I don't see any reason to do that for an app whose paid and ad-free version is really cheap for the huge value it provides. Remember when you used to buy CDs for every album.
> Spotifree is polling Spotify every .3 seconds to see whether the current track number is 0 (as in all ads). If it is, Spotify is muted for a duration of an ad. When an ad is over, the volume is set to the way it was before.
I agree with most of the comments here that you should just pay for Spotify... BUT genuine question. If it's just muted then the ad still plays and Spotify and the artist still get their money, so what is the harm?
(the obvious answer would be the advertising company, anyone else or anything else I am not seeing?)
Everyone in the comments is acting like you're comitting a war crime, but the majority sees no problem with adblockers, which are pretty similiar, especially autoclicking ones.
The only one directly losing resources is the ad company, until they get tired of it and stop advertising on Spotify. But Spotify is affordable, so the amount of people that jump through hoops and use these methods is insignificant.
My guess is that you still benefit them more than people who share accounts.
> Everyone in the comments is acting like you're comitting a war crime, but the majority sees no problem with adblockers, which are pretty similiar, especially autoclicking ones.
They're not similar.
1) There is no paid alternative to ads I see in Firefox - eg., I can't pay to support the sites I consume, like I can with Spotify.
2) Spotify ads might track my music listening habits. Web ads track everything I visit in a web broswer.
3) Spotify ads do not attempt to exploit my browser privacy features to deanonymize me.
This - not being able to pay from country X, and then deciding to make this app, and then soliciting donations for it - is a great example of how people are frequently incentivized to do the wrong thing.
Haven't used Spotify in years, but back then the ads were much louder than music. I'm not sure if that's still correct, but I've read about this issue multiple times.
You could argue that you should just get a subscription, but intrusive ads defeat the whole idea of a free version. Might as well remove it, if you're going to make it tedious to use.
Readit News
I find no moral justification for using this, even if you can't afford Spotify's paid alternative.
People should be allowed to modify their property, including what runs on their computer.
Try to separate ethics and morality from rights.
> Spotifree is polling Spotify every .3 seconds to see whether the current track number is 0 (as in all ads). If it is, Spotify is muted for a duration of an ad. When an ad is over, the volume is set to the way it was before.
(the obvious answer would be the advertising company, anyone else or anything else I am not seeing?)
The only one directly losing resources is the ad company, until they get tired of it and stop advertising on Spotify. But Spotify is affordable, so the amount of people that jump through hoops and use these methods is insignificant.
My guess is that you still benefit them more than people who share accounts.
They're not similar.
1) There is no paid alternative to ads I see in Firefox - eg., I can't pay to support the sites I consume, like I can with Spotify.
2) Spotify ads might track my music listening habits. Web ads track everything I visit in a web broswer.
3) Spotify ads do not attempt to exploit my browser privacy features to deanonymize me.
This is just ridiculous. If you're annoyed by the ads, get a subscription then.
You could argue that you should just get a subscription, but intrusive ads defeat the whole idea of a free version. Might as well remove it, if you're going to make it tedious to use.