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

651–660 of 661 posts

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#651

Post by superultra »

Reubend wrote: post #590
superultra wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work in the music industry and am intimately familiar with streaming earnings. While you are technically correct, I would much rather someone use this tool and buy a ticket to a show or an LP that stream over Spotify. In fact, the ad supported tier of Spotify is one of the lesser equitable ways to pay artists. Your intent is good but gatekeeping people to use an inequitable system is not the solution.

> I would much rather someone use this tool and buy a ticket to a show or an LP that stream over Spotify. Sure! But at the end of the day, most of the people doing this will listen to hundreds of artists who they don't purchase tickets from, or buy their music directly. The fact that royalty payment are so low is sad. But if you use this tool, you're lowering them even further to $0.00

Sure, but like the OP, there's a built-in mistaken belief (promoted annually with Spotify Wrapped) that you're supporting the artist by streaming music. I'd rather someone know that they aren't supporting the artist and be aware of that fact than someone think that they're marginally supporting the artist (when in fact they are really just barely supporting the artist).

Again as someone that works in the industry intimately: use this tool all you want, and find ways to support the artist.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#652

Post by [deleted] »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #575
dangus wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a pretty luxurious position to be in. I wonder if your local Walmart associate ever thought of working for a more morally upstanding company? Maybe they could start their own retailer with better values. Should be pretty easy to spin up some distribution centers right?

Agreed, I'm fortunate, as are many of us on this site. We have opportunities to keep the powerful in check that others do not. Therefore we have a responsibility to take advantage of those opportunities, because it's a bit much to ask the Walmart employees to do so. Also, you seem to me implying that a malware author and a shelf stocker are equally culpable for the actions of their employer, which is an odd sort of m…

[deleted]

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#653

Post by jhatemyjob »

jwells89 wrote: post #628
jhatemyjob wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, GNUstep isn't bad. It uses an old version of ObjC? Are you sure that's correct? ObjC is open source right? There is no reason to be using an old version. Yeah the frameworks are kinda old but the new frameworks (since ~2014) don't really bring anything new to the table. And Swift is overrated anyway.

Not entirely sure about Obj-C version. Disagree regarding frameworks, though. The newer snapshot-based APIs for NSTableView, NSOutlineView, and NSCollectionView (added in 2020 as part of macOS 11) are a massive improvement over the old index-based ones for example, and there’s been numerous polish and quality of life improvements scattered throughout. Also disagree about Swift if only for the large number of things i…

Oh I didn't realize they were still adding APIs to AppKit. That's cool.

Yea I mean the ObjC vs Swift thing.... a matter of preference. I trust Steve Jobs more than I trust Tim Cook. I hate the feature creep in Swift. I hate Swift optionals. ObjC compiles faster than Swift. The ObjC ABI/runtime is superior to the Swift ABI/runtime (which allows for cool stuff like https://cycript.org). I like the dynamic typing a lot. Managing headers is a non-issue for me, I just consolidate everything into one monolithic header file.

I've worked in pretty big ObjC codebases (1M+ lines) so I know most of the tricks to deal with complexity. For Swift, max I've dealt with is 100k lines and it was crippled with tech debt. Frankly, the other engineers on the team were terrible, so maybe that's why. They abused the shit out of RxSwift and refused to use the `!` force-unwrap optional feature

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#654

Post by larodi »

bitcharmer wrote: post #300
larodi wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would actually pay extra for proper open-source, minimal win32 client for spotify which runs every damn winbox. This electron apps Spotify been trying to get right for so many years is such a waste of information and cpu cycles sometimes. Can't believe a company which manages such enormous amount of data is so bad at UI

There are platforms other than windows. Electron is one of the simpler ways to get software released on multiple operating systems without having to support different builds and architectures.

There are at least dozen libs other than Electron that allow to put some lists and images together and be fully platform independent. I'm not even saying what language. This Spotify app was a prototype which stalled at some point because I guess they have much harsher issues to deal with.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#655

Post by JadeNB »

hirako2000 wrote: post #649
JadeNB wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The implicit question of: > Would be far less worthy if, by the time we get to the README, we only get to see a take down notice from Github. Instigated by Spotify for breach of not sure what. was what violation would cause Github specifically to take it down, not whether it could ever find a host. The parent brought up Github, not I.

I picked Github simply because Spotube happen to have been pushed there. And because Github is by far the most popular platform to host projects that gets discovered. And because they've taken down many projects in the past, blocking broadwide access not just from jurisdictions where not sure what non ethical law makes not certain what illegal.

Yeah, no shade to you from me. I think my mention of a US law triggered some HNers' (justified) fears of US-centrism, and I was just explaining why I thought it was not unduly US-centric to respond to a comment about a company headquartered in the US with a remark that referenced the DMCA.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#656

Post by hunter2_ »

bayindirh wrote: post #618
jorvi wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lossless is for archival only. This has been common knowledge for years in the audiophile community at this point. For active listening, the gain going from 320 MP3 / 256 AAC to lossless is beyond minuscule. What you are hearing is far more likely to be placebo.

Not every human is created equal when it comes to ear and sound processing. I have met people with sub 20Hz hearing, and people with ears so sharp, they were able to pick a single wrong note from a single instrument while watching a recording of a symphony orchestra (I played together with them). MP3@320kbps CBR and AAC@256kbps are pretty good for normal listening, but if you have the hardware to render, lossless for…

By far the main source of degradation in any typical analog audio path is going to be transducers (microphones, speakers, phono cartridges, tape heads) and inferior media (tape, etc.). The vast majority of modern amplifiers, and high end older amplifiers, are extremely transparent with good margins beyond typical human hearing; any issues like noise, harmonic distortion, uneven response, inadequate damping factor, etc. introduced at the amplifier would typically be masked by quirks of the speakers, and revealed only by measuring upstream of the speakers.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#657

Post by garfieldnate »

Reminds me of the TiVo creator interview in "Programmers at work." There's a line somewhere that you should not cross, lest involved parties take action. The line for TiVo was making it possible to skip commercials. This feels like it has crossed a line as well, especially with text like "eliminating the need for Spotify Premium." If this actually becomes popular, Spotify would have to lock down their API's.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#658

Post by ang_cire »

Ger_Onimo wrote: post #573
ang_cire wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not ridiculous at all. If you use the service that pays the artists below the value, you are endorsing that underpayment. You're literally voting with your wallet that underpaying the artists is fine. Pirating doesn't support the artists, but it's also not weakening their expected rights for future business contracts, which supporting services like Spotify does; after all, if all these other artists are getting paid…

> near-100% cut that streaming services take All the main music services operate on the 70/30 split in favour of the license holders. If you pay $10 for a subscription, $7 gets put into a pool with all the subscription and ad revenue for your country, and that gets divided out proportionally based on the playback in your country. If Taylor Swift gets 10% of the plays in the US, she gets 10% of the pot. If you're of t…

I said "artists". You said "license holders". Those are usually not the same people, and I meant what I said.

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#659

Post by NJRBailey »

sanroot99 wrote: post #613
NJRBailey wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My colleague has his music on both Spotify and YouTube Music, and he has said in the past that one YouTube listen is worth 2x as much as one Spotify listen.

What music does he produce?, Can you share his profile

Sure, he makes Synthwave under the name Ampholyte https://music.youtube.com/channel/UCFKoFR8aNtzcK1WKfnCDyig https://ampholyte.bandcamp.com/

Re: Spotube: Open-source Spotify-Youtube client

#660

Post by alerighi »

recursive wrote: post #599
alerighi wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a PC, yes. But let's say that I want to listen to music in my car, and I have an old stereo (that I don't want to replace) that only has CD and/or USB input. I can't from Spotify just take the music and download it to an USB stick or burn a CD, even with premium (I can download it to play offline, but they are DRM protected and I can play only from the official player)

For most people, that's a solved problem with bluetooth.

I get it, but if my car doesn't have it, and I don't want to buy a new stereo. Also, Bluetooth requires wasting my phone battery, and use either mobile data bandwidth or phone memory space, while I can load a 64Gb USB sticks of songs or burn a bunch of CDs and forget about it.
Post reply on HN