- cross-posted to:
- fediverse@lemmy.world
- opensource@lemmy.ml
- peertube@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- fediverse@lemmy.world
- opensource@lemmy.ml
- peertube@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Happy for them to be developing an app (which already appears to exist), but at ~20‰ with 16 days left… wouldn’t it be “better” to collaborate with existing apps like Pipepipe / Newpipe and direct those funds into the platform instead?
First of all there are subgoals with the first one being at 15k which is almost completed. Second of all a real peertube app is mandatory for its success, like they said 80% of people watching videos are from their phone. This app wont be a second way to watch peertube, for most it will be their entry into this ecosystem so it better be good.
I wouldn’t want to associate with an app that’s ripping off YouTube when you’re an app trying to make a better YouTube.
But also, this is open source. Who are you to say that funding an effort should go to one place and not another? I think the people who actually put effort into Peertube are best place to determine what’s good for the project.
its video sharing, its not a crazy concept, like dailymotion and vimeo have existed forever, idk if they still do lol, think social media platforms adding vidoe like facebook killed those as popular alternatives but Im prob wrong
Isn’t there already a mobile app?
Developers can focus on whatever they seem appropriate.
But I think content discover and community (lack of) are the biggest issues of peertube right now.
I hop once in a while to the main peertube site and I can never find anything remotely interesting to watch. There may be some good content, but it’s impossible to find.
Federation still is a bit broken
I’d really like to get into the app but its been hard to navigate. Do you have any recommendations for good channels?
What are your interests?
Anyway you could try following this community: https://lemmy.world/c/peertube
GrayJay has a peertube plugin which works well.
Greyjay isn’t foss
It’s free, and I see an official Github repository containing the code, is that not foss?
Source code doesn’t make it foss
Windows XP is open source by that definition
By the acronym, opening up the source code to the public would make it open source. What is Grayjay missing to be open source then? Accepting contributions?
No, that’s not how it works. It is source available
I understand what you’re saying. What would make GrayJay open source? Allowing for community contribution?
Edit: I looked it up thanks to your unhelpfullness, and open source seems to mean making the code available for the community to use, modify, and share, which Grayjay seems to do. I’m pretty sure I’m right here, but I do want to hear your definition and argument. Is your issue that the license doesn’t allow others to make money using the source code?
Open source/libre/foss all have to do with the license. Grayjay doesn’t have a license that meets the criteria because it places arbitrary restrictions on the code.
It has nothing to do with contributions. You can ship the code on a CD and that is totally fine as long as it has the proper license.
but grayjay is only for media consumption. you cannot stream nor upload videos from it
You’re right, I didn’t even think of that
I like that they are finally raising some money to do development. This is really good to see.
But it’s never going anywhere even less then lemmy. Video is expensive both in storage and bandwidth compared to text.
I think they need to find a way to distribute the heavy video parts among volunteers. I think it would be more practical to have it distributed.
Why not a PWA?
Because PWAs are terrible unfortunately.
There are tons of apps that you use that are just well packaged PWAs, packaged as an app store app, and you don’t even know about it.
PWAs only suck on when they suck, just like everything else.
There are tons of apps that you use that are just well packaged PWAs, packaged as an app store app
So… native apps, that interface with a PWA using a web view or something.
There’s the kicker.
Yep, just like electron or Tauri. A web view wrapped in a native application.
These are very common these days, it’s the same use case and value proposition. Mainly because it’s just easier to develop UIs with web technologies that look the same everywhere, never without the app.
They don’t have to be, as far as I understand it. I’ve installed a few websites as apps on my phone (because their app had trackers in it) and they can work really well. Examples are Bluesky and Flipboard.
An example where I agree with you is LinkedIn - installed as a web app due to trackers - but they know this, and the whole point of their app is to get you with Facebook and Microsoft trackers, so they make the web app experience miserable on purpose.
But (and correct me if I’m wrong) a PWA made by a non-surveillance capitalist could be just as good as a native app.
Half of the equation is that those making the PWA need to make it well. The other half is that the platform you install it on has to support it well. And Google and Apple have decided to support PWAs as little as possible (in some cases removing support for them altogether. See Apple removing the ability to use them entirely in the EU). And since those two companies make the two most commonly used mobile OS’… well it’s better to just go with a native app.
The #1 biggest problem with PWAs on iOS for example is the lack of push notification support, which for a lot of apps is a nonstarter. Is that the PWA makers fault? No. Does it make that PWA suck anyway? Yes.
You do know that a pwa can be packaged up in an app container and you won’t even be able to tell the difference?
It doesn’t actually have to operate like a pwa, and require native pwa sport.
Pwas aren’t terrible. Chrome made pwas terrible.
I’m well aware of why they’re terrible, (Safari as well). However the unfortunate result is that they are terrible.
Don’t want to log in again and again every time I clear my browser’s cookies!
That’s…literally the point of clearing cookies? Do you also complain that swimming makes you wet?
I clear cookies in my browser on exit. Because I want to clear most cookies.
I have dedicated apps for services where I don’t want to log in every time, even when they have a web version, because of the above.
I know this can be done with firefox settings (at least on desktop) but thats a hassle.
Valid. Except on some browsers e.g. Vivaldi you can put sites on a list that retain their cookies even when you clear the rest.
Well even a PWA still has to be developed and maintained.
Cool!
