11 ms·
Safari no longer supported by Spotify
- brunosutic 9y agoIs this an engineering error or an intentional move from Spotify as a company? I use Safari as my day-to-day browser (I switched from Chrome 2 years back) and I'm a satisfied user. I'd be less happy if companies started dropping Safari support.
- izacus 9y agoIt seems it's neither - Spotify is thanking you for giving them money by applying Widevine DRM, which Safari doesn't support (because Apple refuses to support DRM library from Google). You as a user are now just collateral damage from a pissing contest between two corporations and DRM :)
- gruez 9y agoHow's this bad again? Mac users can just install Firefox/Chrome/Spotify app. Sure, it's one more window, but that's about it in terms of inconvenience goes.
- gras 9y agoI think it's great, it's a blow to DRM :)
- leadingthenet 9y agoI refuse to use any other browser on a Mac. The energy consumption of Chrome, for example, is non-negligible.
- dep_b 9y agoFirefox is really pretty decent nowadays.
- smt88 9y agoDesktop Safari usage is ~2%[1], so I'd imagine this is an attempt by Spotify to flex some muscle. Since usage is so small, Spotify has the power. For a browser like Chrome, the situation would probably be reversed. 1. https://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=2&qpcustomd=0 https://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qpr...
- fabrika 9y ago~2% Safari for Mac usage is global. Spotify is doing business in 60 countries. Most of the markets are developed (no China, India or Russia) and tend to have more Mac/Safari users.
- shados 9y agoIt's still not very high though. I work on a product that supports Safari and we have like 4% usage. However, last time we introduced a bug that broke it completely (by accident), no one said anything for like, 2 months (it's a SaaS, but we still have hundreds of thousands of daily users). Turns out not only do we have very few Safari users, people are so used to Safari breaking on shit (not just ours!) they just switch to Chrome for specific tasks out of habit instead of filing issues. Safari is the somewhat inconvenient but built in browser Mac users use to save their battery life and not much else.
- yardie 9y agoOddly enough I went back to using Safari on MacOS. Battery life was big reason. The other was safari has been the only browser I can get to successfully stop playing video ads.
- hibbelig 9y agoI don't find Safari inconvenient at all. Its UI is lean, the default key bindings are nice, and with sVim it's even better.
- eridius 9y agoPeople are not used to Safari breaking regularly, that's absurd. But it's probably easier for them to run a second browser to work around broken sites than it is to figure out how to complain to the site. And having your site be broken reflects badly on you, not on Safari.
- franciscop 9y agoAs a web developer, I am sorry to tell you but Safari (and old Android browsers) are becoming the new Internet Explorer. Unsupported new features for long time and buggy behaviour makes developer's life harder, so it's normal those are the first ones to be dropped.
- mschuster91 9y agoposition:relative and percentage values in top combined, for example, are broken - and the devtools are massively behind Chrome. Not to mention the UX that it does not show you the full URL in the address bar. Guess the only thing keeping people on Safari is that it is deeply integrated into OS X and has battery life advantages over Chrome/FF.
- fauigerzigerk 9y agoWhat keeps me on Safari is that it is by far the most resource efficient browser. It keeps CPU and memory usage way way below all other browsers available on the Mac. In a couple of days Safari will start blocking autoplay videos, which is yet another reason for me to use it as my main browser.
- RubberSoul 9y agoShowing the full URL is a checkbox away in the preferences. It's listed under "Advanced" as "Show full website address".
- laveur 9y agoThanks I didn't even realize I could change this. And I would add that most people outside of developers (of any kind) probably don't care.
- mschuster91 9y ago> And I would add that most people outside of developers (of any kind) probably don't care. Showing the full URL can save you from phishing attempts, though - when you see cryptic crap, <script> or similar stuff in a page URL, you know something is fishy.
- hjnilsson 9y agoThis is the result of Apple not implementing Googles DRM solution in their browser. Since DRM is an upstream requirement from the record labels, Spotify is in a tough spot. They could conceivably offer the parts of the library that are not under DRM requirements to users though.
- rainbowmverse 9y agoI don't know that there is a DRM-free part of the library. I know I didn't get an option to add or opt out of DRM when uploading through DistroKid. All I have for comparison is Draft2Digital for eBook distribution, and it does have a DRM toggle. Though for Spotify and other streaming sites, I would want a DRM option because I provide a way for people to buy the music DRM-free in any format they want with a reasonable license.
- geocar 9y ago... or implement Fairplay DRM like NetFlix and others...
- bsg75 9y agoApple is not exactly incentivized to support a competiting music service. I'm not suggesting the lack of support is intentional on either side, but completion sometimes affects user experience.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- amelius 9y agoBrowsers are becoming too complex; this causes problems not only with compatibility but also with security. We should strip down the functionality of the browser to the bare essentials, e.g. something like WASM. Everything else can be implemented in the browser's user-space.
- StevePerkins 9y agoI hear the "Safari is the new IE" catchphrase a lot these days. But serious answers only please, does anyone know WHY Apple has let its browser go stagnant? Is this a deliberate strategic decision (i.e. to drive Apple users toward native apps?). Or pure Hanlon's razor?
- lallysingh 9y agoIt's "good enough" that it doesn't hinder the sale of Macs. The engineers can be used on different tasks. Mozilla is generally a safe option.
- twsted 9y agoSafari is not stagnant by any means. See https://webkit.org/blog/ https://webkit.org/blog/ for instance.
- jballanc 9y agoWhat makes you think Safari has gone stagnant? Apple, Microsoft, and Google all have different approaches to the consumer software that they put out. Microsoft values backwards-compatibility above all else, and Google values the bleeding edge and experimentation. Apple values predictability and ease of use. For example, Google created and deployed SPDY because they thought they had a better way to do HTTP. Eventually this turned into HTTP/2, but in the meantime Google is now faced with supporting both SPDY and HTTP/2, or deprecating and removing SPDY from Chrome. Apple, on the other hand, waited for the HTTP/2 standard to be debated and ratified before implementing and distributing it to end users. Safari is released infrequently, but when it is it only contains (mostly) solid features. However, if you value the bleeding edge and are willing to tolerate some amount of breakage, you can always install the Safari Technology Preview, which releases much more frequently.
- matwood 9y ago> does anyone know WHY Apple has let its browser go stagnant? First, prove Apple has let it stagnate. Safari continues to improve with every release. The latest tech preview scores a 459 on the html5 test. The last released version scored a 419. It's still behind the other major browsers, but stagnating implies not improving which is clearly not the case. It might be a better question to ask why hasn't Safari implemented whatever certain feature you want to use, i.e. service workers.
- gerad 9y agoI don't understand how people are discounting Safari as unused when probably about half of all web traffic comes from iphone/iPad these days, which only allows the WebKit rendering engine.
- chimeracoder 9y ago> I don't understand how people are discounting Safari as unused when probably about half of all web traffic comes from iphone/iPad these days, which only allows the WebKit rendering engine. This is referring specifically to desktop Safari. Spotify already has an iOS app.
- ricardobeat 9y agoThey also have a desktop app, so same reasoning applies.
- durango 9y agoNot really, mobile users tend to use apps more so than a browser for "things." Whereas a desktop user is the complete opposite and would most likely favor just opening a tab versus downloading an entire app.
- ad133 9y agoFrom what I gather, it's not the same case here. Safari is now unsupported because Spotify deprecated their Flash website in favour of HTML5 + Widevine. Safari doesn't support Widevine, so can't use the new player. However, Safari on iOS never supported Flash so the old version of the Spotify player wouldn't have worked either.
- kuschku 9y ago> I don't understand how people are discounting Safari as unused when probably about half of all web traffic comes from iphone/iPad these days, which only allows the WebKit rendering engine. In the US. In the EU, iOS has a marketshare between 15 and 20% at best, which is closer to Windows Phone’s best times than to any other mobile OS.
- fpgaminer 9y agoHere's my guess as to what happened. A couple months ago, Spotify switched their web player from using Flash to using HTML5 + DRM (the "standardized" web DRM). At least, that was the case for Chrome and Firefox, which I noticed because I exclusively use the Spotify web player. But I guess Safari doesn't support web DRM via the Widevine CDM. So they must have kept the Flash based web player around for Safari. And, indeed, Flash would only be needed for Safari. Chrome and Firefox support web DRM on Windows, Linux, and AFAIK MacOS too. Now, supporting both a Flash based web player and an HTML5 based web player is a lot of engineering. I'll bet at some point they decided they didn't want to do that. The only reason they still had the Flash player was to support Safari and Safari only has 2% market share. On top of that, I'll bet most of their customers use the desktop app. So of the 2% of Safari users, how many are using the Spotify web player? So they dropped their Flash based player, and thus had to also drop support for Safari. I think it's a fairly reasonable move. Flash is dying; they couldn't keep their player on it, so they _had_ to move to HTML5. Since they have to use DRM at the behest of the RIAA, web DRM thus becomes their only choice. I doubt the story is much better for alternatives. Even if any of the other music subscription platforms are still using Flash, that's unlikely to continue for long. I don't blame Safari for not implementing web DRM. That leaves only one party left to point the finger at; the RIAA. If you need someone to blame, blame them.
- Xoros 9y agoSo if I get it correct, Apple stated years ago that Flash wouldn't be support anymore on their products (then others followed). So Spotify, due to the end of Flash player moved to HTML5 player. And then the only browser which need a flash player is Apple Safari ? Oh, the irony :-)
- wwwhatcrack 9y agoSafari is the new ie
- X86BSD 9y agoGood riddance. I got so tired of my Spotify account being hacked that this last time recently I just said enough and moved to Apple Music. I liked spotify's interface better but their security sucks and they can't seem to stop user accounts getting hacked. I think their decision to break support with Safari is a bad move for them, but better for the user. Move to another service.
- TekMol 9y agoWhat is a good Spotify alternative if I don't want to deal with DRM at all? I don't care if it has a gazillion bands and trillions of songs. Or if the big stars with million dollar marketing budget are on it.
- fghtr 9y agoCheck out http://magnatune.com http://magnatune.com.
- TekMol 9y agoThanks, checking it out... Is this project still maintained? The site is not responsive. So it's pretty painful to use on my phone. But at least the songs keep playing when I turn off the screen. That already makes it better then Youtube.
- PascLeRasc 9y agoBandcamp is very good if you don't mind managing media yourself. Nicer for the artists too.
- TekMol 9y agoNice, thanks! As for managing: I don't want to manage anything. I just want to click around and listen to music.
- notaplumber 9y agoNot sure if it's an alternative, but SoundCloud uses HTML5 but not DRM. It works in Chromium on *BSD.
- INTPenis 9y agoI switched to Google Play a long time ago and never looked back. * 50,000 of your own tracks can be uploaded to their cloud and listened to on all your devices. * Casting * Essentially all the same artists as on Spotify. * Use with your all powerful google account.
- coldtea 9y agoAnd dropped at any time when Google is bored with it.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- fancy_pantser 9y agoAnd no DRM; the files are regular MP3s from a CDN with timebombed URLs. I've written a few tools for my own use with the unofficial API and it's just MP3s in and out.
- ericabiz 9y agoNot just Spotify--Facebook (Business) too. My primary browser is Chrome, but I decided I wanted to no longer be logged in on Facebook in Chrome and having my usage tracked. So I used Facebook only in Safari. Unfortunately if you visit business.facebook.com in Safari, it tells you it's an unsupported browser. You can't set up Facebook ad campaigns or even check your business messages in Safari at all. :( If anyone from Facebook is reading this, the iOS Facebook Pages app is also broken. Notifications of new messages to your page don't work after you put a page in Business Manager in Facebook. It's hugely frustrating.
- obsurveyor 9y agoWhy not just use an extension like Disconnect to prevent Facebook tracking?
- kitsunesoba 9y agoHave you tried user agent spoofing in Safari for "Chrome only" sites? I do that and more often than not, these sites are fully functional under Safari.
- PascLeRasc 9y agoPersonally it would take a lot to get me to stop using Spotify. I really like their desktop app and they're pretty open to modifications like Statusfy [1], Shpotify [2], and RES embedded playing. Their UI is so much easier on the eyes and mind than Google Play Music or Apple Music, and I'm very thankful that they do Linux builds when others like Google Drive can't be bothered. [1] https://github.com/paulyoung/Statusfy https://github.com/paulyoung/Statusfy [2] https://github.com/hnarayanan/shpotify https://github.com/hnarayanan/shpotify
- brycehamrick 9y agoThis 100%. My primary interface for navigating Spotify is via Alfred [1] and the macOS Notification Center [2]. [1] https://github.com/citelao/Spotify-for-Alfred https://github.com/citelao/Spotify-for-Alfred [2] https://spotify-notifications.citruspi.io/ https://spotify-notifications.citruspi.io/
- floatingatoll 9y agoSpotify reported most recently $300mil in annual advertising revenue. In 2011 they were caught using 'supercookies' that can be persisted even when the user clears their cookies in the browser. It is entirely possible they're refusing to support Safari because of the privacy changes Apple made, changes that specifically defeat the kind of tracking Spotify has previously been known to use.
- protomyth 9y agoLater on in the comments a user says "Also Firefox ESR v.45.8 (extended support release) is no longer supported."
- darth_mastah 9y agoFrom web dev perspective Safari is becoming new IE6. CSS3 written to spec, working fine on anything else including IE11 tends to fail on Safari. I'm sure I will get a lot of hate from Apple fun boys and girls, but that has been my and my colleagues' experience recently.
- ChrisLTD 9y agoThere are edge cases with every browser, but the current situation with non-Chrome browsers is nothing compared to what it was like supporting IE6.
- blfr 9y agoIn other words, Safari users have no choice but to switch browsers or use the desktop app. I understand that/why OP is unhappy but that is a pretty decent choice they offer here.
- kisstheblade 9y agoSafari is a horrible browser, no reason to use it. I hope all sites break on it.
- fasdfdsafas 9y agoI agree, anyone who doesn't is most likely an apple fanboy.
- chenshuiluke 9y agoI'm honestly still bitter about the fact that Spotify is not supported in Jamaica. Thank God for Deezer.