Hacker News Reader

Comment by grose | Hacker News Reader

I tried to make this after Google Play Music died, but I never found any success.

Here's my site. You can try it for free: https://inter.tube

It supports almost all of Subsonic (highly recommend play:Sub on iOS). FLAC works. I never re-encode your songs, they are kept byte-for-byte. It doesn't support Last.fm (yet?) but I don't think it would be too hard to add. It respects metadata tags. There are still some glitches, and the web player kind of sucks. You can (batch) edit metadata on the web but it does not change the file, just the web/API interfaces.

To be honest I have mostly lost motivation to work on this, but I was aiming at exactly the pain points the author of this article describes. Send me an email (profile) or tweet/comment if you think it's worth pursuing again.

View on HN

Quick update: I think uploading might be kinda totally messed up right now. I'll check it later after I'm done with my day job. Sorry everyone and thanks for trying it out. Send me an e-mail if you see any bugs and I will take a look.

New update! Thanks to some helpful new users e-mailing me, I think I figured out what was wrong with it. It was a cache issue (of course). I have disabled the cache stuff for now, and hopefully it should work again. If you have already uploaded some tracks and they didn't show up, they should show up now.

I signed up. This is a thing I would love! A smaller plan would be great or a yearly cost. I pay for subsonic ($12/yr) and would love a remote service for my music host. It’s the main reason I leave my tower on 24/7!

Great project!

Like a 25gb-1$ plan. Or 20$ annual.

I like this idea. I'm going to look into adding a small annual plan. BTW, currently you never lose access to your files even if you don't pay so feel free to use the site for free and wait until I get the annual plan in.

A smaller plan would be great. I like the idea of 25 or 50G. I would never use anywhere close to 250G.

But at the very least I'm going to try it out. Looks great from the outside.

The page does not make it clear how it works.

This is how a technically inclined but maybe less so than your current users may see this: Like its a kind of Dropbox? With folders and whatnot? But with a Music player App to play the music on various devices, which will stream the music from that drop box?

So it’s like a Spotify, except it takes the music from this drop box like thing instead of their server? For which operating systems do u have music player apps? Android, iOS, windows, macOS, Linux? What do these apps look like, where’s the link to those apps?

How do I upload data, via the website? Or is there another app? How about some screen shots to see how it’s uploaded and then played?

Thanks for the feedback. Agreed it's not presented well. It's kind of like Dropbox. You can upload files from your browser, and you can also listen to your music in your browser. It supports an open protocol called Subsonic. There are Subsonic apps for various OSs. But, we don't have our own native app. I definitely need screenshots / open demo page.

Thanks for the answer! How about a paragraph like this:

Inter.tube let’s you easily store your music collection in your own cloud and listen to it on all your devices. It's kind of like Dropbox, but focused on storing and streaming music. You can upload files (mp3, Flac, …) from your browser, and you can listen to your music either with your browser or via music apps. We don’t have our own native music playing App. You can use any music playing app that supports an open protocol called “Subsonic”. There are Subsonic apps for various OSs, including Android and iOS. See our list of recommended apps [here].

This is awesome. Why do you think you never found success with it?

Agreed — I love the simplicity. In a perfect world I want this with server-side Last.fm support and a plain, reliable iOS app.

I'll look into serverside Last.fm support. I think it should be relatively easy to add. Agreed that an app would be awesome but I don't have the resources for it :(. The web interface works decently as a PWA (at least on Android according to testers, it has MediaSession support and stuff) but it's still kind of bad, definitely not a real app substitute.

For client side last.fm support the site could be added to this web-extension.

https://github.com/web-scrobbler/web-scrobbler/

assuming the UI expresses meta data in an easily scrapable way.

Thanks! Good question, I think it's probably mostly a mental block on being "done". There was always "one more feature" I wanted to add before trying to market it. The feature I can most think of right now is playlists. They are supported in Subsonic but not the web UI.

Currently I have exactly 2 customers, who are pretty much friends helping me test. The good news is the site is optimized for being set-it-and-forget-it (all serverless arch) so just having one customer is enough to break even.

I can't experience this easily.

Have a really small demo tier or a demo account, say with public domain classical and jazz standards, just something basic.

The demo tier could be phone number based, then a write once system, let's say 100mb ... something really token.

You could even have a few sample tunes everyone gets by default. Rhapsody in Blue by George Gershwin is in public domain for instance as are say, the rags of Scott Joplin, Debussy's Deux Arabesques, etc.

If that doesn't onboard people then have a no-hassles 7 day refund. If someone gives you money but then decides they don't want it, have it built in the interface they can back out for 100% money back in 7 days.

That is a great idea. I definitely need a demo page.

oh i see you do have a 14 day demo ... it wasn't clear to me. that's a design issue. You need to push the lede up.

"Free 2 week demo. No credit card needed. [Try it now]"

"Register" is too committal ... try things like "get started" or "try it out" - more action, result and experience oriented.

Lastly on the technicals, look into https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/MediaSessio...

this will allow you to navigate through things when listening over bluetooth using the media buttons. I'm sorry for the rather advanced example but here's how I use it to navigate through hierarchy with double and triple tapping: https://github.com/kristopolous/music-explorer/blob/master/w...

> "Free 2 week demo. No credit card needed. [Try it now]"

> "Register" is too committal ...

I actually didn't notice the "No credit card needed" until I had written a long explanation :-)

That is how hard the "Free demo" has been abused to snag my credit card, so maybe experiment with some variations as long as it doesn't delay launch :-D (FWIW: personally, with my background and as a non-native speaker, "register" doesn't sound as scary as "Free 2 weeks demo".)

You gotta pair it with "no card needed" otherwise it sounds suss.

There's other ways. "Upgrade to a paid account if you like it" works. "Upgrade" implies work. "Paid" implies the work is paying. Thus the thing you're currently engaging with doesn't need payment.

You can also call it "Free tier" which has "14 day expiration" as a stipulation.

There's no best practice here because it's dependent on the product, value proposition, where you are in the funnel and who the customer is. They'll perform differently and counterintuitively and most frustratingly, change over time (because the context of the relationship between your prospect and product is always dynamic)

The truths that do hold are,

1. Make it sound casual

2. Avoid hustle language

3. Give an easy exit strategy

4. Make it clear and direct

ok tried it out.

I don't think I'm your customer here.

I think the parting advice I can give is <all products are relationships>. The interface and experience defines this relationship. We shape our buildings and thereafter they shape us or the interface sets the terms of the engagement or the medium is the message. It's been stated a myriad of ways.

I kinda hated "Selling the invisible" by Harry Beckwith but out of the 100 or so marketing and product development books I've read, I think, for you in particular, a weekend paging through that book might really help you here. You have to read it as an analogy of how to design software of course.

> Rhapsody in Blue by George Gershwin is in public domain for instance as are say, the rags of Scott Joplin, Debussy's Deux Arabesques, etc.

I could be wrong about this, but aren’t individual performances of these works still protected? If I record an album of works by Debussy that performance isn’t in the public domain and couldn’t be used as sample tracks.

Yes. But they can also be in the clear depending on who does it and how they choose to license it.

If the performer doesn't mind and the work is public domain then it's an easy path

For example, here's the famous Waldstein by Beethoven performed explicitly as a free and open recording

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ludwig_van_Beethov...

Funny apocryphal story about that song. For a long time I had got in my head that was extremely disruptive for the time. I envisioned men with powdered wigs running distressfully throughout the aisles as he plays the work for the first time as their wives fan themselves and couch faint in the seats.

I still think that every time I hear it and I think it's hilarious to imagine European high society losing their composure over this sonata. This and Brandenburg Concerto No. 3 are ridiculously close to modern music structure. That's a 110bpm breakbeat done with violins you're hearing.

A source for Creative Commons (not pd) classical music...

https://www.gardnermuseum.org/experience/music

These are recordings of live performances by a variety of musicians from a long lasting podcast series.

Licence

https://www.gardnermuseum.org/organization/rights-reproducti...

and scroll down.

https://musopen.org/music/performer/isabella-stewart-gardner...

I've just discovered that the ISGM library has been uploaded to musopen.org which is good as the ISGM Web page has a pretty basic search function.

I've built sites like this; clear, concise, to the point. Not many people used them.

Once I started adding a bit more "flair" to it, things got traction. I'm not talking a complete redesign, but I too had to go back to capitalizing words, adding color, and caring about the "experience" for the market I was aiming to capture.

I hated it, I still do, but I hate it less after seeing success with the changes I was willing to concede on. Just sayin'.

Yeah I feel you. It might feel kind of like "selling out" but making it professional is almost certainly the better choice for things like this, especially if you have to pay money for it.

As a concept I absolutely LOVE no-BS sites like this. The downside is that they make the service appear simple enough that I could code one myself, specific to my needs, and/or self-host it - inevitably neither happen! - so I just don't sign up in the end.

Because devices change all the time and most people don’t even have a repository of music files they keep. To even start using this service in earnest requires all that. This dude made the perfect thing for a period that existed like 20 years ago.

I had the same first thought, but I'm not sure it's as big as a problem as you make it out to be. I know plenty of people who still have music in the form of mp3's. One of the biggest issues the service has is being able to reach the right people. I don't really have a solution for that. GPM was used by millions of people, the service doesn't need millions of users to be successful. It can still be a valuable product that serves a niche audience.

Agreed. Personally I like to support the artists directly by buying their albums in MP3/FLAC form (and going to their shows) so I know I'll have a high quality backup forever. I am not a big fan of streaming services like Spotify, although I will certainly admit that it is way easier to use them than to manage your own music library.

I will go with the home page has a very old-looking/nerd-looking look.

Did you ever try to promote it in Hydrogenaudio? Is "the" music enthusiasts forum.

I didn't really promote it anywhere, except I posted on the Google Play Music Reddit I think. I got some good feedback from there. TBH I have no idea how to market things. Not sure how to toe the line between "hey I want to make something cool for you" and spamming. I'll check that out though. I definitely had music enthusiasts in mind, I understand their hatred for re-encoding :)

The people who can work soulseek and/or cdparanoia are plenty capable of hosting their own streaming platform. Atleast now in 2023 I think.

It's a cool project nonetheless. I'd love to be proven wrong.

This seems like a good fit, but I'd echo some other requests on here for yearly plan (hate monthly), and playlists. I personally am fine with the barebones aesthetic but you may want to do a bit more for general marketability.

Good job!

I really like this. I'd say the only thing I'm missing is being able to make custom playlists like Spotify. I think there are plenty of people who still have their own music that might find this useful, but I have no idea how you might reach these people.

edit: I may have found a bug? I uploaded multiple remixes of a song and it only shows the original version. I don't see a way to see what raw files are being stored, which I think would be incredibly helpful.

edit2: Oh, I guess it just generally isn't properly showing new songs atm. Ah, well. I'll try again later.

> I have no idea how you might reach these people

Being in the same market, and being frustrated my service isn't even mentioned on this page despite being mentioned in the OP, I'm interested: how would _you_ find out about this? Would you search for it? Would you expect to see it advertised somewhere?

I think I fixed the "new tracks aren't showing up" problem. Take another look and let me know if it helps.

Works again, thanks.

I like the clean style of your website.

I was looking for a service like this, Can I stream from inter.tube to Sonos?

Also, I a smaller plan would be welcome, I pay $2 to google for 100GB, I would welcome it here too.

It would need to be more than that. $2 is about the cost storing 100GB on most cloud storage services, and that's before you pay for any egress or access fees.

My secret sauce is that I'm using B2 (Backblaze) + Cloudflare Workers to save on egress fees. I am thinking of switching to Cloudflare's storage thingy as well. But bandwidth is cheap, in exchange the download speeds are not so great (CF probably better).

I hadn't seen backblazes storage pricing, it's very cheap. Even at that, 100GB of storage is ~$.50/month. $2 is tight. I don't think it needs to be much more, but probably close to $3-$4 I would say.

(1) could you hash everyone's mp3 files so that if person a had the same songs as person b, you only need to store them once? (2) people obviously storing copyright stuff in there -- do you have legal issues?

Thats's a good idea! I think I will add a smaller plan later. Please check back soon (might take a few days, looks like I have lots of bugs to squash)! The prices are more or less a direct reflection of the potential fees so it should totally possible to do a small plan.

BTW I should also mention that if you don't pay after the trial, it never actually locks you out. I haven't coded that part yet and it I feel bad about charging for buggy software so it's more of a donation at the moment. So feel free to use it for free and contribute if you like it later on.

Thanks. How about Sonos? I don't mind paying $5 but it makes no sense to me without Sonos.

PS: I hate Sonos, but I am locked in :)

Not sure tbh, need to figure out how Sonos works first. If there’s an API or something I could implement I’d be interested in doing it.

Nice service!

I am wondering about the legal part. Because the users store licensed files on your server, then you "distribute" it back to them, could it be any licensing problem?

I assume it could also be solved by encrypting the file, so you only store encrypted files on your server, and only the user/owner of that song can decode it.

> could it be any licensing problem

No more than storing your legally-archived CDs on <insert cloud storage service>, I would imagine.

IANAL, of course, but intuitively there shouldn't be any issues as long as the songs aren't made available to anyone other than the user who uploaded it.

There was a startup a while ago called mp3.com[1], their model was:

1. put your CD in your computer

2. our website recognizes the CD

3. we grant you listening access to songs on that CD (without actually ripping/uploading)

They got sued and lost:

>Judge Jed S. Rakoff, in the case UMG v. MP3.com, ruled in favor of the record labels against MP3.com and the service on the copyright law provision of "making mechanical copies for commercial use without permission from the copyright owner."

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3.com#My.MP3.com

That's interesting, although one of the comments in this thread mentioned Capitol Records v. MP3Tunes [1], a similar case tried in the same court 10 years later.

MP3Tunes 'won' in principle but they were liable for ignoring DMCA takedown notices and seeding the service with unauthorized copies of music.

> First, it established DMCA safe harbor protection for online locker services, potentially granting them "broad immunity from copyright liability". Second, it endorsed data deduplication, which allows cloud music services to more efficiently allocate storage and reduce the amount of space needed per user.

I would be curious to know why the rulings were different. If anything it seems like MP3.com provided stronger guarantees that their users legally owned the songs by requiring them to insert a CD.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_Inc._v._MP3Tu...

Thank you! The way I tried to solve this problem is by using signed URLs for the files. So every file URL should only be accessible to a user with the matching credentials. At least, that's the idea :-)

What if the user shares that URL with someone? Or the URL is only accessible if you are signed-in?

Signed URLs (or pre-signed URLs) typically expire after a short time frame. The idea is that they exist for long enough for the object in question to be retrieved in the application, and they then automatically expire. Although they don't typically have a single-use limitation, this is often the intention a developer has when using a pre-signed URL.

Yep! It's a bit of a balancing act because you want the files to be cache friendly (skipping tracks back and forth shouldn't make you download it every time) but you also don't want people to abuse (share) them. You can also restrict the signed URLs by IP address but that can cause trouble for people with dynamic IPs so I opted not to do that.

Did you consider the outgoing traffic in the pricing or just storage?

Traffic is "free" through one crazy trick, the Bandwidth Alliance (B2 + Cloudflare). I stole the idea from this blog post: https://jross.me/free-personal-image-hosting-with-backblaze-...

Very affordable pricing for the storage offered.

Awkward question, but have you encountered a license shakedown yet?

I have not. I tried to be careful about the data, so each user has their “own copy” of the song so it’s essentially a dumb file backup service at its core. I wanted to avoid doing anything that could be sketchy or misconstrued as file sharing. I hope that’s enough but I honestly have no idea.

See Capitol Records v. MP3Tunes; the courts have got your back.

Wow this is exactly what I wanted to know! Thank you so much. I feel less worried now. This also means I can dedupe files!!

More info: <https://www.wired.com/2011/08/cloudmusic-is-not-a-crime/>

HN comments: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2914779>

Reply on news.ycombinator.com