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

Show HN: Winamp and other media players, rebuilt for the web with Web Components

player.style

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 65 posts

Re: Show HN: Winamp and other media players, rebuilt for the web with Web Components

#44

Post by djhn »

Since there are video experts around in this thread, does anyone know if there are implementations out there for a player that enables fast smooth scrubbing with audio, similar to how you can scrub and/or watch the timeline at 16x in Adobe Premiere. I guess one needs to eagerly load something like a 16khz mono audio track and some sort of 1fps sprite or 240p video format with I-frames only to switch to on scrub.

Re: Show HN: Winamp and other media players, rebuilt for the web with Web Components

#45

Post by doubleorseven »

This one made my day.

One thing that I feel should be mandatory when building applications is setting: `user-select: none;` and only allowing it where it's needed. For example, the reelplay theme bar is selectable

Again, thank you for this wonderful work

Re: Show HN: Winamp and other media players, rebuilt for the web with Web Components

#46

Post by miunau »

Mux looks nice, but I don't trust a company to keep a free video encoding tier, so I won't be building anything on it. The on-demand encoding for users seems a bit bananas to me too resource wise. The starter model buys you $100 worth of credits for $10. It all just seems a big bait and switch in the making- I can't trust a company that seems to burn money on the daily anymore. At least charge me -something-, I know the encoding isn't free. Barring that, a section on their site explaining how they are able to undercut everyone in the business and still keep going as a going concern would go a long way to alleviating my doubts. Been burned by SaaS too many times, man.

Re: Show HN: Winamp and other media players, rebuilt for the web with Web Components

#47

Post by karteum »

If you only care about music (not videos) then you might also have a look at https://webamp.org/ You don't even need to "compile" or do anything fancy to "integrate" it : just include it (of course you might generate the playlist in your app) ! e.g.

    
    Music
    
    
    
    
    const webamp = new Webamp();
    webamp.setTracksToPlay([ 
        {url: "http://example.com/The%20Gathering%20-%20Travel.mp3", defaultName: "The Gathering - Travel", duration: 1.0, metaData: {title: "The Gathering - Travel", artist: " "}, },
        {url: "http://example.com/Muse%20-%20Plug%20In%20Baby.mp3", defaultName: "Muse - Plug In Baby", duration: 1.0, metaData: {title: "Muse - Plug In Baby", artist: " "}, }, ]);
    webamp.renderWhenReady(document.getElementById("app"));

Re: Show HN: Winamp and other media players, rebuilt for the web with Web Components

#48

Post by have_faith »

miunau wrote: post #46

Mux looks nice, but I don't trust a company to keep a free video encoding tier, so I won't be building anything on it. The on-demand encoding for users seems a bit bananas to me too resource wise. The starter model buys you $100 worth of credits for $10. It all just seems a big bait and switch in the making- I can't trust a company that seems to burn money on the daily anymore. At least charge me -something-, I know…

There are use-cases were encoding is a huge cost centre, like with user generated content, and so we wanted to make sure you could still build on Mux with that type of model. The tradeoffs for using free encoding are listed here though: https://docs.mux.com/guides/use-video-quality-levels. The free (basic) encoding still has charges for storage and delivery also. We hope that by helping you reduce costs when getting off the ground we can grow with you.

The on-demand (JIT) encoding is actual magic in how well it consistently works!

(I work at Mux)

Re: Show HN: Winamp and other media players, rebuilt for the web with Web Components

#49

Post by pjc50 »

have_faith wrote: post #48
miunau wrote: post #46

Mux looks nice, but I don't trust a company to keep a free video encoding tier, so I won't be building anything on it. The on-demand encoding for users seems a bit bananas to me too resource wise. The starter model buys you $100 worth of credits for $10. It all just seems a big bait and switch in the making- I can't trust a company that seems to burn money on the daily anymore. At least charge me -something-, I know…

There are use-cases were encoding is a huge cost centre, like with user generated content, and so we wanted to make sure you could still build on Mux with that type of model. The tradeoffs for using free encoding are listed here though: https://docs.mux.com/guides/use-video-quality-levels . The free (basic) encoding still has charges for storage and delivery also. We hope that by helping you reduce costs when getting…

Mux looks very interesting to me, as a light user of Video.js, but when I put in my entirely normal .org.uk email address for an account signup I get "There was a problem with your request. Please try again." with no further explanation?
Post reply on HN