[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)