Happy for them to be developing an app (which already appears to exist), but at ~20‰ with 16 days left… wouldn’t it be “better” to collaborate with existing apps like Pipepipe / Newpipe and direct those funds into the platform instead?
First of all there are subgoals with the first one being at 15k which is almost completed. Second of all a real peertube app is mandatory for its success, like they said 80% of people watching videos are from their phone. This app wont be a second way to watch peertube, for most it will be their entry into this ecosystem so it better be good.
I wouldn’t want to associate with an app that’s ripping off YouTube when you’re an app trying to make a better YouTube.
But also, this is open source. Who are you to say that funding an effort should go to one place and not another? I think the people who actually put effort into Peertube are best place to determine what’s good for the project.
its video sharing, its not a crazy concept, like dailymotion and vimeo have existed forever, idk if they still do lol, think social media platforms adding vidoe like facebook killed those as popular alternatives but Im prob wrong
Isn’t there already a mobile app?
Developers can focus on whatever they seem appropriate.
But I think content discover and community (lack of) are the biggest issues of peertube right now.
I hop once in a while to the main peertube site and I can never find anything remotely interesting to watch. There may be some good content, but it’s impossible to find.
Federation still is a bit broken
I’d really like to get into the app but its been hard to navigate. Do you have any recommendations for good channels?
What are your interests?
Anyway you could try following this community: https://lemmy.world/c/peertube
I like that they are finally raising some money to do development. This is really good to see.
But it’s never going anywhere even less then lemmy. Video is expensive both in storage and bandwidth compared to text.
I think they need to find a way to distribute the heavy video parts among volunteers. I think it would be more practical to have it distributed.
GrayJay has a peertube plugin which works well.
but grayjay is only for media consumption. you cannot stream nor upload videos from it
You’re right, I didn’t even think of that
Greyjay isn’t foss
It’s free, and I see an official Github repository containing the code, is that not foss?
Source code doesn’t make it foss
Windows XP is open source by that definition
By the acronym, opening up the source code to the public would make it open source. What is Grayjay missing to be open source then? Accepting contributions?
No, that’s not how it works. It is source available
I understand what you’re saying. What would make GrayJay open source? Allowing for community contribution?
Edit: I looked it up thanks to your unhelpfullness, and open source seems to mean making the code available for the community to use, modify, and share, which Grayjay seems to do. I’m pretty sure I’m right here, but I do want to hear your definition and argument. Is your issue that the license doesn’t allow others to make money using the source code?
Open source/libre/foss all have to do with the license. Grayjay doesn’t have a license that meets the criteria because it places arbitrary restrictions on the code.
It has nothing to do with contributions. You can ship the code on a CD and that is totally fine as long as it has the proper license.
Cool!
