I think more time should have been spent on this. If an app connects to the discogs database then being able to search by artist is really important. What if I know the label but can’t remember the other information. It even says that in an update it will be better interfacing with discogs. Why not just do that from the start. I have been waiting for a dicogs app and it looks like I will keep waiting. :(
—
US iTunes Store user “Record and waiting”.
I’m not sure responding to a review is a great idea, especially not in a public way like this. But I feel like I have to, because I’ve heard a bunch of complaints like this.
There’s a logic behind how Records 1.0 works. It was originally built only to be a tool for helping you make a decision in a record store while considering a record that you’re holding in your hand. For instance, you don’t know what the genre is, so you want to look it up so that it fits in your DJ set, record collection or whatever. Searching by artist or label isn’t really the point in 1.0. If you’re holding the record in your hand, you probably know those already, and Records is built to give you more information about the record, not the artist or the label. This is all I personally wanted and needed in 1.0.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that we’re listening, and a 1.1 update is coming with revised searching and better navigation.
One star reviews are just, y’know, kinda disheartening. :)
UPDATE: Plenty of users would like to see Discogs features such as ratings, collections and wantlists in Records as well. Unfortunately, these cannot currently be implemented due to limitations in the Discogs API that Records uses. Of course, if these features become available, they will almost certainly be implemented in some form.
