Here's a goodie: I can stream from my mac via airplay to an airport express....except Beats 1. Yes, I accidentally clicked on Beats 1...and the airplay icon in iTunes disappears. No loss to me, but....
Thank You! I was just going to post the exact suggestion to @hillstones.
I've been using and recommending S2M since IFAIK iPhone 3GS and iPad 2 days.
I think you and I both had issues at the time a couple years ago, when an upgrade to Apple's Music app slowed sharing from different Macs to a crawl. The problem persisted for several months until Apple got around to fixing it. Even so, it's pretty sluggish at this late date. Content-wise, StreamToMe saved our bacon back then, so it looks like it's coming to our rescue a second time. So there's a lesson twice-learned: Don't put all our confidence in the way Apple implements the iTunes app, because what Apple gives you in the way of features - it can also take away. At least if you store all your own content on your own premises without depending on the cloud, you can actually manage every bit of your material without having to interact with iTunes at all.
I'm finding FileExplorer by Steven Zhang works well. Once you have installed it click on the "+" symbol on the top right of the home page to add a location.
There is a free version which has limitations, but I only need access to one particular computer/location so am happy enough.
Home sharing is crap. Took ages to read and split local content from remote? Even the first gen ATV got this right (aggregated when the iTunes library was available).
Peer streaming should be inherent because streaming from iCloud is just nuts when your machine's in the next room.
That is annoying, but it never really supported large audio libraries too well.
Can anyone suggest good alternatives?
I've been frustrated by iTunes for a while now (and have been frustrated by the move to all-streaming systems which take away the user's ownership of content) and so have been developing my own system which is served through an HTML UI (and hence is easily shared between machines on the same network).
You can start with an iTunes Library or a directory tree of audio tracks (can read metadata from MP3, ACC (unprotected), ALAC, FLAC and OGG see: github.com/dhowden/tag).
There are multiple storage options: Amazon S3 (in the cloud), remote file system (for streaming content from a home server for instance) and all remote fetches can be cached so that your recent tracks will be on your local machine. You can also just run the whole thing directly on your laptop/desktop machine and it will run just fine.
You need to a recent version of Chrome for it at the moment (Safari is somewhat behind with recent web standards).
Some features:
* Playback support for ACC/M4a (unprotected), MP3 and OGG (using Chrome on OS X), only MP3 and OGG using Chrome on Linux.
* Remote control REST API (including multi-player support, control more than one player at once and have the same music playing throughout your house!).
The project is very much ongoing, so if you want to chip in send me a message. A few things that are in the pipeline:
* Full multi-user mode (ratings, playlists, play history are per user - so that different people can share the same library but don't share play stats/musical preferences).
* Gapless playback (yes - this is hard to get right though a browser using HTML5 Audio :-().
* Support for playing ALAC.
* Support for playing FLAC (very soon - this is easier than ALAC!).
If you happen to have a big collection of classical music (as I do) you will find that it does some magic with organising Symphonys/Operas/etc so that their tracks are grouped together and very little track information is repeated.
You have to build the system yourself at the moment, but the README in the repo is quite comprehensive. Let me know if you have problems. We do plan to offer binary versions in the future.
I'm all about ownership of my data, including music/videos, so this sounded very cool, got my interest. Then I read this:
[quote]You need to a recent version of Chrome for it at the moment (Safari is somewhat behind with recent web standards).[/quote]
Which means it's not something I will even consider installing, let alone assisting with development.
I made the mistake of installing Chrome once, quite some time ago, for the purposes of compatibility testing. Never again. It installed all kinds of crap buried in my system, and was a huge pain in the ass to remove. I hope it's better now, but I'm not optimistic. In other words, it's probably possible with a great deal of work to install a basic version that isn't able to phone-home, etc., but there have been a seemingly continuous stream of privacy-related (and security-related) problems with Chrome and even Chromium, so it's just not something I'll ever put on a machine I own again.
Just a couple specific issues, though there have been many:
Bottom line: "silent, automatic updates" are never, ever cool. People are like sheep these day, installing things willy-nilly, which is why the curated iOS world is so much better for the vast majority of users. But I digress.
Even in a relatively sophisticated web app like this, I'm not sure I understand what APIs or features could be so critical as to limit an audience to one (very capable, but shady) browser? Could you help me out?
Not the right decision by Google to include the "OK Google" hotword option in the open-source Chromium, particularly without explaining it. Bad Google. They did the right thing by removing it. As for selling Chrome extensions it's already useless for Windows and sometime this month useless for Mac too. They can't be re-purposed for things like adware. If an extension is not approved by Google for inclusion in the official Web Store they can't be installed or used and ones already installed may be disabled.
BTW Blah, have you ever tested your browser and/or system at http://www.pcflank.com/index.htm ? Seems to be pretty good but as always your advice is appreciated.
Never worked for me. I have reported bug reports on it, but they were never able to fix it. I'm not going to miss yet another unreliable Apple service. Still, very bad move that they removed without prior notice.
Not the right decision by Google to include the "OK Google" hotword option in the open-source Chromium, particularly without explaining it. Bad Google. They did the right thing by removing it. As for selling Chrome extensions it's already useless for Windows and sometime this month useless for Mac too. They can't be re-purposed for things like adware. If an extension is not approved by Google for inclusion in the official Web Store they can't be installed or used and ones already installed may be disabled.
I saw some other related articles. It feels like a kinda-sorta fix, but the problem is lack of trust, because these kinds of things keep happening. There's no way to know when the next stupid thing like this is going to happen, and there's no way to undo the data that's been gathered.
The overarching problem is that pretty much ALL online companies, especially those who are dependent on data mining their customers for revenue, will keep "improving" their systems like this without permission, or even knowledge, of their users. Users don't have the knowledge or wherewithal to keep tabs on these things, and it's a terrible idea to give ANY outside company access to update or modify stuff on your computer without being directed to do so.
google, and others, are pushing their users very strongly to accept auto-updates, auto-connections, auto-this and auto-that. It's a terrible idea, but people are lazy, and they don't really have a clue of what it really means to give someone else the ability to update their computers whenever and however they choose.
BTW Blah, have you ever tested your browser and/or system at http://www.pcflank.com/index.htm ? Seems to be pretty good but as always your advice is appreciated.
I've never seen this site before, but some thoughts:
* This seems like a dicey proposition, with questionable benefit. It's like asking someone that you don't really know, to come to your home and check how secure it is against break-ins. It might be beneficial, but without some reason to trust the party you're asking, it seems like you're asking for trouble if you do have security holes. Especially if you don't readily know how to fix them yourself. Do you know/trust this company?
* The other thing that seems weird about this is that much of a typical computer's security is based on being behind a firewall, or at least a NATing router. When you test your laptop from home, see results that make things seem fairly secure, then go out and connect via your local coffee shop later, it's likely to be a very different story. Typical web users don't have a clue about stuff like this.
* Also, when a company asks this:
Note: if your computer or ISP uses a corporate firewall, ask your system administrator for permission for further scanning of your IP.
I have to wonder if they're asking to open ports, or to not ban IPs that start doing port-scanning, or what. It's unclear.
* And this was really bizarre:
Note: if your system is unable to pass this test and hangs, simply reboot your computer.
How many people want to risk their entire computer (not just browser) hanging, by clicking a web link??
* There's also little explanation to a typical web user what the terms mean.
* Personally, I accessed the site via TOR, not having any idea what it was about. That means my results will be unusual (and very misleading), but I can weed through that.
These were just some off-the-cuff thoughts, I'm sure there's a lot more to consider, but in general I'll just say I was unimpressed.
I'm all about ownership of my data, including music/videos, so this sounded very cool, got my interest. Then I read this:
Which means it's not something I will even consider installing, let alone assisting with development.
...
Even in a relatively sophisticated web app like this, I'm not sure I understand what APIs or features could be so critical as to limit an audience to one (very capable, but shady) browser? Could you help me out?
I did begin trying to fully support Safari, Chrome and Firefox, but it was just taking too much time to check/fix stupid layout/audio problems. I decided to switch to supporting web standards (some quite new) which made things easier for development and would eventually appear in all web browsers.
In terms of overall support for web standards and developer tools (in-browser debugging etc) Chrome is way ahead of the competition and so is by far the best tool to use when designing a complex HTML UI (not to mention OS X, Linux and MS support). A few specifics that I can remember off the top of my head, there are also more subtle differences too:
* CSS flexbox: much of the layout uses the new flexbox CSS (https://css-tricks.com/snippets/css/a-guide-to-flexbox/), which Safari doesn't like yet (it's very much on the way though), Firefox is better but not quite there either.
* Safari won't let you use HTTP Basic Authentication with Websockets (websockets being the only good way of transferring data to the frontend from the server) - I hope they will fix this in an upcoming release.
* Safari had some non-standard behaviour relating to the HTML5 audio components which stopped music from playing at all (game over!!!) - this is why I abandoned it in the first place.
To be honest I had not considered that some people would object to Chrome on principle. If you (or indeed anyone else) is interested enough in the project to contribute some patches for Safari/Firefox then of course they would be happily received. If you're interested but don't have a background in web dev, then I would suggest that you check back in a few months' time when the other browsers are likely to have implemented the newer web standards.
Apple insider really doing a great job. I am a great fan to there work. I would also like to help you guys in the improvement section. Thanks!! iOS 8.4 comes with lots of bugs and problems in battery management and wifi connectivity. And, solution is .... http://www.theverdict.in/apple/common-ios-8-4-problems-and-its-fixes/
I did begin trying to fully support Safari, Chrome and Firefox, but it was just taking too much time to check/fix stupid layout/audio problems. I decided to switch to supporting web standards (some quite new) which made things easier for development and would eventually appear in all web browsers.
I guess one thing I would suggest -- to anyone, working on almost any project, is to avoid any kind of "standards" that you need to label as "some quite new" ! ;-) Maybe if you have a captive audience, like an internal corporate tool or service, no problem, but if not, I'd work very hard to use established, widely-supported standards. If for no other reason than to make things available to as many users as possible.
As an experienced entrepreneur with multiple startups behind me (varying degrees of success), one of the most important things you can do is to make sure it's as frictionless as possible for people to try/use. Take anything that you think might possibly be friction and multiply it by 10x, because it's really hard to get people to try new things. Don't take my word for it, read all the advice from angel investors and VC bloggers, because they see hundreds of ventures and projects every year.
I guess it depends on what you want to get out of this project, but some things are applicable to almost any project.
In terms of overall support for web standards and developer tools (in-browser debugging etc) Chrome is way ahead of the competition and so is by far the best tool to use when designing a complex HTML UI (not to mention OS X, Linux and MS support). A few specifics that I can remember off the top of my head, there are also more subtle differences too:
* CSS flexbox: much of the layout uses the new flexbox CSS (https://css-tricks.com/snippets/css/a-guide-to-flexbox/), which Safari doesn't like yet (it's very much on the way though), Firefox is better but not quite there either.
This, to me, is a perfect example of what not to use until it has been well-established in the real world as a standard, because it's merely a convenience for the developers, not required by any stretch.
Also, even today, it's not a standard, it's still in Draft, i.e. "W3C Last Call Working Draft stage", which I'd assume is why it's not widely supported yet.
* Safari won't let you use HTTP Basic Authentication with Websockets (websockets being the only good way of transferring data to the frontend from the server) - I hope they will fix this in an upcoming release.
This kind of sucks, but I'm curious why you'd use Basic Auth. I'm currently working on a project that makes heavy use of web sockets, but we use simple SSL, and have no problems in any (widely used) browsers that I'm aware of. You might have a perfectly valid reason, I'm just curious.
* Safari had some non-standard behaviour relating to the HTML5 audio components which stopped music from playing at all (game over!!!) - this is why I abandoned it in the first place.
I can't really speak to audio components, and this is core to this particular project, so it may very well be "game over". That said, a quick perusal of stackoverflow questions for "safari html5 audio" found most reported problems had accepted answers. Not my area of expertise, so I'm happy to bow out on this, just passing along what I found.
To be honest I had not considered that some people would object to Chrome on principle.
I think this will be bigger issue than you think. When I said "I'm all about ownership of my data" above, I mean it in a very widely-encompassing way. It's extremely difficult (nigh impossible) to use google tools without giving up personal data to them, thereby relinquishing ownership of personal information. It's none of google's business what I do with my browser. At. All. Ever. Let alone installing other crap in my System folder that phones home and was a pain in the ass to get rid of.
I'm far more adamant about this than most people (though not even #1 amongst my friends ((GatorGuy will re-read this sentence in disbelief)) ), but there are many, many people that will never install Chrome. You're limiting your audience; I just hope it's worth it.
If you (or indeed anyone else) is interested enough in the project to contribute some patches for Safari/Firefox then of course they would be happily received. If you're interested but don't have a background in web dev, then I would suggest that you check back in a few months' time when the other browsers are likely to have implemented the newer web standards.
Heh, that's kind of funny... if I don't have a background in web dev... I don't know that I've ever talked about it here, but I've done web dev work for over 20 years. I owned and managed one of the first ~30,000 web servers on the internet. Coded for many years prior to the interwebs. Still, that and $2 won't even buy me a coffee, but it's a fun tidbit to share.
I do think you're super overly-optimistic to expect that other browsers will have all this stuff working "in a few months". And even once newer browsers start pushing the features in, it will be a long time before most users have the latest versions installed. Sadly, I speak from experience, but I'll never touch a browser-based project ever again that counts on in-the-pipeline features.
Probably way more feedback than you were looking for, but it's hard to get feedback on small projects, and hey, free advice is worth every penny! ;-)
I've ticked Music and Films in iTunes Sharing Preferences on my Mac. However my Apple TV gets access and displays Films, TV Programmes, Podcasts and iTunes U. Does anybody know how to remove Podcasts and iTunes U from Apple TV?
I've ticked Music and Films in iTunes Sharing Preferences on my Mac. However my Apple TV gets access and displays Films, TV Programmes, Podcasts and iTunes U. Does anybody know how to remove Podcasts and iTunes U from Apple TV?
Comments
Here's a goodie: I can stream from my mac via airplay to an airport express....except Beats 1. Yes, I accidentally clicked on Beats 1...and the airplay icon in iTunes disappears. No loss to me, but....
Thank You! I was just going to post the exact suggestion to @hillstones.
I've been using and recommending S2M since IFAIK iPhone 3GS and iPad 2 days.
I think you and I both had issues at the time a couple years ago, when an upgrade to Apple's Music app slowed sharing from different Macs to a crawl. The problem persisted for several months until Apple got around to fixing it. Even so, it's pretty sluggish at this late date. Content-wise, StreamToMe saved our bacon back then, so it looks like it's coming to our rescue a second time. So there's a lesson twice-learned: Don't put all our confidence in the way Apple implements the iTunes app, because what Apple gives you in the way of features - it can also take away. At least if you store all your own content on your own premises without depending on the cloud, you can actually manage every bit of your material without having to interact with iTunes at all.
Hi there,
I'm finding FileExplorer by Steven Zhang works well. Once you have installed it click on the "+" symbol on the top right of the home page to add a location.
There is a free version which has limitations, but I only need access to one particular computer/location so am happy enough.
Cheers.
Peer streaming should be inherent because streaming from iCloud is just nuts when your machine's in the next room.
Needs work Apple.
That is annoying, but it never really supported large audio libraries too well.
Can anyone suggest good alternatives?
I've been frustrated by iTunes for a while now (and have been frustrated by the move to all-streaming systems which take away the user's ownership of content) and so have been developing my own system which is served through an HTML UI (and hence is easily shared between machines on the same network).
The code is here: https://github.com/tchaik/tchaik
You can start with an iTunes Library or a directory tree of audio tracks (can read metadata from MP3, ACC (unprotected), ALAC, FLAC and OGG see: github.com/dhowden/tag).
There are multiple storage options: Amazon S3 (in the cloud), remote file system (for streaming content from a home server for instance) and all remote fetches can be cached so that your recent tracks will be on your local machine. You can also just run the whole thing directly on your laptop/desktop machine and it will run just fine.
You need to a recent version of Chrome for it at the moment (Safari is somewhat behind with recent web standards).
Some features:
* Playback support for ACC/M4a (unprotected), MP3 and OGG (using Chrome on OS X), only MP3 and OGG using Chrome on Linux.
* Multiple storage options: S3, file server, local.
* Remote control REST API (including multi-player support, control more than one player at once and have the same music playing throughout your house!).
The project is very much ongoing, so if you want to chip in send me a message. A few things that are in the pipeline:
* Full multi-user mode (ratings, playlists, play history are per user - so that different people can share the same library but don't share play stats/musical preferences).
* Gapless playback (yes - this is hard to get right though a browser using HTML5 Audio :-().
* Support for playing ALAC.
* Support for playing FLAC (very soon - this is easier than ALAC!).
If you happen to have a big collection of classical music (as I do) you will find that it does some magic with organising Symphonys/Operas/etc so that their tracks are grouped together and very little track information is repeated.
You have to build the system yourself at the moment, but the README in the repo is quite comprehensive. Let me know if you have problems. We do plan to offer binary versions in the future.
I'm all about ownership of my data, including music/videos, so this sounded very cool, got my interest. Then I read this:
[quote]You need to a recent version of Chrome for it at the moment (Safari is somewhat behind with recent web standards).[/quote]
Which means it's not something I will even consider installing, let alone assisting with development.
I made the mistake of installing Chrome once, quite some time ago, for the purposes of compatibility testing. Never again. It installed all kinds of crap buried in my system, and was a huge pain in the ass to remove. I hope it's better now, but I'm not optimistic. In other words, it's probably possible with a great deal of work to install a basic version that isn't able to phone-home, etc., but there have been a seemingly continuous stream of privacy-related (and security-related) problems with Chrome and even Chromium, so it's just not something I'll ever put on a machine I own again.
Just a couple specific issues, though there have been many:
http://www.macnn.com/articles/15/06/24/addition.of.voice.search.trigger.command.to.chromium.causes.outcry.129210/
http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/01/malware-vendors-buy-chrome-extensions-to-send-adware-filled-updates/
Bottom line: "silent, automatic updates" are never, ever cool. People are like sheep these day, installing things willy-nilly, which is why the curated iOS world is so much better for the vast majority of users. But I digress.
Even in a relatively sophisticated web app like this, I'm not sure I understand what APIs or features could be so critical as to limit an audience to one (very capable, but shady) browser? Could you help me out?
Not the right decision by Google to include the "OK Google" hotword option in the open-source Chromium, particularly without explaining it. Bad Google. They did the right thing by removing it. As for selling Chrome extensions it's already useless for Windows and sometime this month useless for Mac too. They can't be re-purposed for things like adware. If an extension is not approved by Google for inclusion in the official Web Store they can't be installed or used and ones already installed may be disabled.
I've included a couple of links in case you had missed the news.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2940499/ok-google-hotword-detection-yanked-from-chromium-after-user-revolt.html
http://thenextweb.com/google/2014/05/27/google-starts-blocking-extensions-chrome-web-store-windows-users-disables-installed-ones/
BTW Blah, have you ever tested your browser and/or system at http://www.pcflank.com/index.htm ? Seems to be pretty good but as always your advice is appreciated.
I saw some other related articles. It feels like a kinda-sorta fix, but the problem is lack of trust, because these kinds of things keep happening. There's no way to know when the next stupid thing like this is going to happen, and there's no way to undo the data that's been gathered.
The overarching problem is that pretty much ALL online companies, especially those who are dependent on data mining their customers for revenue, will keep "improving" their systems like this without permission, or even knowledge, of their users. Users don't have the knowledge or wherewithal to keep tabs on these things, and it's a terrible idea to give ANY outside company access to update or modify stuff on your computer without being directed to do so.
google, and others, are pushing their users very strongly to accept auto-updates, auto-connections, auto-this and auto-that. It's a terrible idea, but people are lazy, and they don't really have a clue of what it really means to give someone else the ability to update their computers whenever and however they choose.
I've never seen this site before, but some thoughts:
* This seems like a dicey proposition, with questionable benefit. It's like asking someone that you don't really know, to come to your home and check how secure it is against break-ins. It might be beneficial, but without some reason to trust the party you're asking, it seems like you're asking for trouble if you do have security holes. Especially if you don't readily know how to fix them yourself. Do you know/trust this company?
* The other thing that seems weird about this is that much of a typical computer's security is based on being behind a firewall, or at least a NATing router. When you test your laptop from home, see results that make things seem fairly secure, then go out and connect via your local coffee shop later, it's likely to be a very different story. Typical web users don't have a clue about stuff like this.
* Also, when a company asks this:
I have to wonder if they're asking to open ports, or to not ban IPs that start doing port-scanning, or what. It's unclear.
* And this was really bizarre:
How many people want to risk their entire computer (not just browser) hanging, by clicking a web link??
* There's also little explanation to a typical web user what the terms mean.
* Personally, I accessed the site via TOR, not having any idea what it was about. That means my results will be unusual (and very misleading), but I can weed through that.
These were just some off-the-cuff thoughts, I'm sure there's a lot more to consider, but in general I'll just say I was unimpressed.
It never seemed to work right anyway so it is no great loss for me...
@dhowden
I'm all about ownership of my data, including music/videos, so this sounded very cool, got my interest. Then I read this:
Which means it's not something I will even consider installing, let alone assisting with development.
...
Even in a relatively sophisticated web app like this, I'm not sure I understand what APIs or features could be so critical as to limit an audience to one (very capable, but shady) browser? Could you help me out?
I did begin trying to fully support Safari, Chrome and Firefox, but it was just taking too much time to check/fix stupid layout/audio problems. I decided to switch to supporting web standards (some quite new) which made things easier for development and would eventually appear in all web browsers.
In terms of overall support for web standards and developer tools (in-browser debugging etc) Chrome is way ahead of the competition and so is by far the best tool to use when designing a complex HTML UI (not to mention OS X, Linux and MS support). A few specifics that I can remember off the top of my head, there are also more subtle differences too:
* CSS flexbox: much of the layout uses the new flexbox CSS (https://css-tricks.com/snippets/css/a-guide-to-flexbox/), which Safari doesn't like yet (it's very much on the way though), Firefox is better but not quite there either.
* Safari won't let you use HTTP Basic Authentication with Websockets (websockets being the only good way of transferring data to the frontend from the server) - I hope they will fix this in an upcoming release.
* Safari had some non-standard behaviour relating to the HTML5 audio components which stopped music from playing at all (game over!!!) - this is why I abandoned it in the first place.
To be honest I had not considered that some people would object to Chrome on principle. If you (or indeed anyone else) is interested enough in the project to contribute some patches for Safari/Firefox then of course they would be happily received. If you're interested but don't have a background in web dev, then I would suggest that you check back in a few months' time when the other browsers are likely to have implemented the newer web standards.
iOS 8.4 comes with lots of bugs and problems in battery management and wifi connectivity. And, solution is .... http://www.theverdict.in/apple/common-ios-8-4-problems-and-its-fixes/
I guess one thing I would suggest -- to anyone, working on almost any project, is to avoid any kind of "standards" that you need to label as "some quite new" ! ;-) Maybe if you have a captive audience, like an internal corporate tool or service, no problem, but if not, I'd work very hard to use established, widely-supported standards. If for no other reason than to make things available to as many users as possible.
As an experienced entrepreneur with multiple startups behind me (varying degrees of success), one of the most important things you can do is to make sure it's as frictionless as possible for people to try/use. Take anything that you think might possibly be friction and multiply it by 10x, because it's really hard to get people to try new things. Don't take my word for it, read all the advice from angel investors and VC bloggers, because they see hundreds of ventures and projects every year.
I guess it depends on what you want to get out of this project, but some things are applicable to almost any project.
This, to me, is a perfect example of what not to use until it has been well-established in the real world as a standard, because it's merely a convenience for the developers, not required by any stretch.
Also, even today, it's not a standard, it's still in Draft, i.e. "W3C Last Call Working Draft stage", which I'd assume is why it's not widely supported yet.
This kind of sucks, but I'm curious why you'd use Basic Auth. I'm currently working on a project that makes heavy use of web sockets, but we use simple SSL, and have no problems in any (widely used) browsers that I'm aware of. You might have a perfectly valid reason, I'm just curious.
I can't really speak to audio components, and this is core to this particular project, so it may very well be "game over". That said, a quick perusal of stackoverflow questions for "safari html5 audio" found most reported problems had accepted answers. Not my area of expertise, so I'm happy to bow out on this, just passing along what I found.
Was this Safari in iOS or on Mac? Or on both?
I think this will be bigger issue than you think. When I said "I'm all about ownership of my data" above, I mean it in a very widely-encompassing way. It's extremely difficult (nigh impossible) to use google tools without giving up personal data to them, thereby relinquishing ownership of personal information. It's none of google's business what I do with my browser. At. All. Ever. Let alone installing other crap in my System folder that phones home and was a pain in the ass to get rid of.
I'm far more adamant about this than most people (though not even #1 amongst my friends ((GatorGuy will re-read this sentence in disbelief)) ), but there are many, many people that will never install Chrome. You're limiting your audience; I just hope it's worth it.
Heh, that's kind of funny... if I don't have a background in web dev... I don't know that I've ever talked about it here, but I've done web dev work for over 20 years. I owned and managed one of the first ~30,000 web servers on the internet. Coded for many years prior to the interwebs. Still, that and $2 won't even buy me a coffee, but it's a fun tidbit to share.
I do think you're super overly-optimistic to expect that other browsers will have all this stuff working "in a few months". And even once newer browsers start pushing the features in, it will be a long time before most users have the latest versions installed. Sadly, I speak from experience, but I'll never touch a browser-based project ever again that counts on in-the-pipeline features.
Probably way more feedback than you were looking for, but it's hard to get feedback on small projects, and hey, free advice is worth every penny! ;-)
I've ticked Music and Films in iTunes Sharing Preferences on my Mac. However my Apple TV gets access and displays Films, TV Programmes, Podcasts and iTunes U. Does anybody know how to remove Podcasts and iTunes U from Apple TV?