Making something somewhat similar to Winamp, does not make a Winamp.
Show HN: Winamp and other media players, rebuilt for the web with Web Components
51–60 of 65 posts
Re: Show HN: Winamp and other media players, rebuilt for the web with Web Components
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are use-cases were encoding is a huge cost centre, like with user generated content, and so we wanted to make sure you could still build on Mux with that type of model. The tradeoffs for using free encoding are listed here though: https://docs.mux.com/guides/use-video-quality-levels . The free (basic) encoding still has charges for storage and delivery also. We hope that by helping you reduce costs when getting…
Mux looks very interesting to me, as a light user of Video.js, but when I put in my entirely normal .org.uk email address for an account signup I get "There was a problem with your request. Please try again." with no further explanation?
We have a quite a few users using .org.uk so this shouldn't be the issue...
If you don't mind sending a screenshot or other details to support@mux we'll figure out what's happening. Edge cases always seem to reveal themselves when someone else is looking at it.
Re: Show HN: Winamp and other media players, rebuilt for the web with Web Components
#53Love the idea, congratulations on the effort.
Re: Show HN: Winamp and other media players, rebuilt for the web with Web Components
#54Site looks great. I checked audio, HTML, and selected a dark primary color (purple) and the first thing I see is unusable in terms of color contrast. I would expect a tool that looks this slick to work smarter OOTB.
Re: Show HN: Winamp and other media players, rebuilt for the web with Web Components
#55Site looks great. I checked audio, HTML, and selected a dark primary color (purple) and the first thing I see is unusable in terms of color contrast. I would expect a tool that looks this slick to work smarter OOTB.
It's very much a pick your own palette experience at the moment but it's a good shout, we could show a warning if the colors being picked don't meet accessible contrast values.
Re: Show HN: Winamp and other media players, rebuilt for the web with Web Components
#56If you only care about music (not videos) then you might also have a look at https://webamp.org/ You don't even need to "compile" or do anything fancy to "integrate" it : just include it (of course you might generate the playlist in your app) ! e.g. Music const webamp = new Webamp(); webamp.setTracksToPlay([ {url: "http://example.com/The%20Gathering%20-%20Travel.mp3", defaultName: "The Gathering - Travel", duration:…
That's a really nice implementation. I feel like it should be easy for that to support videos too, if desired. I assume it's just using a media element under the hood.
Re: Show HN: Winamp and other media players, rebuilt for the web with Web Components
#57Since there are video experts around in this thread, does anyone know if there are implementations out there for a player that enables fast smooth scrubbing with audio, similar to how you can scrub and/or watch the timeline at 16x in Adobe Premiere. I guess one needs to eagerly load something like a 16khz mono audio track and some sort of 1fps sprite or 240p video format with I-frames only to switch to on scrub.
Anything frame-accurate or smooth scrubbing has always been a challenge with he abstraction level of the video element.
I don't have an exact answer from you, but you might look around the web codecs space, where more performant examples are being built at a lower level. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/WebCodecs_A...
Re: Show HN: Winamp and other media players, rebuilt for the web with Web Components
#58Site looks great. I checked audio, HTML, and selected a dark primary color (purple) and the first thing I see is unusable in terms of color contrast. I would expect a tool that looks this slick to work smarter OOTB.
Fully flexible color choice is a foot gun. I've definitely made some very ugly themes with that too. The goal is to have very many themes here, including user-submitted ones, so it might be hard to create something that can warn about issues across all of them. But seeing as we have pretty clear foreground and background color settings with primary/secondary I bet we could make something helpful.
Re: Show HN: Winamp and other media players, rebuilt for the web with Web Components
#59The title was confusing to me, Winamp is the least impressive of these examples. This looks great overall - congrats!
Thank you! Winamp is getting a lot of love (and controversy) right now so it felt worth calling out. But it's not my favorite of the themes in practice. I think that's Sutro, which kind of surprised us by how nice it turned out.
Re: Show HN: Winamp and other media players, rebuilt for the web with Web Components
#60Mux looks nice, but I don't trust a company to keep a free video encoding tier, so I won't be building anything on it. The on-demand encoding for users seems a bit bananas to me too resource wise. The starter model buys you $100 worth of credits for $10. It all just seems a big bait and switch in the making- I can't trust a company that seems to burn money on the daily anymore. At least charge me -something-, I know…
Oh boy, I could write a book in response to this...
> a section on their site explaining how they are able to undercut everyone in the business and still keep going
This is great feedback that I'm putting on our todo list. We should absolutely have this.
We'll never put pricing out there that we can't handle with our economics, or at least have a clear path to supporting. All of our volume pricing is available publicly, so you should never be bait-and-switched if you're understanding concepts like credits. This is in contrast to some of our competitors that regularly surprise users with new pricing when they hit scale. I hate that so much.
Under the hood we use just-in-time encoding and other advanced optimizations that do give us an edge. Not to mention economies of scale. Writeup to come.
But a challenge comes in customer perception. Some of our customers understand encoding and it's cost, plus the benefits it brings like adaptive streaming and handling user-generated uploads. Many devs are new to video and expect it to cost the same as uploading an MP4 to S3. Some point to our competitors with no encoding costs, and some even point to Youtube as a reason why it should be cheaper. In the past Mux has been labeled as "the expensive option" because we charged for encoding, so we've been working on new pricing shape (some launched already, some to come) that allows you to come in at levels using less encoding that we can support economically, then elect higher levels of encoding costs/values when you understand if they're worth it to you.
We also think video should be more places than it is today, but video is inherently expensive in comparison to many other costs related to building an app, so we see it as our job to keep pushing costs down and shaping pricing so video is accessible to more use cases.