Why are they even charging you for lyrics to begin with? It's not like they write them. It costs nothing to give you that feature for free.
Kind of like the YouTube app requiring a subscription for background playing. It's a basic function that does not cost them anything, yet they break it to sell it back to you.
Stripping extremely basic features away and locking them behind paywalls is shitty and should be called out as such, full stop.
I wonder if you can get around that by altering the metadata on the local files to make it a slightly different version of the same song. The deluxe album version vs the regular, etc.
Oh interesting. I was actually about to verify that myself, opened the app to find apparently Apple has started blocking Apple Music on rooted Androids.
Just in case that's a consideration for anyone else.
I tried Apple Music recently, and while I wasn't impressed by the platform, one thing I was legitimately taken aback by was how much effort they put into the lyrics. The little animations as the lyrics follow the song, where the words move in different ways based on the song in question, it's really aesthetically pleasing.
Some of the animations definitely feel programmed by employees who are genuine fans of the artist; it doesn't feel generic or auto generated. The little ways the animations move along with certain inflections in the singer's delivery, or react to minor shifts in tone. There's some care being taken with them, song by song. I was legitimately impressed, and I seldom ever have anything nice to say about Apple.
It wasn't enough to keep me paying for it but I genuinely enjoyed it quite a bit.
Spotify had the best UX of any music streaming service for the longest time
Not if you actually like have controls and managing music. They've been actively fucking their UX's usability for years. Options just disappearing or being moved to hidden places, garbage shoved in front you constantly, etc.
I used to recommend Deezer, mostly for the fact it was the closest to what Google Play Music used to be in terms of layout and functions. But recently they decided to do a downright gross redesign and then actively insulted paying customers that didn't like it. So they're out.
YouTube Music is trash and I'm not paying Google for anything anyway, after they killed Play Music.
So I tried Apple Music (from an iPad I barely ever use), then Tidal, and honestly? They're all doing the same things. Some are in different states of enshitification, but they're all on the same road. What Spotify gets away with, all the others eventually attempt or copy. The problem is simply the industry and customers that allow the abuse.
But if you must use one, I would suggest Tidal. It seems the least far along the path, but it'll get there too.
And remember, there are services like Soundiiz and TuneMyMusic that will help you transfer and sync across all these services. They're not perfect, but they're better than nothing.
I'm getting ready to start curating my own collection again with Lidarr and Jellyfin but that might be a bit involved for most people.
it will not be the fault of the protest voter if Trump is elected. The questions remain: does the Democratic party fear Trump as much as we do?
If you fear him, why would you not assist in preventing his rise?
If you give a shit about Palestine, why would you not support the better candidate for them? You think Trump will do anything to make this situation better?
The logical fallacy at play here is so glaring I can't believe these journalists are willing to put their name to it.
Aside: when I can no longer download videos to avoid ads, I'll stop watching YouTube videos.
Why do people keep saying this like it's a "fuck you"? They know, and they don't care. If you're not watching the ads or paying for the subscription, they don't give a damn what you do.
I mean, I agree with the sentiment, but the way people keep spitting these words out with such spite and aggression is just funny to me.
"If you stop me from watching YouTube, I'm going to stop watching YouTube. I'm fucking serious."
Should probably also be acknowledged that the sample size is not going to be the same.
You're going to get a bunch of people piling in to highly rate the early episodes that they remember watching when they were kids, but a significantly lower number are going to be voting on the episodes that came later.
Really the whole premise of trying to compare and contrast the seasons for such a long running show that existed before IMDb even started is flawed on many levels.
The way the Internet talks about the Simpsons is so damn annoying. The vast, vast majority of them haven't actually watched an episode and formed their own opinion on it in over a decade, they just keep repeating the same tired meme over and over again.
Long running shows have different writers coming and going, therefore quality fluctuates up and down over time. That's one of the nice things about a long running show: it gets to experiment and let new blood invigorate new life into it. There is no singular "death", there's just hills and valleys.
How do you know they suck ass if you haven't watched them?
Legitimately, what is it about the Internet and this show specifically where people feel compelled to sound off on something they are not actually watching, and haven't watched in years?
Why are they even charging you for lyrics to begin with? It's not like they write them. It costs nothing to give you that feature for free.
Kind of like the YouTube app requiring a subscription for background playing. It's a basic function that does not cost them anything, yet they break it to sell it back to you.
Stripping extremely basic features away and locking them behind paywalls is shitty and should be called out as such, full stop.