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

I'm done with Google

deijin.bearblog.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 327 posts

Re: I'm done with Google

#191

Post by jsnell »

silisili wrote: post #162
jsnell wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So just to be clear, you're suggesting that Google use threats of blocking content providers from their other products, to strong-arm them into better licensing terms? There's a reason they don't do that, in any business. How do you think e.g. anti-trust regulators would feel about that?

Perhaps I wasn't clear, apologies. Not other products. Google is a video seller and distributor. They have a right to decide what terms they like or don't, just as Walmart does. As a seller of widget X, there's no way I'd accept a product with a license that says they could just take it back anytime for any reason. No sane seller should agree to that.

Their market share of "search, mobile phones, smart TVs" is what you originally claimed would give them leverage. But none of those have any bearing on movie rentals / sales on YouTube. They're entirely different products.

Now, the terms for the movie rentals / sales would definitely be negotiated between Google and the content owner. And Google could of course make your no-DRM policy a line in the sand in those negotiations. But why would the content providers agree to that? There's plenty of other competitive platforms they can (and do!) sell exactly the same content on, being specifically on YouTube's movie rental system won't make or break them.

And then we get back to your original proposal, which was clearly that they'd be using all their unrelated properties as (highly unethical) leverage in the negotiations.

If that's not what you're proposing, maybe you could be really concrete about what you think Google would be saying in those contract negotiations? "We will be selling your movies without DRM; if you don't agree then X". What exactly do you think X would be?

Re: I'm done with Google

#192

Post by kelnos »

bo1024 wrote: post #158
jspaetzel wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't the problem, it would actually make this problem worse. The issue here is long-term device support which google is negligent about.. take away their vendor lock in and the whole platform stops making financial sense at any level of quality.

Are you saying that selling music/movies/ebooks/etc doesn't make financial sense without DRM and control? What about the history of vinyl, CDs, DVDs, Blu-Rays, bandcamp, DRM-free ebooks, GOG games, etc?

To be fair, both DVDs and Blurays have DRM on them. Of course, DVD's DRM has been broken for quite some time. For Bluray, older discs are rippable, but it's a cat-and-mouse game as old keys are revoked and new keys distributed for newer releases.

While I agree with you that some creators do believe they can still make a living with DRM-free content, many do not, which includes essentially anything from a major movie or TV studio.

Re: I'm done with Google

#193

Post by usui »

Hamuko wrote: post #183
usui wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the second extraction unnecessary? I just tried this command and it worked, with metadata yt-dlp --output "%(upload_date)s ---- %(artist)s --- %(title)s.%(ext)s" --add-metadata --embed-thumbnail --audio-format opus --format bestaudio --remux-video opus " https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=0oAAlssVwEw "

Huh, didn't even notice that yt-dlp can do it automatically. Thanks.

Happy New Year!

Re: I'm done with Google

#194

Post by notpushkin »

usui wrote: post #169
notpushkin wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Spytify records the same quality that Spotify outputs But it's still doing bad transcoding. It's like taking a screenshot of a JPEG photo: if you save it, you end up with more artifacts. I'd just use one of the numerous Deezer downloaders – they decrypt the actual audio stream, and the input quality is just as good.

Yes that's a fair criticism. I still want to use Spotify for discovery, and I'm not an audiophile, so the quality ends up being sufficient for me.

Yeah of course, if it suits you then I'm happy for you! It's just that the author rants about other tools downloading music from YouTube (which is also fair criticism of course), and then goes on and does the thing that's just as bad (or so says the audiophile zealot inside me).

(FWIW, there were some tools that could rip out the exact Ogg stream as used by Spotify, but I don't think they're working now.)

Re: I'm done with Google

#195

Post by ryantgtg »

encryptluks2 wrote: post #110
usui wrote: post #16

> So I pirate the movie (please don't arrest me, it's google's fault) I really like the frank tone of the article and I wish people in general would just write unabashedly more often when it comes to stuff like this. Writers online love to dance around the idea of "pirating" their digital goods when communicating on the topic: "Ooh my 'friend' may or may not have downloaded 'xyz' movie from 'abc' website, but I don't…

It's full of inaccuracies and hyperbole. It isn't frank, it is exaggerated to illicit a response. For example, > So I go to google play store and go through the 50,000 security verifications. And this comment: > Google is contributing to the destruction of the concept of ownership, as are many services of the modern age. Pretty much any service that uses DRM. There is a lot to be upset with Google about, but this is…

The article doesn’t express that Google is _solely_ responsible for the destruction of the concept of ownership. That statement isn’t inaccurate. It’s perfectly reasonable to be bothered by the fact that their setup worked fine for years and then stopped working for no good reason. It sounds like you’ve “heard it before” and don’t care to hear it again.

Remember that this is grandma’s setup. Sure, there are alternative paths for young bucks like us, but for others they simply want to “buy” something and then play it at will. This is a story about Google depriving a dying grandma of one of her last joys.

Re: I'm done with Google

#196

Post by dmantis »

leehuffman wrote: post #189
dmantis wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the guy you ask, but for me, I just want convenient digital thing on my laptop I actually own, not rent. I live in 2022 and don't want that physical crap. I would have no problem to pay for DRM-free and location-independent stuff, but all this thing with "rights owners", "you can't hear that in this location", "you can't download it to listen offline and locally" is a total bullshit. I don't care what some lawman…

> Not the guy you ask, but for me, I just want convenient digital thing on my laptop I actually own, not rent. I live in 2022 and don't want that physical crap. Welp I got you bruh bruh... > I would have no problem to pay for DRM-free and location-independent stuff, but all this thing with "rights owners", "you can't hear that in this location", "you can't download it to listen offline and locally" is a total bullshi…

No problem, Send me Eminem, last Cypress Hill album and bitcoin address to pay, I'll pay you in public, put tx hash here and the whole HN will be able to see that.

Please also send here the invoice photo with yourself and nickname on hn as proof, so it's not some torrent downloaded content already and you really supported artists.

Though I won't do that process on day-to-day basis for each track I listen, that's kinda inconvenient, you know.

Re: I'm done with Google

#197

Post by doctorraags »

I spent so long looking for a copy of seasons 2 and 3 of Loudermilk. For some reason Google makes season 1 available but not the later two.

Eventually, despite my staunch opposition to piracy, I ended up pirating the copies. This world doesn't make sense anymore.

Re: I'm done with Google

#198

Post by anonymous344 »

similiar thing with one mija temp app. The app is working fine, and you can see the sensors and their data updating but on top of the gui is alert box saying you need to update the app and if close it, the app will close also. Of course this is the most new version of the app already

Re: I'm done with Google

#199

Post by unity1001 »

JodieBenitez wrote: post #101
yellow_lead wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even a hardcore pirate like me tried to do the right thing when it comes to music - I got Spotify. But when I moved to Taiwan, I tried to switch my payment location to get regional pricing and they refuse to accept my Taiwan debit card. Now I pirate music or use Vanced (YouTube).

> Even a hardcore pirate like me tried to do the right thing when it comes to music - I got Spotify. This is not the right thing to do. Spotify is peanuts to artists. If you want to do the right thing, buy music at Bandcamp: you get files you can keep forever and artists get a fair share of your money.

> This is not the right thing to do. Spotify is peanuts to artists. If you want to do the right thing, buy music at Bandcamp

The right thing to do is to directly subscribe to their Patreon. It not only gets you access to exclusives, behind the scenes and even events, it also crowdfunds the future projects of the artist.

Re: I'm done with Google

#200

Post by usui »

notpushkin wrote: post #194
usui wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes that's a fair criticism. I still want to use Spotify for discovery, and I'm not an audiophile, so the quality ends up being sufficient for me.

Yeah of course, if it suits you then I'm happy for you! It's just that the author rants about other tools downloading music from YouTube (which is also fair criticism of course), and then goes on and does the thing that's just as bad (or so says the audiophile zealot inside me). (FWIW, there were some tools that could rip out the exact Ogg stream as used by Spotify, but I don't think they're working now.)

Yes to be honest though going to greater lengths to extract high quality audio reaches a personal point where I'd rather try searching for the artist on Bandcamp or SoundCloud to buy lossless/high-quality audio, although everyone has a different personal point and the avenues in which you can buy good audio from the artist may not always exist. My thought process goes as: "If I want good audio quality, that means I must think the artist is pretty good, ergo I should definitely try buying it in file format somehow".

Thanks for clarifying that point about spytify.

Post reply on HN