2018/09/16: Nothing says more about someone than the music they listen to and their porn habits. This is certainly ingrained in the streaming service’s business model.
Over the past few years, Spotify has been ramping up its data analytic capabilities in a bid to help marketers target consumers with adverts tailored to the mood they’re in. They deduce this from the sort of music you’re listening to, coupled with where and when you’re listening to it, along with third-party data that might be available.
Spotify is far from the only platform helping brands target people according to their emotions; real-time mood-based marketing is a growing trend and one we all ought to be cognisant of. In 2016, eBay launched a mood marketing tool, for example. And last year, Facebook told advertisers that it could identify when teenagers felt “insecure” and “worthless” or needed “a confidence boost”. This was just a few years after Facebook faced a backlash for running experiments to see if it could manipulate the mood of its users.
You can see where this could go, can’t you? As ad targeting gets ever more sophisticated, marketers will have the ability to target our emotions in potentially exploitative ways. You are more likely to spend more on a product if you’re feeling sad.
Let's be clear: from Spotify to Pandora, streamed music is killing downloads, and that's bad for artists and music lovers. The opposition between art and commerce has been a defining feature of the history
Al CES Google mostrerà il video codec VP9 con supporto alla risoluzione 4K. Accordi con Samsung, Sharp, Toshiba, ARM, Intel e altri.
Nessun rifiuto precostituito all'idea che i titolari dei diritti debbano percepire un compenso laddove effettivamente i consumatori usino supporti e dispositivi per l'esecuzione di copie di opere audiovisive qualificabili come "private" ovvero né pirata, né eseguite in forza di un regolare contratto di licenza. Un netto "no", tuttavia, all'idea che l'equo compenso per copia privata
I didn't really know what to say: 'It turns out we don't own it, kids.'"
My son and daughter, both in their 20s, are part of a growing group of people who have "cut the cord" and no longer watch video via broadcast, cable or s...
Let's be clear on one thing here: we have the technology. We have the technology for me to be able to view any piece of digital video ever made, instantly, wherever I want, whenever I want. And another thing: I have absolutely no objection to paying for viewing said digital video; but I do object to so-called content providers taking the piss. Case in point: LoveFilm vs Netflix I've been meaning to try out both LoveFilm and Netflix for a while. I got doorstepped by a very cold lass from LoveFilm last week, and I took pity on her and said yes to her three months for the price of one trial. Then, for the sake of comparison, tonight I also signed up for the Netflix trial. So far so good - let see how they compare. Netflix outdoes LoveFilm for sheer creepiness. Once I log in on the PC, it automatically logs me on the PS3. I'm assuming it just uses my IP address to identify me, but it's creepy as hell. In terms of content, they both suck in slightly different ways. LoveFilm doesn't have films which I would expect it to have (but Netflix does), Neflix doesn't have some TV shows that LoveFilm does. Neither of them has one of the shows I really want to see - or rather, Netflix does, but only in the US. Perhaps the most ridiculous way in which they both fail is technically. The LoveFilm app on the PS3 crashes any time the network connection slows down. Netflix refuses to work on Linux (but will allegedly work on a Chromebook). Netflix doesn't seem to have an easily identifiable way to queue things to watch in future. LoveFilm has a vaguely useful Watchlist functionality on the PC interface which does not seem to be available in the PS3 app. I don't even. WHAT? Case in point: The National Hockey League If you happen to live in the UK and want to watch NHL games now that the lockout is over, you're screwed. There's some sort of obscure, paid-for channel on Sky which screens about 10 as far as I can tell random games a week, but that's about it. The NHL does have its own online streaming service which, however, only works in North America for games which your local TV network won't show. Now, as much as I do get the value of TV deals to sports organisations like the NHL, making it difficult for your fans to access your product seems somewhat counterproductive to me. Dear Netflix, LoveFilm, NHL and co.: give me just one good reason not to go to the PirateBay! And here of course every content provider screams, "We can't compete with free! We must shut all these naughty file sharing websites down, block them and censor them, we must disconnect file sharers from the Internet!" Well, I've got news for you guys: You're not competing with free. You're competing with a service which meets my requirements. I have no problem paying for the things I want to watch, or the music that I want to listen to, or the books I want to read. I do it all the time. But if I'm giving you money, I expect a service that doesn't take the piss; that doesn't make it deliberately difficult for me to access the content I want to view; that actually works. Try harder, chaps.
Deploying 10,000 tiny antennas makes no technical sense-but the law demands it.
Reports of people the world over watching coverage of the Olympics via BBC's online streaming portal abound. The reasons for this behaviour vary in the detail, but the common feature is: local coverage