491–500 of 963 posts
~$120/year to remove ads is a lot of money just so I can listen to the odd pop song someone mentions that isn't on YouTube. I don't listen to much big label music. "Big label music in one place" is basically Spotify's value proposition. $120 buys a lot on Bandcamp.
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…
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…
How about if marketers want me looking at their ads, they can stop pouring millions of dollars into research about how to spy on me through those ads against my will.
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…
The hard thing for platforms is that no one trusts the platform to not lie about delivery metrics. Thus the need for advertisers to run code to verify it ran and run alternative networks. No idea why advertisers trust the ad networks over say spotify. This was going the otherway then facebook's massive lies about video ad views tanked it. Other services like twitch have done what you said and users are equally irate…
None of that is my problem as a user though. I'm not obligated to expose myself to malware so that Coca-Cola can accurately track how many people saw their ad.
Simple solution is to allow paid accounts to run adblockers and block free account users who block ads without banning their accounts.
Paid accounts don't have ads.
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…
4. Don't pay for the service and block the ads :) That said... Go with #3 everyone. Spotify is horrible for artists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe just stop using spotify?
Or pay for your account?
Especially when piracy is so much easier than getting your account suspended for using an adblocker.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your beliefs are that coffee is infinitely more valuable than media, even though you need both in your life?
I need coffee, I don't need to pay for media. I want media, and I find it.
It is clearly a ridiculous assertion that a human being needs coffee. If you never had a cup of coffee again you would not die from that lack.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are at least three options: > 1. Pay for the service > 2. Suffer through the ads > 3. Don't use the service Those are the customer's options. What about Spotify's? 1. Offer the service as paid-only, no free with ads option. 2. Offer a paid version and a free version, but some people use ad blockers. 3. Offer a paid version and a free version, block ad blockers and expose your customers to malware. The last is…
> 2. Offer a paid version and a free version, but some people use ad blockers, and expose most of your customers to malware.
Or for browser vendors to start shipping ad blockers or third party javascript blockers by default.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's totally unclear to me why you think this should be considered bad behavior. Imagine a grocery store has a promotion - you can get a loaf of bread for free if you listen to a twenty minute advertising presentation. Does this justify not going to the presentation, and just stealing the bread?
You go to the presentation and someone demands you empty your pockets into a bowl that they will take into another room while you watch the presentation, wallet, phone, keys, etc.... You decline and leave, but you already ate the bread! Did you steal it?