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

Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 661 posts

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#51

Post by drewdevault »

pinkgolem wrote: post #41
drewdevault wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Direct your passion for getting musicians paid to Spotify and the distribution system, not to this. If everyone who uses this software were to use Spotify direct, ads and all, in the long run it would make pennies for the artists at best. You're better off listening to music however you please and buying albums on Bandcamp to support the artists; a lifetime of spotify listening will make less money for an artist you…

>Even if you only listen to one artist, 8 hours per day, 365 days a year, they will earn a whopping... 100 bucks from Spotify. i mean, that sounds fair?

Maybe, maybe not. If an artist makes up 1% of your listening, that goes down to a dollar, and if you factor in more realistic listening habits that goes down further. Consider that this is paid to the rights holder, not the artist, as well -- the artist usually gets even less. Buy one album on Bandcamp for $10 and the rights holder gets $8.50 (on Bandcamp this is usually the artist directly).

Fact of the matter is that in terms of getting artists paid, Spotify's business model and distribution model is inferior to other solutions and the economic cost of circumventing the ads is little to none, and in fact if you take advantage of Spotify's distribution model for convenience and buy elsewhere for economics then you are performing a net social good.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#52

Post by Faceless1230 »

RobotToaster wrote: post #20

Since this is using youtube to play the music, other than being open source, what advantage does this have over just using youtube music revanced?

It has access to your Spotify liked songs collection/Playlists and also all the curated Spotify Playlists

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#53

Post by drewdevault »

viraptor wrote: post #50
drewdevault wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Direct your passion for getting musicians paid to Spotify and the distribution system, not to this. If everyone who uses this software were to use Spotify direct, ads and all, in the long run it would make pennies for the artists at best. You're better off listening to music however you please and buying albums on Bandcamp to support the artists; a lifetime of spotify listening will make less money for an artist you…

> If everyone who uses this software were to use Spotify direct, ads and all, in the long run it would make pennies for the artists at best. I'm not sure that "they get paid so little that we may as well stop paying them anything" is an argument you really want to make here? Yes, Spotify pay is crap. Not paying anything is crap too. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I'm not making that argument. I made an argument that you have better options in which the artist is paid more.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#54

Post by thaumasiotes »

anotheryou wrote: post #22
bayindirh wrote: post #2

Nifty. Please be aware that this is not a "spotify client" per se. It gets the data from Spotify, and plays the audio from YouTube. It's an interesting invention, and worthy of the first page, if you ask me.

oh ok... I'd have tried it, but I pay for good audio quality so I won't :)

Is there a difference in audio quality between Spotify and YouTube?

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#55

Post by viraptor »

drewdevault wrote: post #53
viraptor wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If everyone who uses this software were to use Spotify direct, ads and all, in the long run it would make pennies for the artists at best. I'm not sure that "they get paid so little that we may as well stop paying them anything" is an argument you really want to make here? Yes, Spotify pay is crap. Not paying anything is crap too. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I'm not making that argument. I made an argument that you have better options in which the artist is paid more .

You said "Direct your passion for getting musicians paid to Spotify and the distribution system, not to this." but that's not the problem this specific software can solve. However the authors of this software can work on adding reporting the plays back to Spotify. (And I believe they should)

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#56

Post by devjab »

monsieurbanana wrote: post #4

For something that puts "not using electron" so prominently I didn't expect it using flutter. I admit I don't really have much experience with it, I thought it was like react-native (but better?), still far from truly native apps. Im here to being told I'm wrong. I would love to, specially since we can transpile clojure to dart

I’m sort of surprised it’s considered a good thing. Some of my favourite programs use electron, like visual studio code. I haven’t used Spotify though, so maybe that is one of the many electron apps that suck?

I was very unimpressed by flutter when we PoC it at work, but that was years ago, so maybe it’s gotten better since.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#57

Post by drewdevault »

viraptor wrote: post #55
drewdevault wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not making that argument. I made an argument that you have better options in which the artist is paid more .

You said "Direct your passion for getting musicians paid to Spotify and the distribution system, not to this." but that's not the problem this specific software can solve. However the authors of this software can work on adding reporting the plays back to Spotify. (And I believe they should)

This software is not trying to solve the problem of getting artists paid, and the suggestion that people should listen to Spotify ads and all is not really going to solve that problem, either.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#58

Post by dotancohen »

pxoe wrote: post #45
Reubend wrote: post #3

While it's nice to have an open source client, please think twice about bypassing the premium subscription/ads to listen for free. Musician deserve to be paid for their work, and it's not fair to them to bypass all of the mechanisms to do that. Spotify doesn't pay musicians well, but there are still indie artists making a living from it nonetheless. I hear a lot of people these days complaining about ads, and that's…

signing up for a free service (or even just using it without an account with youtube music), and playing music for free, is the easiest way to support a creator, at no cost to you. the bar is so low - support creators with ad money for free, and some people still can't clear it, or refuse to clear it. the complaining is not fair, it's annoying. if you can't pay, or wouldn't pay otherwise, and still opposed to things…

I feel that your comment is poorly articulated and ignores the primary reasons that many people use adblockers (malware protection). However, your point is very valid and I 100% agree. Compensate with your time or compensate with your money. I personally still have a large collection of compact discs. The sound quality difference is amazing, though people listening to music produced in the last decade might be less affected as that most of that music was engineered to be played over highly compressed lossy streaming and a half cm mono speaker that cannot reproduce anything below 100 or above 16000 hz as found on a smartphone.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#59

Post by jsnell »

drewdevault wrote: post #53
viraptor wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If everyone who uses this software were to use Spotify direct, ads and all, in the long run it would make pennies for the artists at best. I'm not sure that "they get paid so little that we may as well stop paying them anything" is an argument you really want to make here? Yes, Spotify pay is crap. Not paying anything is crap too. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I'm not making that argument. I made an argument that you have better options in which the artist is paid more .

Taking the music without compensation and pretending that you're totally going to buy some music or merch from some other artist doesn't actually lead to artists being compensated. While in the plan where you buy music and only listen to the music you bought you don't need this app at all.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#60

Post by portaouflop »

viraptor wrote: post #50
drewdevault wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Direct your passion for getting musicians paid to Spotify and the distribution system, not to this. If everyone who uses this software were to use Spotify direct, ads and all, in the long run it would make pennies for the artists at best. You're better off listening to music however you please and buying albums on Bandcamp to support the artists; a lifetime of spotify listening will make less money for an artist you…

> If everyone who uses this software were to use Spotify direct, ads and all, in the long run it would make pennies for the artists at best. I'm not sure that "they get paid so little that we may as well stop paying them anything" is an argument you really want to make here? Yes, Spotify pay is crap. Not paying anything is crap too. Two wrongs don't make a right.

If you care about the artist here pay them directly either through bandcamp, by going to the physical shows and buying merch, ordering physical copies of their music at the label, patreon, or whatever form of direct support they have set up.

Spotify is just leeching of the culture and as drew pointed out you will be 10000 times more effective if you use one of those options.

Spotify is more or less just a signal booster nowadays - because you have to be on there since everyone uses it.

I for one would never put my music on Spotify, even if I get what like 20$ out of it, what a horrible company and service.

Post reply on HN