Slashdot Mirror
Spotify Says 2 Million Users Hacked Apps To Suppress Ads On Its Free Service (engadget.com)
Earlier this month, Spotify revealed that it had begun cracking down on people using hacked versions of apps. These apps allowed users with free accounts to suppress advertising and take advantage of paid features. Now, Spotify has disclosed just how many people have been taking advantage of this hack: around 2 million users. Engadget reports:
That's not an insignificant number, and it's understandable why Spotify is cracking down on them. As the company explains in an amended F1 filing with the SEC this week, these users forced the company to adjust its metrics and key performance indicators. The disclosure notes, "Unauthorized access to our Service may cause us to misstate key performance indicators, which once discovered, corrected, and disclosed, could undermine investor confidence in the integrity of our key performance indicators and could cause our stock price to drop significantly." As a result, Spotify has adjusted its monthly active users from 159 million at the end of 2017 to 157 million.
> These apps allowed users with free accounts to suppress advertising
IOW, running software they chose to run on a device they owned?
Blocking ads is not theft any more than going to the bathroom during a commercial is stealing from Toyota
We all do the same to slashdot as well
Huh?
"Spotify says" (subject verb) intro
"2 million users" (subject)
"hacked apps" (verb direct object)
So 2 million people hacked the Spotify app?
Really? Or some other app?
Please give more info on those two million hackers or admit to lying.
A dingo ate my sig...
Filthy LUDDITES hack appy app apps like Appify to make them less appy because they're too stupid to know how to app apps!
Apps!
Spotify could block those accounts silently (and if had balls turn to the legal system). Instead they shout out "bad users" blocking our revenue. So for who is this message? Not for the "bad user" who (the 2 million of them) are identified. But not blocked...
So where is the real loss occurring?
Well done, ladies and gents! Well done!
How about an ad redirect to a 2nd virtual window.
To the supplier everything looks normal, the ads appear to be served, but the user never looks at any - but has the option.
Everyone happy. Yeah, I know a redirect to a bit bucket, or a loopback in the firewall directing anything with ad.server to the loopback.
Some internet security products also suppress nasty and repetitive calls. That is why the 2 Mil is still probably too low.
AntiVirus packages are probably killing heaps of popups.More if you include 'Do not show this ad again' .
I know that smartphones and the App Economy(tm) change everything and stuff; but hasn't it been a ubiquitous article of common sense that trusting the client is for suckers since the days when using your phone to access the internet involved dialup?
Outside of some 'trusted computing' dystopian fantasy there isn't much they can do about people suppressing ads; but since they are the ones running the servers streaming the music one would think that they could quite easily do things like stopping the media stream during periods when ads are supposed to be playing; making periodic chunks of silence the best-possible modified client outcome.
Pandora is already a public company. I'm willing to bet that they're suffering just as much if not more.
I've been a subscriber to Pandora since 2008. I loved the service and when the ads started, I hated it so much I shoveled out a paltry amount for the yearly service. I don't remember what it was, but it was stupid affordable enough for a broke college stupid.
The music industry really bends these guys over and abuses them. Their licensing costs are stupid high. This type of piracy depresses me because they're both struggling to make any sort of profit.
Subscribe to Spotify for a couple of months and use Audacity to rip everything you want. After ~350 albums I cancelled.
Spotify claims to have stopped hacked users. Users recieved message about account. Users upgrade their hacked app with latest hacked app. Continue streaming using hacked app.
> So for who is this message? Not for the "bad user" who (the 2 million of them) are identified.
Didn't bother to read even two sentences into the summary before posting your insightful knowledge about the topic? The message (an SEC filing) is for potential investors.
> So where is the real loss occurring?
The loss would be investors losing their investment. You, in your 401k, for example. If they invest in the company based on the claim that they have 159 million users generating revenue, but in fact there are only 100 million legitimate users, the company has a lower chance of success, a lower likely future value, and investors will likely lose money.
Public companies are required to do two things - state business facts such as the number of customers they have as accurately as they can, and report any foreseen risks. In its most recent filing, the company has amended their statements for both reasons. They reduced their customer count by 2 million, and acknowledged the risk that many more active accounts may not actually be able to bring revenue, because those users could be using hacked apps.
On a side note -
I've been in computer security for twenty years, so I've seen a few things in that time. One thing I've noticed may seem obvious once I say it, but it's not obvious to a LOT of people:
Hacked apps are hacked, by hackers.
When you install a "cracked warez", you're installing something you've downloaded from a known disreputable site, that you KNOW was coded or modified by disreputable people who don't mind screwing somebody else over, and of course breaking the law. It has malware folks; most of the time "cracked" includes malware. These organizations and individuals don't crack and distribute the cracked software, risking legal trouble for themselves, out of the goodness of their hearts. They want you to install their hacked version because it includes a payload they want to sneak on to your system.
Forcing someone against his/her will to watch something they don't need or ever want may not working so well.
I get pestered by some websites to disable my non-existing ad-blocker and it takes all the fun out of it.
If it happens always, I don't go there anymore and look somewhere else.
Next thing, if there is a counter running for ad length and I really want to watch it what's behind, sound is turned down and the browser window moved down, do just the counter is visible and I start looking/listening again.
Who likes ads? For me it is just yuck without end. Something I don't need, not want at all because ist's just stuffed down my throat against my will.
The original spirit of the Internet at it's creation seems completely gone..
127.0.0.1 shittyspotifyadserver.com
for those not in the 2 million along with myself, lookup spotify dogfood.
"That's not an insignificant number, and it's understandable why Spotify is cracking down on them"
Why? Those people will never click on an ad or buy anything they offer by principle.
Good for them. WTF is Spotify?
Why pay for a couple months? Use Streamtuner/Streamripper and save *all* the subscription fees.
It's simple. Ads are a cost of a product. Whether it's on TV, on the radio, or on the web. The cost of your product is higher than what I'm willing to pay. There are too many ads! Cut the ads back to a reasonable "cost" and people won't block your ads.
> These apps allowed users with free accounts to suppress advertising
IOW, running software they chose to run on a device they owned?
Blocking ads is not theft any more than going to the bathroom during a commercial is stealing from Toyota
Blocking ads is sort of theft because you know that's how they're paying for the music. You can still go to the bathroom.
No, the only argument here is that their advertisements are so bad that they seem to be making them deliberately offensive to encourage people to switch to the paid service. So long as their regular ads are that bad, they deserve what they get.
I don't use it all that often, but Spotify's ads are not all that obtrusive, obnoxious or frequent. It's not like they're popping in a 30 second ad after every second song.
fencepost
just a little off
The bottom line is, two million of your users decided your services are only tolerable if they didn't have to deal with the bullshit ( ads ) that come with it.
Perhaps you should use that as a learning experience and rework your service into something that folks won't feel the need to take such measures.
Just a thought.
If this is controlled by the *client* they deserve to lose revenue.