441–450 of 963 posts
I reserve the right to control how content is delivered to my devices by blocking ads, and spotify reserves the right to block my account for doing so. Both of those practices are completely fair in my opinion. I have no problem with this (also I pay for spotify)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
can you elaborate? TCP is also a known malware vector.
https://community.spotify.com/t5/Ongoing-Issues/Spotify-Free... Literally this service delivered malware in 2016. You are permitting spotify to distribute adverstising malware.
It's fascinating how we, humans, are lazy. We're lazy to the point where we'd gladly allow services like Spotify to control our computers just so they can make sure their ad was delivered. We'll even justify it by "well, I really listen to a lot of music". All I want is to push a button and get some bearable-noise during my 8 hours at work. I don't know about the rest, but I really hate when someone makes a fool out…
What’s fascinating to me is the length people go to in order to justify freeloading. If you don’t like the ads, Spotify has a subscription plan. In my country that’s €5 / month. Surely that’s less money spent than the effort it takes to pirate music for usage with foobar2000.
Everybody has the right to control what is displayed on their computer when they browse the Net, and Spotify has the right to cancel free accounts for whatever reason they want to. There is nothing wrong with running adblockers and anti-anti-adblocking scripts, etc., and there is nothing wrong with canceling free Spotify accounts. There is also no cognitive dissonance with running and ad-blocker and being angry when Spotify cancels your free account because of it, it's a perfectly reasonable and consistent attitude.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A non-paying customer who doesn't listen to ads has absolutely zero value to Spotify. I'd challenge this because they can convert to paid users or advertise the service via word of mouth, or probably provide other value as well (user data, listening habits, etc.). However, even if these users have zero value to Spotify, then why terminate them? Spotify is getting some negative press over it, so it seems like a net lo…
> However, even if these users have zero value to Spotify, then why terminate them? When I go to a restaurant and eat without paying, why do they kick me out?
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…
I'm assuming you're using an ads-blocker. Just out of curiosity, if Spotify would serve ads via images only, without JavaScript, would you whitelist it in your ads-blocker? If no, then the loading of JavaScript isn't really the issue, isn't it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> $9-10 I can buy 10-12 CDs per year This is good in other ways! One of the problems with Spotify is that the musicians don't really get paid a realistically useful amount. I say this as someone who has both a Spotify subscription and musician friends whose music is on Spotify. That said, I personally find the subscription price surprisingly low for what I get, but I wouldn't try to tell you what to do with your mone…
CDs don't send money to musicians either, unless they are self-publishing. But there's still a gap: I can't mix my paid-for (ripped) CDs and paid-for MP3s/AACs with streams in one app. This is the problem of letting the music distributer (Spotify) also control the player app.
It's not an optimal solution, but iTunes can import songs from CDs, and you can add other mp3s to your library, but it doesn't cloud sync across devices.
Another solution is Google Play Music, which can import your iTunes library (and CDs indirectly from iTunes) and does do cloud sync.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://community.spotify.com/t5/Ongoing-Issues/Spotify-Free... Literally this service delivered malware in 2016. You are permitting spotify to distribute adverstising malware.
interesting, seems like it was patched quite quickly. what proportion of ad-blocking users are security-conscious engineers vs people who are simply trying to avoid ads?
It's fascinating how we, humans, are lazy. We're lazy to the point where we'd gladly allow services like Spotify to control our computers just so they can make sure their ad was delivered. We'll even justify it by "well, I really listen to a lot of music". All I want is to push a button and get some bearable-noise during my 8 hours at work. I don't know about the rest, but I really hate when someone makes a fool out…
What’s fascinating to me is the length people go to in order to justify freeloading. If you don’t like the ads, Spotify has a subscription plan. In my country that’s €5 / month. Surely that’s less money spent than the effort it takes to pirate music for usage with foobar2000.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.…
> I guess artists could opt out if they thought their licensing slice was too small, but that's effectively career suicide. Just look at Prince. What do you mean? Prince only took his music off spotify for about a year before he died. Was there a very obvious effect on his career in this time?
Prince took a pretty hard stance against online music, in all of its forms, from the beginning.
> Was there a very obvious effect on his career in this time?
I have never listened to any of his songs, accidentally or intentionally. I have never heard anyone talk about his songs. The only time I have ever seen him mentioned online was when he died.
Anecdotal of course, but that's pretty impressive for a supposed superstar.