251–260 of 268 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FaceTime is the reason my whole extended family moved to Apple. There was no comparably reliable and easy to use video call app 10+ years ago.
Skype? Initial release in 2003. Purchased by Microsoft for a gazillion dollars in 2011.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That higher royalty isn’t because of altruism. It’s probably a factor of licensing volume.
Comments like this one are a real puzzler to me. Why does it matter that the higher royalty is not out of altruism? It’s money! Money doesn’t care. More money for artists is good. You can’t buy a cheeseburger with altruism. I guess I’m just not sure what sort of “gotcha” this is supposed to be. The beauty of incentive alignment is that you don’t have to waste your time trying to discern nebulous motivations of large…
If you really wanted to help artists, it would make the most sense to use whichever service is cheapest and then donate the difference to artists. But, personally I’d just go with whoever provides the best user experience, which is none of them, so I basically haven’t listened to music aside from occasional YouTube chill beats for years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does Redacted.ch work? I can't see any signup forms. Actually, I can't see anything but a login form...
They are strictly interview based, if you want a lower hassle orpheus.network still does invites. Smaller site but they get a good % of their releases from redacted.
With Apple TV I had similar experiences - compared to Netflix, the UX was just horrible. In a way it made me feel good - if a company with so much money as Apple can fail so miserably, it is fine if I as a developer make mistakes too sometimes :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They did, but the new native views are quite buggy, so while it uses less memory, the user experience improvement was minimal. Apple should really stop shipping such buggy softwares.
I wonder if they had to use SwiftUI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>These streaming platforms are so bad. We had better software in the 90s and 00s. You are sitting in a chair in the sky . I can play any music I want right now for a £10/month fee. In the 90s I was buying CDs with five good songs and five filler for £15. In the 2000s I was finding stuff that I could pirate, downloading it, and playing it on my beige desktop computer because there was no such thing as a smartphone.
The software was still better. You're right that we have better, easier and cheaper access to the music we want, but that's unrelated to the software we use to play the music or manage the playlist. You can still buy music on Apple Music, it's not copy protected if I recall correctly, then play it back in WinAmp. That would currently be the best experience from both eras.
Having music only on your desktop computer and takes space isn't the best experience for the absolute majority of people. But it's good that the ones who want can still do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I personally don’t find that to be true. Time for some objective anecdata. There is a site [0] that ranks how “mainstream” one’s listening habits are based on their last.fm profile. Punching in my username, I get ranked as 12% mainstream (i.e., only 12% of last.fm users listen to music more obscure than mine). Keep in mind, this is relative to last.fm users, whose musical tastes are probably more obscure than the gen…
I personally find it to be true. Apple Music has a feature based on iTunes Match that will take your local files and attempt to match them based on their metadata and audio fingerprint. The last time I used it, from my (then) ~5000 song library, it matched ~3600. That means that a good third of the music I listen to is not available in the same exact version on streaming services. I dug into why, and reasons include:…
The reason between Apple Music and iTunes Match is that the latter doesn't replace your existing copies with the alternatives it find in its database. AM will gladly do it unless what you have offline is truly unique.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>These streaming platforms are so bad. We had better software in the 90s and 00s. You are sitting in a chair in the sky . I can play any music I want right now for a £10/month fee. In the 90s I was buying CDs with five good songs and five filler for £15. In the 2000s I was finding stuff that I could pirate, downloading it, and playing it on my beige desktop computer because there was no such thing as a smartphone.
> You are sitting in a chair in the sky. A chair in the sky is great. But in the 1990s we were travelling without moving through the aggregate of everybody's music collection that they already paid for . In the 2000s we were using idle bandwidth to move the distribution cost closer to zero than ever before. In light of that, I wonder if in a decade you'll be praising an uncomfortable sardine can that drags us across…
It sounds as if you are claiming that because person X already paid for a CD, everybody else connected to them via Napster has a right to listen to that music. If so, I disagree. People complain that Spotify et al. underpay musicians. Piracy pays them zero.
Meanwhile: I pay once for all the music on Spotify; I can listen to stuff like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T-H-fVlHE0 which was never available pirated; anything I want starts playing within seconds; and it's conveniently provided to me on my phone, along with playlists that regularly find me music and podcasts I like. Which aspect was better in the 2000s?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>These streaming platforms are so bad. We had better software in the 90s and 00s. You are sitting in a chair in the sky . I can play any music I want right now for a £10/month fee. In the 90s I was buying CDs with five good songs and five filler for £15. In the 2000s I was finding stuff that I could pirate, downloading it, and playing it on my beige desktop computer because there was no such thing as a smartphone.
> I can play any music I want right now for a £10/month fee. Any music? Nope. Maybe the popular stuff that plays on the radio.