Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google adds a guitar tuner to Search

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 166 posts

Re: Google adds a guitar tuner to Search

#121

Post by sriram_malhar »

schwartzworld wrote: post #118
sriram_malhar wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are dissing a product that you didn't pay money for, and comparing it unfavorably to one that you did. How is that fair. There are metronome and tuner apps that are way more pleasant and functional than any hardware product, if you could shell out just a few bucks (< $10). You also have fewer batteries to manage.

I don't think any app can compare favorably to a clipon tuner, if for no reason other than clip on tuners work in noisy rooms. Tuner apps are useful if you have no other options, but compared to a clip on or tuning pedal, no question what's better. You ever see a musician on stage using their phone to tune?

Sure, that's an excellent reason to prefer hardware.

Re: Google adds a guitar tuner to Search

#123

Post by streamofdigits »

Is there any point to small (or medium) software enterprize anymore? If your niche can be disrupted by a handful of incumbents with enormous reach and access to user data at whim (even when there is hardly any money in it), imagine if it is actually a potentially lucrative domain

To stick with the theme: can we recognize the screetching high pitch of the thin edge of a wedge?

Tuning a guitar can be done by relatively simple (dumb) algorithms. Recognizing a chord and more sophisticated musical elements needs the feedback and "labelling" by a large number of willing participants.

You can work out the rest of that "musical piece" yourself...

Re: Google adds a guitar tuner to Search

#124

Post by collaborative »

rglullis wrote: post #68
titzer wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clip-on tuners are just far superior. They use a piezo and are driven by vibration, which works in a noisy environment, like a stage. I probably would not have bought one if that crappy phone app had not pissed me off so much. Thanks crappy phone app!

I am not arguing that the analog/hardware version of a product is superior. I am arguing that, provided: - you were satisfied with the software version of a solution; - what drove you away from it was the ads, You could have solved the ad issue by looking at OSS alternatives, to which you had plenty to choose from. Saying that the HW version is better, when a (good version) SW was enough , smells of post-fact rationa…

Users are understandably angry with ads. I have different points of views because I am at the same time (a) a user, (b) a marketer and (c) an ad platform

These is how each point of view is unable to be reconciled:

a) ads are annoying. But I will watch ads rather than pay a subscription any day of the week. I however will agree to a one time IAP because it doesn't litter my bank account history. People shouldn't be expected to keep an eye on more recurring payments than absolutely necessary unless they have a personal assistant. It's irresponsible to make them responsible for this

b) ads are great because of their ability to appear in searches made by customers who are looking for exactly what I am selling. Or rather, ads were great. Giants offloading billions on absurd ad spends made ad placement unaffordable to many sustainable businesses. Also, ads don't really work that well since Apple flipped the switch off on tracking. It would be great if ads worked and weren't abused by the extremely well-funded because they are a fantastic sales channel for medium and small sized businesses. But in their current form they are a scam or a marketing channel for the big monopolies (Amazon, etc)

c) ads aren't worth the money Google or anyone pay you for showing them on your app/website. I suspect apps keep trying to monetize via ads because they all want to be a "giant", and actually charging for content keeps you small and unattractive to capital

So my conclusion is that the only viable method of monetization is one-time IAPs or up-front software purchases and the only sustainable software project is one that aims to remain small. Everything else is smoke created by excessive capital that makes everyone's life more miserable.

Re: Google adds a guitar tuner to Search

#125

Post by Kaibeezy »

amelius wrote: post #108
Kaibeezy wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read it as dissing all free/crap/adware. Which is like dissing TV adverts or billboards or, I dunno, stickers on racing cars. So, cough up for Netflix, or move to an area where people have expended effort to make sure billboards are not permitted, or, I dunno, go watch the ponies. It’s all out there, just got to pay one of the prices. If you don’t want ads, you pay, or pick up one of dozens of perfectly serviceable…

I'm ok with ads. I just don't want to see them everywhere I look. And no, "just" move to another place is not a proper argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergo_decedo

You're right.

I didn't mean to say “move to an area where people have expended effort to make sure billboards are not permitted”.

I meant to say “expend effort to make sure billboards are not permitted, or move to an area where people have expended effort to make sure billboards are not permitted”.

Re: Google adds a guitar tuner to Search

#126

Post by Joeboy »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #101
jasode wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>, why are guitar tuners needed? Other stringed instruments seem to not need them, I love how that innocent question reveals how a popular phrase for objects (i.e. "guitar tuner" instead of "violin tuner") alters public perception. It hides that fact that other stringed instruments like harps/violins do use outside aids (electronics, smartphone apps, or websites[1].) Some observations: - guitars are more common than…

I also heard that professional musicians - guitarists as well - can tune their instrument by ear. Pianos need regular tuning too, done by experts - they change tone depending on weather, temperature and humidity as well, so they have to be in a stable environment if at all possible. But these people can mostly tune them by ear, or they will have a tune fork for the base tone (A I believe) and work from there.

Tuning a guitar (or other stringed instrument) so that the strings are more or less in tune with each other is a really basic skill that even very amateur players can mostly do. Being able to tune to an absolute pitch without any kind of reference is kind of freakishly rare.

Re: Google adds a guitar tuner to Search

#127

Post by sixothree »

analog31 wrote: post #18
jholman wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's disruption, in the sense intended by Clayton M. Christensen. Walmart was never going to provide a better service than Whole Foods (or some equivalent-to-WF store that predates Walmart, since I'm sure there are some). But it might provide a service that's 80% as good, at 20% of the price. And if it does, you might buy it. Are you under the impression that it's no longer possible to install a dedicated guitar-tu…

If you look for a tuner app in the Android app store, there are like thousands of choices. Most of them are adware, or they don't register my double bass very well. I would have no idea where to begin looking for an app that is better in some way, or that even works. That market has pretty much disrupted itself. Fortunately I learned to tune by ear, so a tuner app is really a first world problem.

So maybe if google curated their store a bit, you wouldn't have that problem!

Re: Google adds a guitar tuner to Search

#128

Post by sixothree »

makeitdouble wrote: post #90
Kiro wrote: post #83

Clicking this thread I thought "at least this is something HN can't bash Google for" but of course I was wrong. You guys are really creative in your hate.

Google has a long history of: - getting into fields to offer a free product then discontinuing it - integrating random apps and services into its search and blocking more that half of search results pages with its own content. This seems to come straight into the second category. I mean, according to the article it was its own property on the side, living its life. You could eventually summon from the assistant if yo…

I'm just getting tired of google search results not actually being search results.

Re: Google adds a guitar tuner to Search

#129

Post by achenet »

drw85 wrote: post #106

This is exactly the problem with modern software. They don't stick to their tasks anymore, but implement all kinds of "utility"-things. The complexity and quality suffers big time, because instead of being a good piece of software highly optimized to do a few things really well, they all become massive assortments of useless utility crap.

Zawinski's Law: Every program attempts to expand until it can read mail. Those programs which cannot so expand are replaced by ones which can. -circa 1997

Re: Google adds a guitar tuner to Search

#130

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

Joeboy wrote: post #126
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also heard that professional musicians - guitarists as well - can tune their instrument by ear. Pianos need regular tuning too, done by experts - they change tone depending on weather, temperature and humidity as well, so they have to be in a stable environment if at all possible. But these people can mostly tune them by ear, or they will have a tune fork for the base tone (A I believe) and work from there.

Tuning a guitar (or other stringed instrument) so that the strings are more or less in tune with each other is a really basic skill that even very amateur players can mostly do. Being able to tune to an absolute pitch without any kind of reference is kind of freakishly rare.

This. Use harmonics after getting the A from an external source.
Post reply on HN