free. Spotify: Ban these users. Freeloading Users: shocked_pikachu.jpg
> costs labor Neglegible marginal impact. Nevermind that most of this manpower seems to be wasted on adtech and bullshit redesigns. Their service sure hasn't improved recently. > resources This was completely self-inflicted. They used to run a p2p network, they chose to shut that down. That's fine, but they can't blame that on their users. > licensing Spotify's licensing budget is a fixed percentage of their revenue.…
Long time premium spotify user, but it seems they are more interested in their ad-tech than anything else. They introduce 0 new features or improvements and in fact actually remove things over time. It's amazing to see a product continue to get worse. Before you could send your friends a message within Spotify to send a song for them to listen while in the application and could even carry on a discussion. It was slic…