charlesray

We don't have a choice. That's how cable works, and YouTube TV exists for those of us who need it. They can't magically create an ad free broadcast of TNT or something. How would that even work?

You don't have to like broccoli but it'd be weird to complain that it doesn't taste like chocolate.

I think the confusion arises because people view "cable" as something that requires coax and a set top box, and they view "streaming" as anything that goes over the internet, therefore they mistakenly view YouTube TV as streaming, when it's actually just cable. The US government uses the term "multichannel video programming distributor" for platforms like this, which is a mouthful, but at least defines the concept separately from the distribution method.

No.

Cable TV broadcasts include both the network's ads and slots for the carrier to run their own ads. They're not inserting bonus ads on top of the actual content. Again, this is exactly the same as any cable provider has always worked.

Yes, and YouTube TV does not insert ads into those broadcasts. There's no ads in YouTube TV beyond what you would see on any other cable carrier.

Baffled by the number of people itt saying "I can't believe it costs that much and still has ads." It can't not have ads. It's cable TV, YouTube has zero control over whether or not it has ads. They can't broadcast the USA network without ads. Cable has had ads for like 40 years, and traditional cable providers are much more expensive than this. Are y'all 14 years old? idgi

The bulk of these options were in 7 and 8 as well.

It's embarrassing how ignorant you are. Congrats on falling prey to fear mongering.

But they were already collecting that data. They're still collecting it on 7 and 8. You almost certainly use several other services that collect the same data, or more. The only reason you think Windows 10 is unique in this is because Microsoft did THE RIGHT FUCKING THING and made their privacy policies understandable to regular people. And they're being criticized and villainized for this. It's childish and indefensible.

Why would you ever do this?

First off, no, you do not need a website. You are a high school student. Slow your roll.

Secondly, what you really need is an editor, because damn your site is riddled with misspellings.

You're doing exactly what Forbes wants you to do: fear mongering. Privacy policies are legal liability waivers. They are not statements of intent. There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that Spotify is harvesting your data and selling it to third parties to make some money on the side. That is a ridiculous assumption, and you need to provide damn good evidence if you expect me to even begin to consider that.

What any REASONABLE person would assume is that Spotify is simply doing what everyone else does, which is track your usage of their product in order to better target ads.

Awhile ago there was some major app, I think Facebook, that updated its Android version, and everyone freaked out because the new version required a seemingly-outrageous level of access. Some kind soul went down the whole list and explained by everything it requested was critical to the functionality of the app, and I seem to recall one of those explanations involving access to local files.

Also, people need to take a step back and look at these privacy notices for what they really are: legal liability waivers. When Spotify says they are allowed to give your data to third parties, they are not saying "we are selling your data to third party marketers as we speak." They're saying, "if this data ends up in the hands of someone other than Spotify, you cannot sue us." That's it.

I THINK, and I could be totally wrong, but I THINK that on at least some platforms, when an app requires access to information stored locally on your phone, it's an all-or-nothing thing. So if Spotify needs permissions to local media files (which it obviously does) then there's no way to grant that without also giving it access to your local photos, for example. Could be totally wrong, I don't know, but I remember hearing that several times.

"It's a plain cash grab at my expense."

It is absolutely not.

"1) why shouldn't Apple collect the very same data?"

How do we know they don't? Has anyone read the privacy policy lately?

I mean, the only reason anyone flipped about Microsoft's privacy policy is because they took the unusual step of making it understandable to the layman. And they were crucified for that.

My experience with panic about privacy policies is that they virtually always sound far worse than they actually are. For example, access to local files (contacts, photos, music) tends to be an all or nothing thing, and Spotify of course needs access to your local music files.

I also don't think they are selling your data to generate revenue. That's a baseless assumption at best and reckless fear-mongering at worst. The one area where many agree Apple Music has got the leg up on Spotify is music discovery. It's pretty obvious, to me at least, that Spotify wants to gather as much data as possible about what you listen to and how you listen to it, then have the freedom to pass that on to third-party data analysis companies who might be better than they are at identifying your tastes. The Discover Weekly playlist, for example, has been a big hit and was created by a company they acquired.

You're complaining about Spotify's desktop app and yet you'd rather use iTunes? That's rich.

"I pay £10 a month to avoid this crap"

I don't understand this concept. I pay $10 a month get rid of ads, to be able to use the mobile app, and to get higher quality streams. There was never any reason to believe being a paid member had any impact on the data Spotify collects from you.

Facebook IS paying us: through the free use of their service.

The fact that otherwise intelligent people seem to genuinely think that AI would take over and run amok like the fucking Matrix or something is pretty ridiculous.

I wrote a reply to this, but you know what? No. Just no. You are clearly incapable of taking part in this conversation so just leave me alone. Your level of discourse is more suited for Reddit. Maybe check it out sometime.

First off, you should be ashamed at how ridiculous that analogy is. I'm going to assume you understand that it's completely and utterly inaccurate and irrelevant to this conversation.

Secondly, suffering happens everywhere every day. Are the American people supposed to maintain a constant level of outrage about every single instance of suffering?

What good does that do? For example, we fought a war to keep Vietnam free and democratic and failed miserably. The Communist regime only began to make meaningful change once we opened up to them.

I'm not saying he's more or less ignorant than I am. I'm simply saying that he is clearly and objectively an ignorant person. One of the steps we took to stop lion hunting was to have airlines ban the transportation of lion caracasses. That's a pretty easy thing to do. Do you think there's anything similar we could to do to improve the human rights situation in Zimbabwe? Can Delta refuse to transport Mugabe? Will that help?

It simply IS ignorance at the root of his childish complaints. It's ignorance to the fact that one problem - lions - is of a vastly smaller scale than another problem - human rights issues in Zimbawabe - and thus the solutions to said problem are far, far easier to apply. In short, we want to help where we actually CAN help. But decades of failed US intervention have proven one thing time and time again: our help never sticks until you start helping yourself.

Aren't we constantly criticized for interfering in global politics? What the fuck should we do about Mugabe?

The sad truth is...we DO care about their people. And there is simply more we can do for their lions than their people. Because you can pass a law saying "don't kill lions," you can ban the trade of lion carcasses/trophies/etc., and you can make a big dent in the numbers of lions killed. But how are we supposed to help feed their people when their corrupt as fuck government takes all of our aid? This isn't the real world we live in, guys.

But we did solve our own problems, that's my point. I'm from Indiana, where at one point 99% of the state was clear cut. Now if you look around there are forests and trees everywhere. Rebuilding nature wasn't easy, and it doesn't "rebuild" exactly what you had before. It is the absolute height of ignorance and idiocy to suggest that they should be allowed to destroy their country as well and be forced to expend huge resources rebuilding it instead of just NOT DOING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Exactly, thanks.

>Don’t tell us what to do with our animals when you allowed your own mountain lions to be hunted to near extinction in the eastern United States. Don’t bemoan the clear-cutting of our forests when you turned yours into concrete jungles.

So don't learn from our mistakes, basically?

This is among the most ignorant things I have ever read. Terrible article from a person with a terrible mentality.