8 ms·

Is 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

Is 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 ago
It 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 ago
  How'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 ago
    I think it's great, it's a blow to DRM :)
  - leadingthenet 9y ago
    I refuse to use any other browser on a Mac. The energy consumption of Chrome, for example, is non-negligible.
    - dep_b 9y ago
      Firefox is really pretty decent nowadays.
smt88 9y ago
Desktop 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 ago
    It'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 ago
      Oddly 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 ago
      I 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 ago
      People 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.
      - shados 9y ago
        Safari's JS support is pretty good, but CSS is wonky and various other things (like how cookies are handled) are different than all the other major browsers. So it will break on shit devs may not expect. Obviously that's the fault of the devs (IE10/11 are worse, but we make stuff work there too!), no argument there. But it is becoming a pretty niche browser, and yes, it DOES break a lot of stuff. No, it's not broken on Facebook or your favorite news site, but every time I bring it out for a test drive I find a couple of broken things in various smaller web apps that work everywhere else. So while I don't think it should be that way, it tends to be a pretty brittle experience.
franciscop 9y ago
As 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 ago
  position: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 ago
    What 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 ago
    Showing the full URL is a checkbox away in the preferences. It's listed under "Advanced" as "Show full website address".
    - laveur 9y ago
      Thanks 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 ago
This 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 ago
  I 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 ago
Apple 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.

izacus 9y ago

It 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 ago
How'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 ago
  I think it's great, it's a blow to DRM :)
- leadingthenet 9y ago
  I refuse to use any other browser on a Mac. The energy consumption of Chrome, for example, is non-negligible.
  - dep_b 9y ago
    Firefox is really pretty decent nowadays.

smt88 9y ago

Desktop 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 ago
  It'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 ago
    Oddly 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 ago
    I 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 ago
    People 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.
    - shados 9y ago
      Safari's JS support is pretty good, but CSS is wonky and various other things (like how cookies are handled) are different than all the other major browsers. So it will break on shit devs may not expect. Obviously that's the fault of the devs (IE10/11 are worse, but we make stuff work there too!), no argument there. But it is becoming a pretty niche browser, and yes, it DOES break a lot of stuff. No, it's not broken on Facebook or your favorite news site, but every time I bring it out for a test drive I find a couple of broken things in various smaller web apps that work everywhere else. So while I don't think it should be that way, it tends to be a pretty brittle experience.

franciscop 9y ago

As 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 ago
position: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 ago
  What 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 ago
  Showing the full URL is a checkbox away in the preferences. It's listed under "Advanced" as "Show full website address".
  - laveur 9y ago
    Thanks 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 ago

This 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 ago
I 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 ago

Apple 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.