

Spotify - Chrome Web Store - jacobwg
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/spotify-music-for-every-m/cnkjkdjlofllcpbemipjbcpfnglbgieh

======
bsimpson
Isn't this just a bookmark for <http://play.spotify.com/> ?

~~~
mrinterweb
I has always bothered me that Google is branding a bookmark with an icon as an
"app". Current app counts: Apple app store ~= 800K, Google Play ~= 900K,
Chrome apps = number of URLs on the internet.

~~~
earbitscom
There is a bunch of functionality that you can do with Chrome apps, such as
desktray alerts, background music streaming, etc. Most of the "apps" in the
store do not do this and are mostly just links to sites, but there are plenty
of things you can do with Chrome as an app that go beyond regular browser
capabilities.

~~~
mrinterweb
Those are features of Chrome and not really an "app". It is not new for web
developers to target specific features of a web browser. I have not qualms
about calling Chrome apps that can be ran offline apps. Perhaps I am looking
at this from the wrong perspective. For Chrome OS, a link that is acting like
an app that you can "Alt+Tab" to would play better into the idea of an app
than another tab in your Chrome browser. Almost every "app" on the chrome
store I have interacted with has been an app-like icon that is a link to a URL
that functions identically in Firefox or other browsers.

~~~
bsimpson
I think earbitscom is talking about the protected APIs in Chrome. There are
APIs that regular web sites get and there are APIs that extensions/packaged
apps get (like local file storage). Chrome Web Store is still a weird concept
for me, but especially so when most of the 'apps' are, as you mention, fancy
bookmarks.

------
steeve
Am I the only one that actually prefers to use a desktop app for listening to
music?

I mean, media keys integration, faster UI... The biggest selling point for
Spotify to me was how _fast_ it would play songs...

------
rguldener
Note that it is still US only though, if you are based in a different country
it will just forward you to the Spotify homepage.

On a different note, does anybody know why they started with native clients
instead of one web client? I can think of some advantages of native clients
(P2P streaming as the have it, better OS integration etc.) but when compared
to the big disadvantage of having to maintain two codebases (Win + OS X) and
deliver updates to both I would expect it to require more resources for them
than one web client for all.

~~~
pifflesnort
> _... but when compared to the big disadvantage of having to maintain two
> codebases ..._

It's about your users, not your developers. Of course it costs more to provide
a better product, which was the original reasoning behind providing native
desktop applications.

What they're doing now has more to do with politics and skillsets amongst
traditionally web-focused engineering management and teams, than it does with
actually creating a great product. Spotify has a ridiculously hard time hiring
outside their management's core competency of web-focused development,
including both for mobile and desktop. That has more to do with their
management than the job market, though.

As an aside, I can't say I understand _why_ web developers find it so
impossible to migrate to mobile/desktop. Time and time again we work with
organizations who have built a large server-side web-focused team and somehow
simply cannot manage to support the mobile/desktop. What kinds of engineers
are they hiring that they can't learn a new platform?

~~~
untog
_What kinds of engineers are they hiring that they can't learn a new
platform?_

Speaking as a web developer, I can tell you that I am perfectly able to
transition to making desktop apps, I just have no incentive to. There are
fewer and fewer desktop apps out there, so it's not a great use of my time to
learn those skills.

Back to the Spotify player, the web client makes far more sense than a desktop
one to me. All the music is stored in the cloud, so why do I have to download
a desktop client on every machine I use to access it? It seems horribly
backward to me.

~~~
pifflesnort
> _Speaking as a web developer, I can tell you that I am perfectly able to
> transition to making desktop apps, I just have no incentive to. There are
> fewer and fewer desktop apps out there, so it's not a great use of my time
> to learn those skills._

Funny that you speak of it as a dead market, when A) The skill cross-over
between desktop and mobile is direct, B) There's a _huge_ amount of
unfulfilled demand for mobile developers, and C) There's an enormously
underserved desktop market (see also: Spotify, Netflix, HBO Go).

> _Back to the Spotify player, the web client makes far more sense than a
> desktop one to me. All the music is stored in the cloud, so why do I have to
> download a desktop client on every machine I use to access it? It seems
> horribly backward to me._

Running a full fledged browser, with the resulting poor application UX, for a
lightweight task as music streaming, seems horribly backwards to me.

All I want when music is streaming is a miniplayer, not a web browser. It
should work with the play/pause/skip buttons on my keyboard/headphones,
support airplay streaming, be able to integrate with my music library, and
otherwise fit in nicely to my desktop/mobile experience.

If I worked for Spotify, Hulu, Netflix, or HBO (Go) (which I wouldn't, because
they're myopically web-focused), I'd be beating the war drums to provide
better, more engaging user experiences via native applications for not just
mobile, but desktop too.

Unfortunately, it winds up being a catch 22. They build technological
monocultures (web-focused), can't hire for alternative platforms, contract out
the mobile development, and then the web developers use their political
positioning to try to turn everything into a bad shell around a web rendering
view. The users lose.

~~~
untog
Perhaps a better way to look at it is this- when I have a great job doing web
development and see job listings all over the place for other rewarding web
roles, where is my incentive to do desktop development- even if it's close to
the (much more booming) mobile app space? The web is in no danger of dying or
getting less popular any time too soon.

 _Running a full fledged browser, with the resulting poor application UX, for
a lightweight task as music streaming, seems horribly backwards to me._

But that isn't why I'm running it. I have a web browser open every minute I'm
using my computer, so it's already there. The browser is a multitasking
application itself, so using it for music streaming fits in great. I haven't
used the Spotify web player, but Rdio has been web-based from the start, and
has been great.

~~~
pifflesnort
> _Perhaps a better way to look at it is this- when I have a great job doing
> web development and see job listings all over the place for other rewarding
> web roles, where is my incentive to do desktop development- even if it's
> close to the (much more booming) mobile app space? The web is in no danger
> of dying or getting less popular any time too soon._

Because it would provide a better product for your users, which is the whole
point.

It also shouldn't be hard to do. A senior engineer that can't easily jump on
new technology stacks is not a senior engineer.

> _But that isn't why I'm running it. I have a web browser open every minute
> I'm using my computer, so it's already there. The browser is a multitasking
> application itself, so using it for music streaming fits in great. I haven't
> used the Spotify web player, but Rdio has been web-based from the start, and
> has been great._

An arbitrarily resizable browser window/tab that looks like every other
browser window on my desktop, which can't share state between multiple
windows, and can't interact with my desktop in any meaningful way, doesn't use
native components, goes wonky if I reload, and goes away if I have to restart
my browser.

That doesn't make sense. This makes sense: <http://www.pandabarapp.com/>

~~~
mynameisvlad
I like how you're talking about good user experiences and then use that as an
example.

Furthermore, that wouldn't as easily transfer to Windows since taskbar
notification icons are routinely hidden.

~~~
pifflesnort
> _I like how you're talking about good user experiences and then use that as
> an example._

What's your point?

> _Furthermore, that wouldn't as easily transfer to Windows since taskbar
> notification icons are routinely hidden._

Mac OS X isn't Windows. Part of writing native applications is working with
established platform conventions and user expectations, not trying to rubber
stamp the same thing everywhere.

~~~
mynameisvlad
> What's your point?

It's ugly. It doesn't look nice in the slightest. It doesn't scream to me
"Boy, this looks like an awesome user experience. I better try it out!"

> Mac OS X isn't Windows. Part of writing native applications is working with
> established platform conventions and user expectations, not trying to rubber
> stamp the same thing everywhere.

Then there is no good user experience for Windows. There goes your UX angle.

~~~
pifflesnort
> _It's ugly. It doesn't look nice in the slightest. It doesn't scream to me
> "Boy, this looks like an awesome user experience. I better try it out!"_

Why is it ugly? What, _specifically_ is wrong with the UX?

~~~
mynameisvlad
The UI is non-standard:

\- The buttons aren't styled like Cocoa buttons

\- The gradient is non-standard

\- Why is there so much lime green?

\- Why is there a lime green border?

\- The images don't look like they scale well, they look blurry and not very
well defined, even in the screenshots

It's supposed to be a Mac app but it doesn't use any of the guidelines
published by Apple on conformity in the UI. That makes for a horrible user
experience, especially when your app is made for the platform which embraces
uniformity across its apps. It is not using any UI elements which the user is
accustomed to, instead opting for custom-styled everything.

~~~
pifflesnort
These are all aesthetic complaints, not UX complaints. The UX is standard.

Now, I actually happen to agree that it's not the prettiest app. But it is a
very usable app, in ways that a web browser music player is not.

I also get the impression that you're just being willfully contrary and not
particularly genuine.

------
pvnick
Good to see another groundbreaking Spotify "innovation."

I remember Grooveshark getting into the chrome web store almost two years ago.

~~~
markzuckerwho
I definitely don't see Spotify parading around calling this a groundbreaking
"innovation." It's convenient for people like me that use Spotify 24/7 and
want the choice between web and desktop.

------
mase
Finally! Web-based browser. It's actually pretty good. I like the interactions

~~~
Goopplesoft
play.spotify.com has been around for a while.

------
therofler
Why have Spotify decided to make a Chrome web app rather than just making a
normal website, such as Grooveshark?

~~~
myko
The 'web app' is really just a bookmark for: <http://play.spotify.com/>

Hopefully they add some other features like storing music locally, which might
require more Chrome integration (I don't really know).

~~~
lucid00
They could store music locally using the File System API and Encrypted Media
Extensions (to make the labels happy), but seeing as no one has done this
before it probably won't happen for a while.

------
nemof
Seems really dumb to not mention that a) you need to be signed up to the web
player beta and b) although they mention Collections, the collections feature
_still_ isn't live, and in fact is just a poor choice of wording on the
chromestore page.

------
ra
It downloads and installs something, but then clicking on it just send me to
the Spotify homepage.

Not the experience I was expecting, Spotify.

------
pokoleo
Maybe I'm missing something because I'm not in the US - what's so special
about this?

It looks like merely a link to the Spotify website.

~~~
jacobwg
For those in the Spotify web app beta, this is a link to an entirely web-based
version of Spotify. If you have a Spotify account, but don't yet have access
to the web version, check out
[http://howto.cnet.com/8301-11310_39-57551372-285/enable-
spot...](http://howto.cnet.com/8301-11310_39-57551372-285/enable-spotifys-web-
player-right-now/).

