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

131–140 of 661 posts

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#131

Post by richrichardsson »

gnfargbl wrote: post #40
unnamed76ri wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know where you get your info but Spotify just effectively demonetized the majority of music on their platform. They’ve decided they have the right to just stop paying small time artists so they can funnel more money upwards to the record labels.

If you mean the changes declared in https://artists.spotify.com/en/blog/modernizing-our-royalty-... , then I find it hard to reconcile the description given there with your editorialization.

> Starting in early 2024, tracks must have reached at least 1,000 streams in the previous 12 months in order to generate recorded royalties.

This will take my Spotify income from pitiful to non-existent.

Fuck Spotify.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#132

Post by tourmalinetaco »

apwell23 wrote: post #78
portaouflop wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So, instead of interfacing with the actual argument (which is that Spotify pays almost nothing and if you really want to support an artist you actually pay them directly), you decide to zero in that one singular platform of many is not available where you think it should be?

If you didn’t want to support artists you can just say so and cut out the gymnastics.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#133

Post by _kwef »

rubymamis wrote: post #73
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 p…

Weird, it takes up ~150MB while having a 500+ song playlist loaded.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#134

Post by CrypticShift »

In a way, this reminds me of the (much more ambitious) system of resolvers [1] of the (now defunct) tomahawk player [0]

The idea was you just give it the metadata and it "resolves" it into any service. I really like this idea. it kind of lives on in "playlist converters" like tunemymusic or soundiiz. but it is not the same as it being built into the player itself (like spotube albeit with a different more straightforward aim here)

[0] https://github.com/tomahawk-player/tomahawk

[1] https://github.com/tomahawk-player/tomahawk-resolvers

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#135

Post by kossTKR »

apwell23 wrote: post #96
kossTKR wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deserve to be paid by whom though, Spotify already pays nothing? A song with 10000000 (10 million) streams , a pretty big hit and only reserved for big artists will give you 500 dollars before cuts, taxes etc. So not even the biggest artists will make anything substantial.

why are they publishing music on spotify then? I've discovered many artists on spotify and have paid for their live concerts. Curious, how do you discover music ?

I also use Spotify and like you have discovered a bunch of stuff.

Spotify is just the state of things, the monopoly. Like lots of other current status quos bad for on everyone but investors, old money, the richest but there's no real alternatives.

Though i know at least some smaller artists have moved off the platform, but people live in the biggest apps now so it's hard.

Soundcloud somehow never really translated and bandcamp just went bad after it was sold to investors.

I wonder if the scene is ripe for new platforms that's better for artists.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#136

Post by Thorrez »

anotheryou wrote: post #77
thaumasiotes wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

I don't think that imgur link is a good example. The only opus 128 there is heavily optimized for low latency (5ms frame size). If you remove that optimization, and instead optimize for quality, opus does better than mp3 at the same bitrate.

https://www.opus-codec.org/static/comparison/quality.svg

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#137

Post by code_runner »

drewdevault wrote: post #26
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…

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…

The lion’s share of Spotify subscription data goes straight to the labels. The labels are the ones not paying artists.

It’s crazy to expect all the music in the world on demand for $12 a month or whatever. Spotify can probably do better in some ways but I don’t see how any of this justifies not giving the artists the pennies your mentioning.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#138

Post by rubymamis »

icy wrote: post #130
rubymamis wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

Plume looks so sick. Looking forward to it. A Vim-like modal editing mode would be so cool, I think.

Thanks! I heard many requests for this, so I'll consider it, but if I do get to that it will be at a later stage.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#139

Post by blowski »

drewdevault wrote: post #26
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…

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…

I'm sceptical that Drew DeVault has a sock puppet account on HN, created 3 months ago, in addition to @ddevault. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't like non-satirical impersonation.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#140

Post by apwell23 »

tourmalinetaco wrote: post #132
apwell23 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

So, instead of interfacing with the actual argument (which is that Spotify pays almost nothing and if you really want to support an artist you actually pay them directly), you decide to zero in that one singular platform of many is not available where you think it should be? If you didn’t want to support artists you can just say so and cut out the gymnastics.

i support artists in a lot of ways. spotify introduced me to many new artists and told me about their concerts in my area

> If you didn’t want to support artists you can just say so and cut out the gymnastics.

classic projection

Post reply on HN