[PoC] Spotify Web Player - Page 2 - maemo.org

coderus | # 11 | 2016-01-22, 15:06 | Report

Sure, years old never-released stuff is so cool

nodevel | # 12 | 2016-01-22, 15:11 | Report

Originally Posted by coderus View Post

Sure, years old never-released stuff is so cool

Ah, the old reading ability problem...

Please read again what I wrote. Even if I was talking about what you think I did, June 9th 2015 is hardly years in the past.

PS: With respect. Not trying to be rude, just trying to get to your usual level, coderus

youmeego | # 13 | 2016-01-22, 15:47 | Report

Originally Posted by nodevel View Post

I don't see what's the problem with the premium access. It the few €/$ of support to the artists you listen to (+plus a company that offers Linux apps and open API) too much?

However, if the non-premium option support is added at some point, I hope it will not feature any hacks for downloading+ripping the music. I think it is quite unfair to both artists and the company and it would likely mean just another nail to the coffin of native libspotify.

Spotify has some cool guys working for them, so please don't screw them this way...

EDIT: To be clear, I would not have much of a moral problem with such hack if there was no official native library (like libspotify), but there is. The same applies to other companies that refuse to support alternative clients - I think some workarounds are just. But that's not the case with Spotify...

That "official" Spotify app for Sailfish seems like it will never release to the public.

nodevel | # 14 | 2016-01-22, 15:59 | Report

Originally Posted by youmeego View Post

That "official" Spotify app for Sailfish seems like it will never release to the public.

Yep, but I am talking about the official native library - libspotify. Even though it is quite outdated, it is a native Linux library directly from Spotify. Without it, there would be no CuteSpot, no Spotlight for Kodi, etc.

As I said, I have no problems with unofficial apps (quite the opposite - I usually prefer them to the official ones), but I don't see the point of trying to come up with a hack to have offline music for free, when for just a few €/$, you could instead support both artists and a company that has been quite friendly to both Linux community and 3rd party apps.

Yet at the same time, people throw money at any attempt to have a working Whatsapp client and until now (before it became free) had no problem with paying to the company, that is actively hostile to 3rd party apps. Oh well...

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to nodevel For This Useful Post:
Casanunda, itdoesntmatt

coderus | # 15 | 2016-01-22, 16:47 | Report

Don't worry, my project is not even funded yet, and i'm not willing to opensource it

nodevel | # 16 | 2016-01-22, 19:33 | Report

Originally Posted by coderus View Post

Don't worry, my project is not even funded yet, and i'm not willing to opensource it

You may have misunderstood

I definitely welcome any effort on another Spotify client using newer API (I did some simple proof of concept myself, when CuteSpot did not have playlist management*) and I'd be glad to contribute to the funding - especially if it was under an open license, but either way.

I am just expressing my opinion that people should not only support their developers (they definitely should, it's not an easy job), but also the artists and the company that made the client possible via an open API in the first place. So that's why I think they should either go for (quite cheap) premium, or at least "suffer" through the ads if they are not willing/able to. It will definitely help to keep the API open at the very least.

*I also haven't open sourced my "client", but I will if someone asks me to

The Following User Says Thank You to nodevel For This Useful Post:
Casanunda