Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
what is this world coming to.
depending on how fast I'm going.
though whenever i have my mother in the car she refuses to believe it
I don't know why everyone doesn't just pay the tenner, that's what... 3 beers at the pisser
"I can't come to the pub I have no money!"
If you do it quick it does.
at least, it does for me...
i like it.
in your face spotify.
FUCK YOU SPOTIFY FUNDING
if your not paying for it, listen to the fucking ads... you're going to ultimatley ruin the business model and fuck it up for everyone supporting Spotify by listening to the ads/paying for the service.. it's not your god given right to get music for nothing.
SO STOP COMPLAINING
it's the price your paying for the service... if Spotify offered no ad free variant or charged you and gave you ads then fine.. go ahead. But because they offer you a choice you have no right to complain, don't like the price/service then don't use it
(which they are) they will be willing to pay less n less until they don't want to advertise at all.
you have the option to pay for it or not, and for what it offers... that's bloody incredible. The fact people are taking this for granted just shows how deluded people are now about their approach to obtaining media.
a slightly more subtle argument than you're suggesting here. Spotify have a right to include the ads, but at the same time it has no right to act outside the remit of its own software in order to make us listen to them. As someone said above, if you've got a volume knob on your speakers you can use that to turn it down. Perhaps spotify would like to access the mic in our computers so that they can verify that the ad is audible? Perhaps they can have a webconference with users to ensure that we don't have our fingers in our ears during the ads?
I don't use spotify much anyway; I had to load it up to see if this was actually true. But in my opinion, the volume controls on the operating system (or any other system-wide control) itself should not be accessed by individual applications like this. As is obvious, we still have the choice to ignore the ad or block it in some other way, but this is an intrusive little step that makes the user feel like their computer isn't actually their own property any more.
I hardly feel like complaining about it: as I said the whole thing isn't my bag really. But these are the sorts of thing that promote bad feeling about these issues; respect your users (even if some of them don't deserve it). As a pragmatic example, I'd have preferred to see them try to implement better volume normalisation of the ads; they're still really jarring and unpleasant.
Why wouldn't you complain about something that could be better? I'd prefer to see stuff like this working well and implemented well.
for people who aren't even paying for the service? ME INTERNET WANT FREE
They should bend over backwards to make it convenient because the users of the service are still the customers. They should be balancing the customer experience against the provision of content.
The perception that I'd be saying this because I'm a freetard is so typical of this debate; I want to see spotify work, but having the application extend its fingers into the universal components of the operating system is an awful idea. The gaming market is yet to learn a similar lesson with respect to DRM.
just the applications volume.
to fund spotify there needs to be adverts. how exactly could they make it work better? they don't, and can't, ask you exactly what products you are interested in hearing about so you tend to just get any old shit. but there is no way around that, advertisers have to pay spotify for advertisement spots, anyway.
ultimately it's free music at the click of a button with minimal effort, if you don't like the way it works then listen to music another way (not saying YOU as you don't use it, just to people who may use that argument)
how could it be better whilst retaining business sense? they are running at a loss anyway, so we're lucky we don't more adverts if anything.
people who complain about ads on spotify are right up there at the top of the chart of annoying shit. it's a tenner a month for gods sake.
if it's having to resort to examining the status of your mute button. I'm not sure that you're appreciating the stupidity of this aspect of the software; I have no problem that the adverts are there at all. It's ineffective (as you can use other methods to mute them), intrusive and sets a poor precedent.
I've already said one way they could be change the ads before doing this; the volume on the ads has been a problem since day one.
As there is a way to avoid them. Intrusion infers something like iTunes having adverts. It would be intrusive if it was your music that you had purchased. But if you use Spotify for free, the music is not yours, so they can attach whatever adverts they want, as you are not entitled to it in its purest form.
Yes, it is stupid in terms of a business model as the adverts are easily removed, but it's benefitial for the consumer that you are able to do this. To suggest that you can have "effective" adverts that are not intrusive is somewhat of an oxymoron. I can't think of any service that gets money from advertising having GOOD adverts that are enjoyable to listen to. Adverts are "intrusive" on ITV because they interrupt the programme you are watching, but it's how it's all funded. That's the point.
Effectively, aren't you saying that the "stupidity of this aspect of the software" is that the consumer is able to bypass the adverts? So why is this a bad thing? It's making it less intrusive as you don't HAVE to listen to it. And ITV have their own schedule whereas you choose what you listen to on Spotify, which means that as a product, it is such a good deal for the consumer.
Spotify needs to have adverts, simple as that. How exactly could it be implemented better?
putting the pointless and intrusive measure into the software is the bit that I object to. It leads to this culture of monitoring and restricting the user.
The comparison with itunes or other purchased music doesn't really work either: the record industry would have you believe that the music you have paid for isn't 'yours' either (technically, ripping CDs for your own personal use is copyright infingement). What I do own, however, is this computer: and I don't think it's too much to ask that the current volume settings on this computer, which shouldn't have anything to do with spotify or their business model, are kept private.
The debate we're having is about where the line between making the ads heard and respecting your customers should be drawn. Spotify want their adverts heard, and we both know that the adverts need to be there for the service to survive. Again, I've never said at any point that the adverts shouldn't be there.
The consumer can still bypass the adverts with their fingers in their ears: spotify can never, ever control this in the end. But this isn't a reason to let it pass unchallenged, in the same way that Microsoft building video output protection into vista wasn't left unchallenged.
It's not as if having the mute function available makes the ads disappear altogether. The user still has to press mute, wait for the ad to finish, unmute. It's still a bit intrusive, because ads , as you say, are always intrusive (and it's nice to be talking about this and finding some common ground). But at least the listener still has the -choice- and they don't feel that their own hardware is being turned against them.
The 'free' listener does not own their copy of Spotify premium (without ads), the version without ads is not your software. Your software is the free version with ads. Once you pay for Premium you don't get the ads. That's the choice of the listener. Ads for free or no ads for money. It's the whole consumer dynamic.
The free model won't work for everyone, but I'm fine with adverts for free streaming and countless others are too. If I hated adverts but enjoyed Spotify, I would pay for Spotify. If I didn't like Spotify despite the ads, I wouldn't use it for free or pay for it.
The Microsoft comparison doesn't work because you pay for the Windows operating system. If Vista does restrict you then as a paid customer you have every right to be pissed off and challenge it.
The iTunes point: well, copyright is a different issue and doesn't apply to Spotify. As you don't own the tracks, the way you consume them is different to if you buy them. Copyright protection is entirely different and I would agree with your sentiments with it being wrongly percieved as not "yours", as it definitely is if you paid for it. If you don't pay for Spotify, you own 0% of it.
Anyway, I think it boils down to the fact that I see adverts and the way they are presented (with the mute thing included) as a perfectly fair part of a free service, whereas you think the customers should be respected. Though surely you can only claim to not be respected if you pay for the product and then get the adverts despite giving money to the business. I just don't understand what you think an alternative is to their model?
Ok so the mute thing is a little pointless. But I don't get why, as a consumer getting a product for FREE, we have any right to moan about how we recieve that product if the adverts themselves directly fund that free service.
If you feel that you are being "monitored and restricted" then opt out and don't use the software. You haven't lost anything from using it in the first place if you didn't pay. Spotify is not perfect at all and has flaws but as a free service it is pretty great IMO.
All in all, if you don't want to be restricted or intruded as a consumer, buy the CD and listen to it on your stereo. I understand your points but really don't see an alternative and if there was, I don't think it should detract from Spotify in its present form being a pretty great free deal for the consumer.
refers to iTunes
and say 'fuck off' to the Shockwaves NME Hair Mirror or whateveritis
in your face, capitalism!
fucking hell. i forget what they actually say but i think it's something like "it makes me feel proud and important and i get taught how to influence people"
so being a policeman makes you an arrogant cock who thinks he can bully people ? no shit...
turn the volume up after this ad
this makes spotify think you've still listened to the ad - everyone's a winner! except for the person advertising of course, but who cares about them?
do you have literally no idea of simple economics and business models?
what would the alternative be? if someone comes up with one it could make you millions... so give it to me and i will split the proceeds. cheers
as no one is willing to pay for anything anymore, see almost everyone's post on here. To be fair I wish people weren't such spoilt brats.
do you turn your TV off during ad breaks? Not getting preachy, couldn't give a shit about advertisers and the like, just seems like a whole lot of effort with little gain.
But i'm not an indie fuck so that might explain it
when it's not pre-recorded i tend to just mute it.
i usually mute through the music
well I (or actually my Dad) got roundly panned.
Now you're (mostly) moaning about not being able to mute spotify.
Well I hope you all go out and make rash spending decisions.
You'll only be able to watch Corrie or Harry Hill's TV Burp if you're wearing a sofa seatbelt. If you undo the seatbelt to get up for a cup of tea or a wee, the advert pauses.