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

Apple Music Web Client

beta.music.apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 213 posts

Re: Apple Music Web Client

#191

Post by Marsymars »

ryanianian wrote: post #33

Whatever. I was really hoping to see some improvements to the music-organization and display aspects here but it looks like they just re-implemented the weird parts of iTunes using html5. For example: It drives me crazy how Apple Music emphasizes the idea that "Recently Added" is only grouped by albums . I don't add whole albums to my library, I add individual songs . I want to play all the songs I've recently added…

I'd guess the people using Apple music mostly use it in an album-based manner. Hell, my music listening is almost entirely discography-based, I listen to everything an artist has produced chronologically before moving to the next artist that I'm in the mood for.

Re: Apple Music Web Client

#192

Post by mikewhy »

m0dest wrote: post #188
mikewhy wrote: post #27

It appears even Apple themselves do not bother with using the overflow scrolling CSS that iOS needs.

Overflow scrolling CSS is deprecated in iOS 13. All scrollable elements now get it by default.

This is true! Was going to mention that, but opted for more snark.

Re: Apple Music Web Client

#194

Post by mikewhy »

floatingatoll wrote: post #76
mikewhy wrote: post #27

It appears even Apple themselves do not bother with using the overflow scrolling CSS that iOS needs.

On iOS, it redirects to the native iTunes App. Even if you somehow manage to overcome that, its presence clearly indicates that iOS isn’t a supported target - at which point, assuming it’s intentionally broken as you describe for non-beta reasons (this is not necessarily true), using that CSS would potentially be wasteful and break non-iOS users!

> its presence clearly indicates that iOS isn’t a supported target.

They added an "open in music" button to the hamburger menu, assumed only on iOS. So they obviously did something for iOS users.

Also agreed that this is pretty silly, people will of course just use the native app.

Re: Apple Music Web Client

#195

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

dmitriid wrote: post #134
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #100

I’m so sad that most consumers want to pay for things like this or Spotify. I only buy digital albums, almost always from Bandcamp or bespoke band-specific sites, or Amazon if there’s no other choice. Always just a straight download of mp3 or ogg formats, backed up and accessible in cloud storage. I use VLC player on all my devices, and syncing music with the VLC wifi download tool is so extremely easy and simple. I…

Because streaming: - is available almost anywhere: your phone, your car, your smart waffle maker. - leads to much better music discovery through curated playlists, “discover weekly”s, radio stations based on songs/artists/genres - you can instantly share your music and music tastes with friends, leading to even more music discovery - many more other minor things (like creating playlists for parties etc.)

Streaming isn’t available where there’s no internet connection, unless you just happen to have cached what you’re looking for. Whereas my entire music collection is available any time.

I also heavily dispute that Spotify, Apple, etc lead to better search or discovery.

Re: Apple Music Web Client

#196

Post by [deleted] »

mikewhy wrote: post #194
floatingatoll wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On iOS, it redirects to the native iTunes App. Even if you somehow manage to overcome that, its presence clearly indicates that iOS isn’t a supported target - at which point, assuming it’s intentionally broken as you describe for non-beta reasons (this is not necessarily true), using that CSS would potentially be wasteful and break non-iOS users!

> its presence clearly indicates that iOS isn’t a supported target. They added an "open in music" button to the hamburger menu, assumed only on iOS. So they obviously did something for iOS users. Also agreed that this is pretty silly, people will of course just use the native app.

[deleted]

Re: Apple Music Web Client

#197

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

vonseel wrote: post #151
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #100

I’m so sad that most consumers want to pay for things like this or Spotify. I only buy digital albums, almost always from Bandcamp or bespoke band-specific sites, or Amazon if there’s no other choice. Always just a straight download of mp3 or ogg formats, backed up and accessible in cloud storage. I use VLC player on all my devices, and syncing music with the VLC wifi download tool is so extremely easy and simple. I…

I would have never discovered 99% of the music I listen to if I didn't use Spotify. There are pros/cons to both sides of this argument. Many artists would not have a music career if it weren't for platforms like Spotify (mainly Spotify). Spotify put their music in people's ears. Spotify made people fans and now those fans buy tickets and go to their shows, so these bands are able to tour. There are pros/cons to both…

> “I would have never discovered 99% of the music I listen to if I didn't use Spotify.”

Can you take a step back and recognize this is weird and pathological. Music recommendations should come from experience, people, multiple sources. If a for-profit platform interested in extracting as much money from you as they can (let alone minimize their costs paid to artists) is responsible for 99% of what you believe you are choosing to consume... something’s pretty wrong.

Imagine saying, I wouldn’t have discovered 99% of the foods I like if not for my Blue Apron subscription...

Re: Apple Music Web Client

#198

Post by eddieh »

saagarjha wrote: post #105
eddieh wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't tried Catalina yet. I really hope it isn't a web view. That would really defeat what I hoped they where doing by splitting iTunes up.

The Apple Music portion is a web view: wherever it crashes (which is quite often, sadly) it shows the JavaScript backtrace.

Terrible news. :(

Re: Apple Music Web Client

#199

Post by twhb »

pier25 wrote: post #187
twhb wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wappalyzer's results for example.com, a 1.3 KB static page with no JS or sub-requests, include eight JS frameworks and two web font providers. Its results for facebook.com include a web framework made by Yahoo and deprecated in 2014. It says Youtube is built on WordPress, and HN is a React app with custom fonts.

> HN is a React app with custom fonts I only see that HN runs on NGinx.

I was using the "Technology lookup" box on the homepage, testing with the extension I get only Nginx too. And Youtube seems right and example.com maybe right, though nothing at all for Facebook.

Re: Apple Music Web Client

#200

Post by TimTheTinker »

ksec wrote: post #144
TimTheTinker wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not surprising. Ember was forked from SproutCore which was designed to mimic the Cocoa API. Ember’s model/view binding and event model still closely resembles Cocoa’s, as far as I know.

Um, I thought Ember was SproutCore 2.0, so isn't this more of a rename rather than a fork?

Not exactly. Ember was originally “SproutCore 2.0” but the project goals diverged and a fork occurred (it was renamed “Amber” around that time, before a name clash was discovered and it acquired its current name “Ember”). Development on both continues concurrently today.

Incidentally, the latest major SproutCore version is 2.0.

Post reply on HN