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

Nuclear: Desktop music player focused on streaming from free sources

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 307 posts

Re: Nuclear: Desktop music player focused on streaming from free sources

#291

Post by pxoe »

prmoustache wrote: post #282
pxoe wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about choosing which artists you like and whether you want to give money to some particular artist or not, and not even just personally refusing to give money to any artist. It's about going out of your way to create something that gets in the way of artists getting paid, such as obscuring/eliminating an option to buy music or give money to an artist, not just from yourself alone but from other people, who m…

> Removing an option to buy an album is kind of different. The option is never removed, anyone can go purchase the music/album.

It's there when you listen on bandcamp, it's not there in the player. It's removed from the listening experience in this app, and made further obscure by not linking out. Are we actually gonna argue whether a "music player focused on streaming" that touts removing everything else, isn't doing the thing it's doing?

Re: Nuclear: Desktop music player focused on streaming from free sources

#292

Post by prmoustache »

pxoe wrote: post #291
prmoustache wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Removing an option to buy an album is kind of different. The option is never removed, anyone can go purchase the music/album.

It's there when you listen on bandcamp, it's not there in the player. It's removed from the listening experience in this app, and made further obscure by not linking out. Are we actually gonna argue whether a "music player focused on streaming" that touts removing everything else, isn't doing the thing it's doing?

A music player goal is to play music, not purchase stuff. What if the music has already been purchased but not available on that particular local device?

Re: Nuclear: Desktop music player focused on streaming from free sources

#293

Post by protocolture »

rpdillon wrote: post #258
mitchitized wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People listening to music for free is less than a drop of water in the ocean of causative reasons musicians get fucked. Astonishingly ignorant hot take. Music is what MUSICIANS DO. Some of them are also performers, many are not. What they create is the same as what a painter does, or even a chef or architect. However it is not a physical good so people with tiny brains think that means "iT's FreEEe!!1!" when each m…

I think you're misunderstanding the point GP was trying to make. Artists and musicians in particular seem to think that copyright is their friend. Because, in theory, it's a mechanism by which a revenue stream could appear when you produce artwork. But copyright is not the musician's friend at all. It's a mechanism by which record labels consolidate power as the middlemen and route revenue to their executives with ve…

>My personal belief is that systems that allow people to get paid when they're not working are not sustainable, and therefore intellectual property has a fundamental flaw. The end game for musicians is to perform live and use their recordings as advertisements for that. That makes them very similar to jobs I've held my whole life where the second I stop showing up for work is the second I stop getting paid.

Could not agree more.

Re: Nuclear: Desktop music player focused on streaming from free sources

#294

Post by twothreeone »

UncleSlacky wrote: post #233
eek2121 wrote: post #122

Spotube is a much better alternative IMO: https://spotube.krtirtho.dev/

It hasn't worked for me (in terms of accessing my Spotify account) for several months now, I wonder if Spotify have changed their API?

Because the dev received a cease and desist letter from Spotify and got their API key banned: https://github.com/KRTirtho/spotube

Same thing will most likely happen here too, it's just a matter of time / number of users.

Re: Nuclear: Desktop music player focused on streaming from free sources

#295

Post by protocolture »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #288
welferkj wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, and "piracy" is part of the status quo. Show some respect for my total disrespect of IP laws and your livelihood.

Do you feel that putting the quote from the musician in the testimonials was respectful?

If its legit feedback, the musician wanted it to be seen, why would it not be?

Re: Nuclear: Desktop music player focused on streaming from free sources

#296

Post by 30minAdayHN »

baq wrote: post #192
30minAdayHN wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably they are employing rage marketing? I used to follow this hotel in Ireland, I think, that used to post very aggressive comments against the reviews. It became a thing and people used to stay there just for it. I think there is a TV series recently in the same vein.

Take a look at Ryanair’s X profile. There’s gold over there.

damn - they are brutal and fun! they have already won me as a customer.

Re: Nuclear: Desktop music player focused on streaming from free sources

#297

Post by willywanker »

They have a pre-emptive defense of Electron linked to, that others have refered to here. The criticism of Electron apps isn't merely RAM or sluggishness - it's the modern tendency to completely shit on mature, established, efficient and muscle memory based desktop UI/UX conventions that have been around for decades.

I don't see what this offers over Clementine on Linux - it offers complete local music collection (remember that?) management as well as adding streaming sources & Last.fm integration in a sane, desktop focused UI like there once existed.

No gigantic fonts and icons and wasted space that's more served for a mobile UI, and all that before the idiocy of using Javascript as a hammer for every damn thing instead of what it originally was as a means to add some interactivity to a webpage.

Then again, modern devs don't seem to care about the actual end user experience, this person essentially claims Electron is superior because Javascript and frameworks based on it are all he knows or cares to learn.

Re: Nuclear: Desktop music player focused on streaming from free sources

#298

Post by cess11 »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #285
cess11 wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people think that music should mainly be a task for artists, and not for careerists in the entertainment industrial complex.

How are these artists paying for their instruments and studios?

I don't see the relevance.

Re: Nuclear: Desktop music player focused on streaming from free sources

#299

Post by guappa »

GuB-42 wrote: post #230
guappa wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think youtube music compensates artists?

They do. At least for those who are eligible to become YouTube partners, which starts at 1000 subscribers I think. How fair it is depends on what you think is fair, but it is not zero.

The amount is important, since it's like trace amounts of money.

Re: Nuclear: Desktop music player focused on streaming from free sources

#300

Post by account42 »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #287
account42 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if the cheese can be copied at no cost and there are already more cheese varieties around than anyone could eat in a lifetime. In that word, farmers should have no say in who does and doesn't get to eat cheese or extract a tax from cheese consumption.

> there are already more cheese varieties around than anyone could eat in a lifetime. If that's what you think then why don't we just close down all the studios and instrument shops. We've got enough, no need to keep producing it? You can copy and distributed the cheese freely but the farmer still has to spend money taking care of and housing the cows, milking the cows, going through the whole processes of churning a…

There is nothing wrong with people creating new music, either out of passion or because they have some way to get paid for it (patronage, crowdfunding, live performances). But as abundance of available creative works increases we need to re-evaluate what cost we should pay as a society in order to incentivize it. IMO we are at a point where no incentive via copyright is needed and the cost copyright imposes on everyone is way too high. The world only works as well as it does because most people routinely ignore copyright already.

And no, in this analogy the farmer doesn't have to keep working for us to have enough cheese - only if someone specifically wants a new kind of cheese. We don't need to bend reality in order to make information scarce for that.

Post reply on HN