"FORBES contacted Spotify for a response and is awaiting comment."
This tells you exactly how much time they waited for Spotify to respond. This is 'iterative journalism' at its worst: publish first, investigate later! Completely disgusting.
It's not as if this is something that took Spotify by surprise, like a data hack, that would require time to formulate a legally-sound response.
They will have been planning and implementing this change for months. They could have issued a press release two weeks ago advising their customers of the upcoming changes, but didn't.
Spotify seem to like surprises, so Forbes played one on them.
> Why should Forbes wait for comment, when Spotify didn't wait for their users?
In other words, I don't think he's saying Forbes did Spotify dirty, rather Forbes did wrong by their readers by publishing a story without investigating it first.
So why should privacy be Any different? In fact in this Cloud Era, privacy terms are probably of more concern to users than another dollar on their subscription.
The only reason Spotify didn't give prior notice was to put users in a bind on the spot.
Even Google manages to do it properly!
They're not asking anything, just showing the updates to readers; and IMHO it's a nice kind of journalism for me.