[HN Gopher] Playlist for iOS
___________________________________________________________________
Playlist for iOS
Author : bsclifton
Score : 63 points
Date : 2021-05-06 19:32 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (brave.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (brave.com)
| luffapi wrote:
| Neat. It feels like there's space for browsers to "browse" non-
| html content. This is a great example. So much of my browsing is
| media based, it makes sense that the web browser should have
| media controls and features.
|
| I wonder if generating/editing media could also use some love.
| For instance, basic audio/video editing so you can clean stuff up
| before you post it.
| parhamn wrote:
| 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.
| danielmeskin wrote:
| Sorry if this was asked already but is Synth chromium based?
| warpech wrote:
| 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?
| parhamn wrote:
| 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.
| xNeil wrote:
| I used to use Brave a lot, not so much now. They seem to be
| trying to become a privacy-friendly alternative to Google, which
| I respect, but I'm not sure why, I thoroughly dislike their Brave
| Ads.
|
| Not because their (edit:they're) intrusive, but they're basically
| saying "We're going to block ads from Google, but we're going to
| show you our own ads, because ours are privacy-friendly!" They
| are adding a subscription feature though, so that might hopefully
| be a solution.
| jarenmf wrote:
| But you can easily disable the ads if you don't like them
| xNeil wrote:
| 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.
| waltherg wrote:
| I thought the point of those ads wasn't that Brave make
| money but that you accrue those Brave tokens as a
| representation of your attention and get to send those
| tokens to publishers of your choice via the browser?
|
| Also, I turned them off as these ads are quite annoying and
| have a "cheap feel" to them.
| xNeil wrote:
| Brave does make money off of them - they get 30%, you get
| 70%, I believe.
|
| And yes, the idea of sending BAT to websites directly was
| excellent. The website needs to have registered for the
| BAT wallet though. (Not a big deal, of course)
| jarenmf wrote:
| 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.
| xNeil wrote:
| 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.
| eredengrin wrote:
| > 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.
| xNeil wrote:
| 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!
| Apocryphon wrote:
| It seems pretty common for tech companies/projects touting
| openness and freedom becoming that which they fight against.
| Witness all of the issues Firefox have fallen prey over the
| years. I remember a decade ago when Ubuntu first added Amazon
| integration into search results. CyanogenMod losing its way,
| the company behind it commercializing it and signing the
| partnership with Microsoft. Seems like it happens a lot.
| qzw wrote:
| From the FAQ:
|
| > Brave Playlist supports most open web standards. However, it
| does not currently support Digital Rights Management (DRM) tools
| or media delivery services (e.g. Spotify or Netflix).
|
| Other than that, seems like a handy app, especially now that
| travel is on the upswing again.
| pierrec wrote:
| Stock pictures never cease to amaze. What a mind-bending collage:
| https://brave.com/static-assets/images/optimized/playlist-pl...
| turblety wrote:
| 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...
| goodcjw2 wrote:
| This seems to be bypassing all the ads in YT? Basically we can
| get Youtube Premium for free here? Wondering what's the legal
| implication for brave.com to make such as app?
|
| edit: I could be completely over thinking this.
| goodcjw2 wrote:
| Actually, I should have catch up a bit about what brave is. For
| those who have just heard about this like me:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OG981gXqdU4
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Youtube-dl also gives you this ability. My sense is that Google
| doesn't like it but doesn't want to deal with the PR fallout of
| banning tools like youtube-dl at the moment. Perhaps if this
| gets popular enough Google will do something.
| rvp-x wrote:
| NewPipe isn't on the Google Play store. I assume that this
| app can't be either.
| asadlionpk wrote:
| 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.
| johnthuss wrote:
| If this gains any kind of traction I will be shocked if Google
| doesn't squash its ability to access YouTube videos. Google can't
| be ok with this.
| devmunchies wrote:
| I think creating BAT was one of the smartest things Brave did.
| How is that relevant?
|
| It has > $2billion market cap. They don't need Google's money
| like Mozilla.
|
| This feature allows you to download a youtube video and watch it
| offline. It also lets you play it in background mode so you can
| listen to audio with the screen off. Google doesn't let you do
| that unless you pay for youtube.
|
| And on the bottom of this announcement, I see a link to another
| Brave project, a search engine: https://brave.com/search/
| gowld wrote:
| Is that $2billion in spendable money for Brave? If people use
| BATs to pay publishers, that's not Brave's money.
| SheinhardtWigCo wrote:
| They hold 13.3% of all BAT.
| PascLeRasc wrote:
| How many US Dollars can they extract from that before all
| the selling crashes the price?
| SheinhardtWigCo wrote:
| 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.
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _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)?
| xNeil wrote:
| 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.
| devmunchies wrote:
| 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.
| xNeil wrote:
| Alright, glad I could help!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-06 23:01 UTC)