Spotify banning ad blockers

[mxk]

5 hours ago, Commodus said:

And you may know what choice you're making, but that doesn't mean it's the right choice, does it?

I said I know it's not the right choice, and if I pay the price for my morally wrong decision, then so be it. Please stop lecturing me on something that I've stated that I understand.

[williamcll]

I wonder if it applies to mobile users too, especially ones with modified clients.

[mxk]

2 hours ago, williamcll said:

I wonder if it applies to mobile users too, especially ones with modified clients.

I think it does. There are lots of different versions of cracker spotify and I think it applies to those cracked versions as much as the ad blockers.

 

I could be wrong.

[jaggysnake57]

10 hours ago, 79wjd said:

And if you don't abide by the terms of THEIR service that YOU agreed to, then you don't get to enjoy THEIR service.

ok so ill go else simple

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

I'm sorry but that is no excuse to demand someone provide you a service on your terms.  I demand that you write me webpage for my charity, but I am not going to pay you because it's my opinion you will just piss the money up a wall.

So if you can't have content free without the ads you'll fucking steal it.  I don't care if you think it is a victimless crime, the fact is people work hard to provide a service and the attitude that people are entitled to it unconditionally is pathetic.

 

If the ads are stupid dangerous or annoying then either don't use the service or go and buy the fucking CD or pay for the ad free version.

and untill someone else starts offering the same quality webpages for free/cheep i dont need to

What must really piss you SJWs off is the fact that Spotify Netflix and other streaming services came about because of us “nasty pirates”. We levelled the playing field for you. That’s gotta hurt

Oh and BTW those ads are everywhere what are we meant to do not use the internet

 

Now come every on

 

[RejZoR]

I'd be upset if I could actually use the god damn Spotify. The state of living in Central Europe in year 2019. That moment you feel like you're living in a 3rd world country because corporations are apparently too dumb to collect your money... But they endlessly bitch about piracy. Like, give me a F break. Is it my fault if you can't deliver content? When Steam arrived I basically stopped pirating games entirely because it was cheaper and more convenient. I actually couldn't be bothered to deal with cracks and stuff. Entire collection of games in the world basically in one place. How many movie or music services are there that provide that? Nearly none. Even Netflix that we got in Europe, costs more coz $=€ and we get like 4x less content. It's just baffling how entire multibillion industries behind that, can't get their shit sorted. I mean, do you want frigging money or not as we're literally standing here with wallets open and they are like "omg muh pirates"? This nonsense has been going on for decades and they still haven't adapted to anything. It's just pathetic.

[Noctus]

3 hours ago, jaggysnake57 said:

Oh and BTW those ads are everywhere what are we meant to do not use the internet

It's okay, we get it. You can't afford to remove/ get triggered by having to listen to 30 secs worth of adverts every album or 2 worth of music. Here, let me show you a few carpark corners you can go REE in away from us.

[Noctus]

59 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

I'd be upset if I could actually use the god damn Spotify. The state of living in Central Europe in year 2019. That moment you feel like you're living in a 3rd world country because corporations are apparently too dumb to collect your money... But they endlessly bitch about piracy. Like, give me a F break. Is it my fault if you can't deliver content? When Steam arrived I basically stopped pirating games entirely because it was cheaper and more convenient. I actually couldn't be bothered to deal with cracks and stuff. Entire collection of games in the world basically in one place. How many movie or music services are there that provide that? Nearly none. Even Netflix that we got in Europe, costs more coz $=€ and we get like 4x less content. It's just baffling how entire multibillion industries behind that, can't get their shit sorted. I mean, do you want frigging money or not as we're literally standing here with wallets open and they are like "omg muh pirates"? This nonsense has been going on for decades and they still haven't adapted to anything. It's just pathetic.

It was cheaper? I'm intrigued, what made it costly ? I also get what you mean. It is daft of people like netflix to cordon off their content compared to everwhere else. Since streaming would appear to be going nowhere fast, its baffling they'd give up 10s of millions of people's monthly direct debt because of regional segregation when they could easily spend the cash and get a lovely ROI over the years to put them back in the black again. Though i also understand it's not just netflix in the chain, movie execs are the main obstacle. But they cant see past their hands infront of their faces. It's a catch22, they don;t wanna sell over here cos "but pirates", which then makes people pirate, which in turn solidifies their few of not releasing. For people who can make money, they sure are dumb fucks.

[LinusOnLine]

So far I have not seen one successful implementation of blocking adblockers. All the companies I have seen that have tried it had been forced to back on it since they loose to much traffic and are actually loosing money on doing it.

[jaggysnake57]

27 minutes ago, Noctus said:

 Here, let me show you a few carpark corners you can go REE in away from us.

ah speaking from experiance then?

 

no ads on TPB

 

[Noctus]

2 minutes ago, jaggysnake57 said:

ah speaking from experiance then?

 

Yup, i've shown people like you those places before. Don't worry, i'll find one that's occupied. Have a wee friend.

 

11 minutes ago, LinusOnLine said:

So far I have not seen one successful implementation of blocking adblockers. All the companies I have seen that have tried it had been forced to back on it since they loose to much traffic and are actually loosing money on doing it.

How can they lose money by blocking those with add blockers? It's a free service, so if people are "blocking that source of income" stopping that would garner money no? Otherwise all they are doing is losing people who ain't paying in the 1st place, and won't be paying since they'd already have premium.

[insomniacmoss]

no use. I made my account when i was in canada. moved back to kenya. i can stream all day on my laptop without any audio or video ads.

[LinusOnLine]

2 minutes ago, Noctus said:

How can they lose money by blocking those with add blockers? It's a free service, so if people are "blocking that source of income" stopping that would garner money no? Otherwise all they are doing is losing people who ain't paying in the 1st place, and won't be paying since they'd already have premium.

The user base goes down and the amount of people that can potentially be exposed to the ads lowers. This means less interest in buying ads. So the user base gets smaller and smaller and the ad revenue also gets less. What they fail to realize is that almost none of the people that use ad blockers would pay for premium anyway.

[TempestCatto]

Maybe I missed it, but I don't genuinely understand how they can detect people who use adblockers. Can someone explain this to me? I don't see how they can tell who's using one so they can "ban" them.

[Noctus]

35 minutes ago, LinusOnLine said:

What they fail to realize is that almost none of the people that use ad blockers would pay for premium anyway.

Exactly, so there's no money lost anyway? The only people who "lose out" if this implementation works are those not providing revenue for the company in the 1st place by using ad blockers because they aren't on premium.

4 minutes ago, TempestCatto said:

Maybe I missed it, but I don't genuinely understand how they can detect people who use adblockers. Can someone explain this to me? I don't see how they can tell who's using one so they can "ban" them.

As i said before, my belief is, each client (which is linked to an account) is either free or premium. Quite easy to see if free clients are playing the ads by checking it against a quota of x ads per free songs (or song minutes) played.

 

No different (in theory) from a FPs game updating client side location in relation to everyone on a server by pinging it for the relevant data so everyone's in snyc.

[LinusOnLine]

1 minute ago, Noctus said:

Exactly, so there's no money lost anyway? The only people who "lose out" if this implementation works are those not providing revenue for the company in the 1st place by using ad blockers because they aren't on premium.

Read all that I wrote. They will loose a lot of money on it and in the end be forced to enable it again or go under like all other companies trying this before them have. The alternative would be to not have a free option at all. Not even with ads. Might work in a country like the US where people seem to think everything should be paid but not in the rest of the world.

[RejZoR]

1 hour ago, Noctus said:

It was cheaper? I'm intrigued, what made it costly ? I also get what you mean. It is daft of people like netflix to cordon off their content compared to everwhere else. Since streaming would appear to be going nowhere fast, its baffling they'd give up 10s of millions of people's monthly direct debt because of regional segregation when they could easily spend the cash and get a lovely ROI over the years to put them back in the black again. Though i also understand it's not just netflix in the chain, movie execs are the main obstacle. But they cant see past their hands infront of their faces. It's a catch22, they don;t wanna sell over here cos "but pirates", which then makes people pirate, which in turn solidifies their few of not releasing. For people who can make money, they sure are dumb fucks.

Cheaper compared to retail, especially with seasonal deals. And convenience of buying a game and playing it 2 hours later compared to driving somewhere to buy a game and all that. Also all that fiddling with cracks and finding them clean for each consecutive patch and problems online were "costly" in pirated games. Not that legit games are not plauged with that through DRM, but I sacked all those companies (Ubisoft, I'm looking at you) so I never experienced any of that. Sure Steam has its share of flaws, but it was a huge evolutionary step for gaming industry on PC. Something music and movie industry have yet to do.

 

Do you want to know when was I last in the cinema? Probably a decade ago. I just can't be bothered going somewhere instead of watching a movie of choice in comfort of my own home at time I prefer, not when they play the damn thing. These aren't freaking 1960's anymore, they should really move on. I'd watch so many more movies if I could stream them just 1 week after release, even if for a full price of the cinema ticket (though they should really be  a bit cheaper). It's just baffling how that's not a thing yet. If I could just pay and enjoy, I'd be doing that constantly, regularly. But you won't drag my ass to cinema. I might just wait 1 year for movie to drop on TV as some sort of exclusive or even on Netflix. Or just bloody pirate it after so long. So, it's literally Steam for movies thing going on. They refuse to deliver convenience to me to collect money. Fine. Then don't bitch over piracy you trilobites...

[LinusOnLine]

5 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Do you want to know when was I last in the cinema? Probably a decade ago. I just can't be bothered going somewhere instead of watching a movie of choice in comfort of my own home at time I prefer, not when they play the damn thing.

More than 2 decades ago for me. I have way better picture and sound than the theater have anyway. I pay for Netflix though because I like the idea. Seen all the movies long before they reach Netflix so it is only to support the idea I am paying for it.

[Noctus]

1 minute ago, LinusOnLine said:

Read all that I wrote. They will loose a lot of money on it and in the end be forced to enable it again or go under like all other companies trying this before them have. The alternative would be to not have a free option at all. Not even with ads. Might work in a country like the US where people seem to think everything should be paid but not in the rest of the world.

I'm reading it. How can they lose money showing adds to people who aren't watching the adds in the 1st place? If people are not getting the ads all they are doing is providing a free streaming service with no return. 

 

If im giving out food to people and my requirement if for people to stand on a square for 30 seconds that generates little bit of money for me before coming forward, yet instead they get a pal to help them hover above the square so it looks no different but i generate no money. How would it be that implementing a system that makes sure i get money instead of them faking or not bother wasting food on them and gaining the same return be bad for my business practices. With them eating my food i gain no money, without them i gain no money. Sooooo, guess who no longer gets my food unless they stand on the square.

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, Noctus said:

I'm reading it. How can they lose money showing adds to people who aren't watching the adds in the 1st place? If people are not getting the ads all they are doing is providing a free streaming service with no return. 

 

If im giving out food to people and my requirement if for people to stand on a square for 30 seconds that generates little bit of money for me before coming forward, yet instead they get a pal to help them hover above the square so it looks no different but i generate no money. How would it be that implementing a system that makes sure i get money instead of them faking or not bother wasting food on them and gaining the same return be bad for my business practices. With them eating my food i gain no money, without them i gain no money. Sooooo, guess who no longer gets my food unless they stand on the square.

It's possible that Spotify gets better rates for the ads that do get seen if they have X users as opposed to Y users that could possibly see an ad. 

 

The source of the ad might request the viewer count and not specifically care about those who are using adblock.

[LinusOnLine]

Just now, Noctus said:

I'm reading it. How can they lose money showing adds to people who aren't watching the adds in the 1st place? If people are not getting the ads all they are doing is providing a free streaming service with no return. 

 

If im giving out food to people and my requirement if for people to stand on a square for 30 seconds that generates little bit of money for me before coming forward, yet instead they get a pal to help them hover above the square so it looks no different but i generate no money. How would it be that implementing a system that makes sure i get money instead of them faking or not bother wasting food on them and gaining the same return be bad for my business practices. With them eating my food i gain no money, without them i gain no money. Sooooo, guess who no longer gets my food unless they stand on the square.

The willingness for companies to pay for ads is based on a user base of expected number of people seeing their ads. They have no interest what so ever in the premium users since they do not get shown any ads. If your user base goes down which it would do with blocking ad blockers will put the user base in an ever ending  spiral down. It will also bring down users who do watch the ads since the interest in using the site is less for everyone the less people are exposed to the content.

Food is different and so would any physical object be. When we talk data though it works different even if right holders do their best to try and convince us that it does not.

[Noctus]

23 minutes ago, LinusOnLine said:

The willingness for companies to pay for ads is based on a user base of expected number of people seeing their ads. They have no interest what so ever in the premium users since they do not get shown any ads. If your user base goes down which it would do with blocking ad blockers will put the user base in an ever ending  spiral down. It will also bring down users who do watch the ads since the interest in using the site is less for everyone the less people are exposed to the content.

Food is different and so would any physical object be. When we talk data though it works different even if right holders do their best to try and convince us that it does not.

 

24 minutes ago, 79wjd said:

It's possible that Spotify gets better rates for the ads that do get seen if they have X users as opposed to Y users that could possibly see an ad. 

 

The source of the ad might request the viewer count and not specifically care about those who are using adblock.

But surely it could also be put that they get the monies based on users actually seeing the ads? Since they are implementing this adblocker countermeasure, it would be reasonable to presume they know to some degree the amount of revenue they receive is disproportionate to the amount of free users they have, which would have to be relayed to those paying for ad-space, surely. So cutting out those are who "screwing with the statistics" would in the long run make them cash? For exampe, "why would i be paying for 3million free users views, when only 1.8million are actually viewing. So i'll pay you less". It makes sense, since if they only needed "how many free users we have = quote for ad-space cash" they wouldn't bother with combating ad blockers since they are riding the gravy-train regardless, no?

[LinusOnLine]

2 minutes ago, Noctus said:

 

But surely it could also be put that they get the monies based on users actually seeing the ads? Since they are implementing this adblocker countermeasure, it would be reasonable to presume they know to some degree the amount of revenue they receive is disproportionate to the amount of free users they have, which would have to be relayed to those paying for ad-space, surely. So cutting out those are who "screwing with the statistics" would in the long run make them cash? For exampe, "why would i be paying for 3million free users views, when only 1.8million are actually viewing. So i'll pay you less". It makes sense, since if they only needed "how many free users we have = quote for ad-space cash" they wouldn't bother with combating ad blockers since they are riding the gravy-train regardless, no?

That is how they reason. Problem is that many have tried this before only to discover that doing this actually hurt them. It is born from a perspective of greed and not understanding that if you take away the 1.2 million in your example that are not viewing the ads they crumble their user base making it unattractive for all parties in the end.

Swedens biggest news paper tried this not long ago and they discovered a lot of problems of their thinking. It turned out that when people could not share news articles with their friends because they could not read them because of blocking ad blockers the people who actually viewed the ads stopped using the site and started using other alternatives instead. Political parties on FB stopped linking to them for the same reason and news where simply linked elsewhere.

Spotify came about because of a greedy music industry killing them self of. Doing the same mistake again just shows that we never learn from history. 

[Noctus]

16 minutes ago, LinusOnLine said:

That is how they reason. Problem is that many have tried this before only to discover that doing this actually hurt them. It is born from a perspective of greed and not understanding that if you take away the 1.2 million in your example that are not viewing the ads they crumble their user base making it unattractive for all parties in the end.

Swedens biggest news paper tried this not long ago and they discovered a lot of problems of their thinking. It turned out that when people could not share news articles with their friends because they could not read them because of blocking ad blockers the people who actually viewed the ads stopped using the site and started using other alternatives instead. Political parties on FB stopped linking to them for the same reason and news where simply linked elsewhere.

Spotify came about because of a greedy music industry killing them self of. Doing the same mistake again just shows that we never learn from history. 

Ah well, guess we just gotta wait and see if Spotify suffer's the same fate. I'd hope not, since i use it a fair amount each day. Unless i'm actually needing to interact with anyone or out with pals, my wireless buds are permanently stuck in my ears lol. And i've yet to see a service that can provide the same, really cba going through the hassle of ripping ALL the songs i could "potentially" want and putting them on a SD card. All that ended with WMP and CD burning .

[LinusOnLine]

1 minute ago, Noctus said:

Ah well, guess we just gotta wait and see if Spotify suffer's the same fate. I'd hope not, since i use it a fair amount each day. Unless i'm actually needing to interact with anyone or out with pals, my wireless buds are permanently stuck in my ears lol.

Spotify is still a lot better than how it was before Spotify  Also I do not think it is that expensive either considering what you get. I subscribe to Netflix much because it is the closest thing to Spotify when it comes to movies. I do not watch Netflix but I support it

[Noctus]

40 minutes ago, LinusOnLine said:

Spotify is still a lot better than how it was before Spotify  Also I do not think it is that expensive either considering what you get. I subscribe to Netflix much because it is the closest thing to Spotify when it comes to movies. I do not watch Netflix but I support it

Im rocking spotify, netflix and Amazon Prime. Spoilt for choice lol