What makes you think Spotify is killing it? I know they aren't supporting FLAC but otherwise I don't think they're actively trying to stop it as opposed to not really caring if they support it (which is more "We don't care" as opposed to "We have to stop this")

▲

earcar 21 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Author here.

I haven't seen any evidence of Spotify killing librespot. To me the project looks active and works totally fine. I don't have a new Spotify account to verify the claim above.

I suspect wilted-iris is conflating it with the recent changes to the Web APIs: new developer apps can't use all endpoints anymore. In Fastpotify if you add your Client ID I use both an older developer app and your app to keep everything as fast and seamless as possible.

	▲	wilted-iris 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Have a look at the librespot pinned issues, you’ll see the reports from folks experiencing this. You may also be able to find the legal threats they sent out to third party client libraries if you search carefully (many have been redacted.)

▲

wilted-iris a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Librespot no longer works for new accounts. APIs are being gated off and they’re applying legal pressure to dissuade projects from reverse engineering anything new. At the end of the day, they can turn the tap off anytime they want, whether by technical or legal means. I tired of having so much of my music experience at risk and chose to migrate on my own terms.

▲

inigyou a day ago | parent [-]

They can only turn the tap off because those projects operated in ways that required them to leave it on.

Biggest mistake most librefication projects make is to do their project out in the open where they can easily be subject to legal pressure, then fall into complete disarray the moment that pressure appears. They can't move underground once pressure starts, because everyone already knows who they are.

▲

selfhoster1312 a day ago | parent | next [-]

> Biggest mistake most librefication projects make is to do their project out in the open

That's not it. Most youtube downloaders are not developed in the open and Youtube still breaks them every other week by changing on purpose the way they operate. And, unlike highly obfuscated instructions, studying the network queries used by a simple app does not require expensive reverse engineering efforts from Spotify engineers; essentially, it's the same as developing in the open.

The only case i can think where obfuscation might help would be if the actual Spotify API consumers were servers by the app developers (or some form of obfuscation via residential proxies) and the app developed an entirely different API to/from its servers. But then, you're back to the developers and hosts can receive legal threats, etc...

▲

port11 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Bit of an unfair take.

You propose the open-source community operates behind closed doors like the very software they aim to replace?

I’d argue Spotify has so little to gain by being hostile, that perhaps the lawyers are more expensive than just ignoring these pet projects (which would never gain mass adoption).

	▲	selfhoster1312 a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> the lawyers are more expensive than just ignoring these pet projects The lawyers are more expensive than happy customers staying customers because they can enjoy the client they prefer, that's for sure.
	▲	alt227 12 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> the lawyers are more expensive than just ignoring these pet projects Tell that to Nintendo