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

Playlist for iOS

brave.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 90 posts

Re: Playlist for iOS

#21

Post by warpech »

parhamn wrote: post #6

FYI, There is a really cool design project here: https://refresh.study/ that also explored the 'playlist' feature. I've been building a browser the past year ( https://synth.app ), and have learned a few things from it (including implementing media players like this). Really makes you realize how little our browsers are currently doing for us.

I can see a lot of interesting new ideas in Synth! "Smart Bookmarks & History" sound great on their own but "Auto-Roam" is what nailed my own itch. Are you still working on it?

Re: Playlist for iOS

#23

Post by SheinhardtWigCo »

PascLeRasc wrote: post #19
SheinhardtWigCo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They hold 13.3% of all BAT.

How many US Dollars can they extract from that before all the selling crashes the price?

Tens of millions per year if managed correctly. It's a development fund; spending it to grow the ecosystem is arguably a good thing for BAT holders.

Re: Playlist for iOS

#24

Post by devmunchies »

xNeil wrote: post #16
CharlesW wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think creating BAT was one of the smartest things Brave did. […] This feature allows you to download a youtube video and watch it offline. That feature is unrelated to BAT. Also: Brave has a built-in functionality to violate YouTube's ToS (sections 5B and 5C)?

While I can't be sure of what they were trying to say, my guess would be they were referring to the fact that Mozilla earns money from partnering with Google, while Brave doesn't need to do that, they have BAT, and so Brave might not be as hesitant to modify YouTube functionality as Mozilla.

yes exactly, you said it better than me. Brave has more freedom since they don't need to concern themselves with biting the hand that feeds.

Re: Playlist for iOS

#25

Post by parhamn »

warpech wrote: post #21
parhamn wrote: post #6

FYI, There is a really cool design project here: https://refresh.study/ that also explored the 'playlist' feature. I've been building a browser the past year ( https://synth.app ), and have learned a few things from it (including implementing media players like this). Really makes you realize how little our browsers are currently doing for us.

I can see a lot of interesting new ideas in Synth! "Smart Bookmarks & History" sound great on their own but "Auto-Roam" is what nailed my own itch. Are you still working on it?

Thanks -- Yes, full time! It's been the only browser installed on my computer the last few months. We have a bunch of friends using it exclusively but are still polishing a things for a broader release.

Re: Playlist for iOS

#26

Post by turblety »

It's only a matter of time before the real owner of the iOS device you paid for (Apple), bans this app from their malware [1] store, preventing you from using it on their phone.

Of course, Apple users would have no alternative/competitive way of installing this.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

1. https://www.techradar.com/news/apple-app-store-is-apparently...

Re: Playlist for iOS

#27

Post by asadlionpk »

This will get shut down very soon. I am actually surprised Apple even approved this.

I essentially built the same thing for myself (music player that combines/searches multiple sources, use youtube-dl server to stream optimized mp3 only), I had to skip app store and sideload it.

Re: Playlist for iOS

#28

Post by eredengrin »

xNeil wrote: post #14
jarenmf wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you can easily disable the ads if you don't like them

Of course! And while that is a valid point, my issue is not that you can turn them on or off - it's the fact that they are there. Again -I totally understand they have to make money. This is only my opinion - that's all - but it just seems wrong to replace someone else's ads with your own.

> it just seems wrong to replace someone else's ads with your own.

I can see how it might feel scummy to do this, but on the other hand, from a rational perspective I'm having a tough time seeing what's wrong with it. If it's because it's taking away revenue from the party serving the ads, then replacing the ads is no worse than blocking ads entirely. If it's because the organization blocking the ads is directly benefiting as a result, I'd argue that's already happening just by blocking ads, just not necessarily in a direct monetary manner.

Re: Playlist for iOS

#29

Post by xNeil »

jarenmf wrote: post #18
xNeil wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course! And while that is a valid point, my issue is not that you can turn them on or off - it's the fact that they are there. Again -I totally understand they have to make money. This is only my opinion - that's all - but it just seems wrong to replace someone else's ads with your own.

I think it's a valid point for discussion but they deliver the ads through a different mechanism (system notifications). So it's a bit different than replacing the ads of other web pages.

Not disputing your point at all - genuinely! But would you be fine if Google started serving you ads in your notifications?

I'm just rephrasing it, because for some reason it would be creepier for me if Google served ads in notifications - but that may just be me.

Re: Playlist for iOS

#30

Post by xNeil »

eredengrin wrote: post #28
xNeil wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course! And while that is a valid point, my issue is not that you can turn them on or off - it's the fact that they are there. Again -I totally understand they have to make money. This is only my opinion - that's all - but it just seems wrong to replace someone else's ads with your own.

> it just seems wrong to replace someone else's ads with your own. I can see how it might feel scummy to do this, but on the other hand, from a rational perspective I'm having a tough time seeing what's wrong with it. If it's because it's taking away revenue from the party serving the ads, then replacing the ads is no worse than blocking ads entirely. If it's because the organization blocking the ads is directly bene…

That's a very fair point, I had not thought of it in that way at all. I guess they are two ways of approaching it -

1. Brave is replacing Google Ads with their own ads. 2. Brave already blocks Google Ads, they might as well make some money while doing so and add their own.

Funnily, I don't find either of these wrong, so I'm not sure which one to believe. I'd love to hear your opinion on it though!

Post reply on HN