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

71–80 of 661 posts

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#71

Post by drewdevault »

apwell23 wrote: post #70
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…

> Direct your passion for getting musicians paid to Spotify and the distribution system, not to this. How exactly do you do this ? What a dishonest comment to support stealing.

>How exactly do you do this

By reading the rest of my comment.

>What a dishonest comment to support stealing.

Copying is not theft.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#72

Post by [deleted] »

petesergeant wrote: post #64
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…

> Direct your passion for getting musicians paid to Spotify and the distribution system Spotify pay 70% of their revenue back to the rights holders, leaving 30% for operating costs and profits. What percentages would you recommend, and what are you basing it on?

[deleted]

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#73

Post by rubymamis »

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

Yep. This app uses 230mb of RAM on my machine compared to Spotify that uses 208mb. But it's definitely more performant than my hideously slow Electron Spotify client. I'm really done with Electron. I hope this shaming of Electron apps continue because I can't stand this degradation of software. The only Electron app of recent that had good performance is Notion Calendar (used to be Cron). Although, Notion itself is painfully slow. This is why I'm building a Notion alternative in Qt C++ and QML[1].

[1] https://www.get-plume.com/

EDIT: Is the app down? It doesn't load the "Browse" content for me.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#74

Post by drewdevault »

petesergeant wrote: post #64
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…

> Direct your passion for getting musicians paid to Spotify and the distribution system Spotify pay 70% of their revenue back to the rights holders, leaving 30% for operating costs and profits. What percentages would you recommend, and what are you basing it on?

I would not recommend a different revenue split, I would recommend a different business model. And I did!

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#75

Post by pelasaco »

gumballindie wrote: post #67
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…

HN has sadly become a bit of a #warezcentral. People demanding free stuff, either to train their ai models or for personal consumption.

What is more hacker than bypassing rules and paid services? What was phreaking all about?

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#76

Post by apwell23 »

drewdevault wrote: post #71
apwell23 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Direct your passion for getting musicians paid to Spotify and the distribution system, not to this. How exactly do you do this ? What a dishonest comment to support stealing.

>How exactly do you do this By reading the rest of my comment. >What a dishonest comment to support stealing. Copying is not theft.

> By reading the rest of my comment.

I did. You made a silly assumption that all artists put their music up on bandcamp. No one even knows what bandcamp is my area.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#77

Post by anotheryou »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #54
anotheryou wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

yes, I think so. And youtube is mixed quality, especially for older uploads.

Newer youtubes are "opus (251)", which I think is 128kbps 48KHz Opus (WebM standard).

- Spotify at least used to be ogg vorbis and claims to be "320kbit/s [mp3] equivalent"

I think the 128kps Opus is still considered quite lossy¹ and 320kpbit/s mp3s I know I can hear the difference to wav on some tracks in a blind test, but generally don't find them better or worse.

¹ from some google test:

https://i.imgur.com/odPogeR.png

via https://www.opus-codec.org/comparison/

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#78

Post by apwell23 »

portaouflop wrote: post #60
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.

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 boos…

> If you care about the artist here pay them directly either through bandcamp

Not everyone is on bandcamp. Seems like some sort of north american website.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#79

Post by piva00 »

devjab wrote: post #56
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.

Spotify's desktop app has been pretty snappy for me, and it's been like that for many years across different machines.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#80

Post by pelasaco »

cqqxo4zV46cp wrote: post #33
tiku wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But do you need to get paid for each time someone listens to a copy? The artist isn't doing work for me when I listen to a song. Spotify should pay artists when their songs are added, not when listened.

It’s not your job to decide what Spotify’s business model is.

and is your job to say what people should do or not?
Post reply on HN