Winamp Pro Adware Banners

[Ropey]

I had thought (when I paid for the Pro version of Winamp) that the adware banners would be removed.

This is not the case. The adware banners remain.

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e269/Ropey123/banner.jpg

Can they be removed?

[Nunzio390]

Advertising in Winamp - REMOVE IT! - Guide by the community. (http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=2267449)

[Mr Jones]

Maybe should have read the features list of what you get with pro...

http://www.winamp.com/player/features

Only extras that pro gets you are...

Pro! Rips CDs to MP3
Pro! Rips CDs to aacPlus, AAC, WMA Unlimited!
Pro! Rip to HE-AAC Over 128k!
Pro! Burn CDs Up tp 48x!

Oh, and no emusic offer or crappy mp3 bundle

Not seeing anything saying 'and no adverts!!!'

You get exactly what it says on the tin, so to speak.


/hey look, I just found a typo on the product info page, go me! 'Up tp 48x!'

[Ropey]

Mr. Jones,

Possibly you are just ignorant of the fact that when one purchases retail software, the advertisements that are bundled with the "Free" version are removed from the "Professional" version.

I see that I will need to watch this more closely as companies are now selling retail software with banner advertisements. :down:

@Nunzio390,

Thanks for the heads up. :up:

[Mr Jones]

The whole 'I paid for it so I shouldn't get adverts' is such an out of date business model, just about every commercial product in the world carries some form of advertising, why would/should software be any different?

People are entirely to precious about the supposed invasion of privacy an online advert brings, it's just a small part of life when you are getting hit by adverts from every other corner of the world on a near 24/7 basis.

The DVD I watched at home last night forced me to watch trailers for other DVD's, the beer I drank while watching it had a label on that identified to anyone who say me that I was a cool Kronenbourg drinker....

Search around, you'll find that that the cost of pro covers the licenses to rip/burn etc etc, the adverts no doubt pay for the massive amounts of bandwidth that are required to run all the streaming media.

I've often wondered how much a version of pro would cost if the bandwidth costs had to be recovered from the users?, say you could only get the high quality streams if you paid a premium rate and you only got low quality if you didn't.

Just think, if you don't use those features you could have paid nothing and you would have been no better/worse than you are no.

[Ropey]

Originally posted by Mr Jones - AOL Rep
People are entirely to precious about the supposed invasion of privacy an online advert brings, it's just a small part of life when you are getting hit by adverts from every other corner of the world on a near 24/7 basis.

Possibly so. Prior to AOL's purchase and distasteful methods this practice was not in use on Winamp. Certainly this is your view and since you work on a site that is owned and operated by the company that is practicing this odious method (My Personal View, if you will) it is entirely understandable that you would support such an extension.

I seriously doubt I will purchase anything else from the AOL model. Your response has added to this view.

[CraigF]

Originally posted by Ropey
Originally posted by Mr Jones - AOL Rep

Mr Jones, just like the majority of moderators on this forum, myself included, are volunteers, and not in the employment of AOL. So your snide comment is unfounded.

[Mr Jones]

LOL, I soooo didn't notice that hahaha, priceless.

If that it were true, sadly as Craig points out, I'm just a poor volunteer, I can't even get a bag of llama poop out of AOL never mind a salary hahahaha

[Nunzio390]

Hey Jonesy...

I got a small bag of Mike's poop (just before they stuffed him) ;) :D

[Ropey]

Originally posted by CraigF
Mr Jones, just like the majority of moderators on this forum, myself included, are volunteers, and not in the employment of AOL. So your snide comment is unfounded.

My comment is possibly unfounded although even as a moderator (such as yourself) there is an extension that is made since one can easily extend an association whether or not working for the company one is supporting.

I am certain you have heard the saying that the "Apple does not fall far from the tree" and "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and flies with the ducks then it is very likely to be taken for a duck.

Clearly the staff here have closed ranks as seen by the shoring of staff support.

I stand by the view that prior to AOL there were no advertisments in the paid version. I also stand by the view that even if I am incorrect as to admin/moderatorship working for the company I am not incorrect to the view that they ARE in point of fact, supporting the business model of the products they are (in fact) supporting on the web-site.

If they are not being paid, then I would think that there is some sort of renumeration.

I admin/mod for three professional business model web-sites, and although I am not paid, I AM renumerated on all three sites, else why would I continue to work there? I extend this to propose the view that the staff here (who support both the business model and the products) are in point of fact accepting some forms of renumeration and hence their view that the inception of advertisments in a paid professional software is a good thing for those who pay.

LOL - that is just foolish and if you wish to give the view that since other companies are now beginning to practice this distasteful (to me and others) method, it is a good thing.

:down:

[Nunzio390]

Whoa! Whoa! Calm down, Ropey! :D

You've got the fix now, I gave it to you...

Advertising in Winamp - REMOVE IT! - Guide by the community. (http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=2267449)

So why make such a big deal out of something in life (the grand scheme of things) that, if life were a stove, would be sitting on a back-burner that won't even light?

It's no big deal. At least nothing to fret about/ concern yourself with.

I'm just alumnus now, but I am a former moderator here, and I remember Jonesy telling me at the time I was being offered my "modship", something to the effect that it is a "thankless job"... and that is totally TRUE. The moderators here receive absolutely no renumeration or compensation whatsoever. They are here (as I still am, even though I'm no longer modding), for one reason - they/we love Winamp and we like to help people in our spare time.

So, let it go now. ;)
OK? :up:

[Mr Jones]

Originally posted by Ropey


I admin/mod for three professional business model web-sites, and although I am not paid, I AM renumerated on all three sites, else why would I continue to work there? I extend this to propose the view that the staff here (who support both the business model and the products) are in point of fact accepting some forms of renumeration and hence their view that the inception of advertisments in a paid professional software is a good thing for those who pay.



You must let us in on secret then.

I reiterate what's been said above in the 8 years or so that I've been visiting these forums I've....
Moderated for about 6 of them
Reviewed skins and stuff that are published on the main site for about 6 of them
I used to write articles that were published on the site
I've helped beta test the winamp product
Probably some other stuff I've forgotten.

My entire re-numeration in all that time ?, zip, nothing, nada, zero..... unless you count the Winamp3 t-shirt I got about 5 years ago, maybe I'll ebay it in years to come and retire off the profits.

Same goes for all other past/present and more than likey future mods / reviewers.

I doubt the AOL overlords even know we exist, sure I know the devs, I know the web admins and yeah, technically they are AOL employess,and they know us, but thats it. You think a guy sitting in Dulles on the board of AOL knows who that Mr Jones is and what he's done for AOL over the years?

Why do I spend my time moderating this forum?, 90% of the time it's thankless and people don't see half of what goes on, why do I spend hours dragging through the review queue pushing content to the site only for people to complain they didn't get a five star review.....? I do it because I love the product simple as.

Anyhow, you have the solution if you don't want adverts, heck you even got that off an AOL owned message board, do you think if we were AOL corporate drones we would have allowed that to stay? after all it denies a possible revenue stream to our AOL lords and masters...

Merry Christmas.

[Ropey]

Originally posted by Mr Jones
You must let us in on secret then.

It's no big secret Mr Jones. I create a relationship with those in charge of the site, traveling up the line until I am speaking with those who have some say in the company. I am speaking of companies that are top tier as well, and I believe that Winamp is top tier also. I make myself very useful and drop the renumeration hint. If it is not taken up, then I retire and move on. Should you wish to know of these sites, I will inform you via PM so that you can check my involvement.

Originally posted by Mr Jones
Anyhow, you have the solution if you don't want adverts, heck you even got that off an AOL owned message board, do you think if we were AOL corporate drones we would have allowed that to stay? after all it denies a possible revenue stream to our AOL lords and masters.

Indeed. I am pleased with the fix as it allows me a far greater ability to deal the distastefulness of advertisements.

I did not say that you were a drone or that others were drone. I said that I believe that those who support the advertisement model on a paid program possibly have some sort of connection to the company modeling in this way. No more, no less. I find it hard to believe that a person who has no connection to this distasteful method on a paid piece of software, would find that method not only fine, but acceptable as well.

This just shows that it takes all kinds. I had not allowed for this characteristic. Have a Happy New Year to all.

[CraigF]

I'll reiterate what i said, but it still remains. The reason the majority of us are around is because of the enormous sense of community that Winamp has, that I don't believe even AOL acknowledge or know about.

Would you question the same of people who are volunteering their time to Firefox?

Or is that ok because they are open source? non-profit? Either way, as a volunteer you get nothing.

[Ropey]

Originally posted by CraigF
Would you question the same of people who are volunteering their time to Firefox?

I spoke only of one characteristic Craig. That being the seeming approval of the advertisements on paid software by those who are staffing this forum. No more, no less. I opined with a personal view that these same people might have ulterior motives for that support.

Originally posted by Ropey Certainly this is your view and since you work on a site that is owned and operated by the company that is practicing this odious method (My Personal View, if you will) it is entirely understandable that you would support such an extension.

Note the "Personal View, if you will". :) This is not an attack, simply an observation and a personal opinion.

Originally posted by CraigF
Or is that ok because they are open source? non-profit? Either way, as a volunteer you get nothing.

I can see now that there are some people who seem to feel that the inclusion of advertising on paid software is acceptable and even desirable in the model. As I previously said, it takes all kinds. Firefox does not include advertisements on their free browser so the comparison is a moot point.

[CraigF]

Originally posted by Ropey
Firefox does not include advertisements on their free browser so the comparison is a moot point.

But I still get advertisements from Firefox (since its their big revenue stream).

The only place you see advertisements in Winamp is when browsing aol's online content. Which is all in a web browser control. What they put on those web pages is up to them, the application its self has no advertisements. I don't see where the argument is.

The only complaint I have had with the entire application was when they altered the shoutcast listing plugin to a web page based one, which was an introduction of advertisements where there were previously none. But you can read my thread on that topic if you like. My argument with that is that since the api is public (or well, easily reverse engineered) it's trivial to the right person to reimplement the old style listings without ads.

[Rocker]

i never see the ads because i blocked all the content. so it doesn't bother me.

[pjn123]

Isnt the GoPro button suppose to go away if you're using the pro version? Then why is it still in your preview Ropey?

[Rocker]

not that it changes anything anyway.(apart from the go pro button)

[pjn123]

He said he paid for it... but then that button shouldn't be there.. so he is probably using the normal version and acting like the upset customer. Not that that change anything yes ;)

[Omega X]

Originally posted by CraigF
But I still get advertisements from Firefox (since its their big revenue stream).


I guess if you call using Google as "ads" then sure. I get a blue "G" logo in the search bar and a search page as the Home page.

But that is pretty much where it ends.

[Ropey]

Originally posted by pjn123
He said he paid for it... but then that button shouldn't be there.. so he is probably using the normal version and acting like the upset customer. Not that that change anything yes ;)

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e269/Ropey123/untitled.jpg

Actually I had completely uninstalled the program and the posted one had not been registered yet. See above. So much for your deductions. :blah:

The offensive and distasteful advertisements are now a thing of the past at any rate.

[fascine]

I have to agree with Mr.Ropey there, the idea of ads being included in a paid version seems, WRONG.
The nice impression I had after seeing that Winamp had finally gotten it right was tempered by the sight of a big, CHEESY Papa John's pizza ad that kept blinking at me in the "Playing now" section.
No one is going to argue that advertising is an essential part of life for companies in this day and age, but there is a right way of going about it.
Include ads in the browser part when you visit certain online media sites? Sure.
Ads when you use services that deal in selling music, etc? That's fine, go ahead. You EXPECT them there.
Listening to soothing/serious music and having to look at a tampon or pizza ad where it doesn't belong? NO.
It just -doesn't- look right.

I paid a visit to the upgrade to pro page to compare features and to check if getting rid of ads was benefit of pro. I couldn't find anything there, so I came here and found this thread.
Getting rid of ads was more of an incentive to upgrade than anything else on that list.
Burn at faster speeds? Cool, but I have Nero.
Rip at faster speeds? Nice, but I could use Audiograbber.
It would be a nice perk to have one program that does it all in a neat package, but those things weren't the reason I was looking to buy a pro version, getting rid of ads was.
I could totally understand sticking ads in annoying places IF it was meant as a way of getting people to buy pro in order to remove them, but apparently that's not the case, and that's ridiculous.

Even having edited the hosts file, there is still an annoying "upgrade to pro" page/ad that pops up and interrupts the smooth transition to the information in the playing now tab.
And one can't help but hate that instead of a tampon or pizza ad, you could have a bigger version of your album art in the now wasted space.

That's my 7 cents. You guys are in trouble, I'm calling Santa!


Wired review. Others feel the same.
http://www.wired.com/software/softwarereviews/news/2007/10/winamp_review
http://www.wired.com/software/softwarereviews/news/2007/10/winamp_review

[CraigF]

I don't so much argue, but you have to see the difference between browsing websites within winamp (where you will obviously see adverts), and winamp itself (where you see no ads).

I think the only exception to that is the video sidecar that used to be there (and still might be?) for the sponsered free media. And it was only there that I thought it unfair.

[martin.deimos]

fascine, i must say that you are right that Tampons don't really belong to music - but ads are most likely genereted via the site content. so we at skin consortium have google ads showing skin cancer ads and so on...
i personally don't care about ads, my Outpost Firewall blocks almost all and just a [AD] mark remains ;) and if one isn't blocked i don't bother

[madpimp]

I doubt you will find one person (moderaters and other associates excluded) who will be happy that after paying for winamp still have to put up with these stupid adverts.

You think they would have learnt from the mistake made by myspace!!??

Will someone write a script to remove it!!

:mad:

[DJ Egg]

Originally posted by Nunzio390
Advertising in Winamp - REMOVE IT! - Guide by the community. (http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=2267449)