[HN Gopher] Juno - A YouTube Client for Vision Pro
___________________________________________________________________
Juno - A YouTube Client for Vision Pro
Author : axxl
Score : 634 points
Date : 2024-02-02 04:25 UTC (18 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (christianselig.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (christianselig.com)
| user2344597 wrote:
| How do you record the POV from the Vision Pro goggles?
| shuckles wrote:
| The screenshots in the post are likely from the simulator.
| axxl wrote:
| These were recorded in the simulator as stated in the article
| by Christian. However there is a recording mode on the device
| itself as well, although as I don't have one I don't know the
| specifics.
| user2344597 wrote:
| I see, thank you. I was watching MKBHD and Brian Tong on YT
| and they were using extensive actual POV recording:
| https://youtu.be/GkPw6ScHyb4
| ryankrage77 wrote:
| In those reviews it looks like a mix of screen recording
| (what the user sees), and you can also record and take
| pictures from the onboard cameras (headset PoV). Thanks to
| the passthrough, screen recording will often also capture
| the room and the users hands.
| ugh123 wrote:
| well now those rooms look totally rendered! :)
| basil-rash wrote:
| There's a screen record function, the same as the rest of iOS.
| MKBHD uses it extensively in his review video.
| user2344597 wrote:
| Thanks
| mickle00 wrote:
| love that this was built from the Apollo developer. Obviously
| incredibly talented.
| p-e-w wrote:
| I'm amazed that someone who has been this badly burned by a
| corporation controlling their API access would even think about
| writing another app that uses third-party APIs, to be honest.
| dumbo-octopus wrote:
| Seems like a lot of the motivation was just recouping lost
| revenue from his existing YouTube player integration code.
| shiroiuma wrote:
| You don't need third-party APIs to make a YouTube viewer.
| There's a bunch of 3rd-party YouTube viewers like SmartTube,
| ReVanced, etc. that bypass ads and don't use the official
| API, plus of course the yt-dlp downloader.
|
| I'd say the lesson here is NOT to rely on official APIs.
|
| However, upon reading this blog post, it does seem he's using
| the official API so I guess he thinks he'll be fine as long
| as he doesn't block ads. Time will tell.
| qt31415926 wrote:
| A lot of the internet would break if YouTube
| removed/tweaked their embedded video player so I doubt he
| has to worry.
| yard2010 wrote:
| Keep in mind that this didn't prevent Facebook and
| Twitter doing the same, Google is just behind with these
| patterns, just like with everything else
| ryandrake wrote:
| > However, upon reading this blog post, it does seem he's
| using the official API so I guess he thinks he'll be fine
| as long as he doesn't block ads.
|
| The idea of strapping something to my face that's going to
| project ads into my eyeballs that I cannot look away from--
| well, let's say it's pretty clear technology took a wrong
| term some time ago.
|
| Apple should do the right thing and enforce a strong "no
| ads" policy for this product. Keep it premium for people
| who shell out thousands of dollars for it.
| Gigachad wrote:
| You can look away from it. The OS doesn't give apps
| access to the eye tracking info.
| Kwpolska wrote:
| You can get rid of the ads on YouTube by paying 0.4% of
| the Vision Pro base model price per month.
| shiroiuma wrote:
| That does nothing for all the "sponsor segments" embedded
| in the videos.
| hunter2_ wrote:
| Try sponsorblock, or stn which includes it.
| shiroiuma wrote:
| AFAIK, sponsorblock isn't going to work with a 3rd-party
| YouTube viewer app like this.
| hunter2_ wrote:
| Yeah, I guess STN (a viewer app in which sponsorblock
| works) is of the variety that TFA says makes Google
| "grumpy."
| yard2010 wrote:
| I wanted my bot to "see" a youtube video and sum it up - so
| me being the naive 1998 kid me, spent like 2 hours setting
| up the API access to get the transcript of a video only to
| realize I can use this API only on videos I uploaded which
| is a complete bullshit because as soon as that happened I
| ditched it and wrote a script using puppeteer scraping the
| the transcript of ANY video, which ironically took less
| time than setting up the API.
|
| So yeah I learned my lesson I should not resort to piracy,
| but start with it
| kccqzy wrote:
| If you had read the article you would find that this app
| doesn't really need YouTube API access. It's just an iframe.
| It's 1998 tech.
| andsoitis wrote:
| In that case, isn't it a race to the bottom with just
| someone else doing something similar? What makes this
| special?
| dharmab wrote:
| Technology doesn't need to be "special" to be useful.
| Kwpolska wrote:
| Nothing makes this special, maybe a well-known indie
| developer.
| notso411 wrote:
| The fact that he wrote the apollo app? I don't know. It's
| not exactly revolutionary is it
| manquer wrote:
| Good product is first about understanding the user and
| the problem statement very well foremost. Most product
| moats are just that, everything else is a function of
| that.
|
| Designing a great UX to interact with the system is the
| other key ingredient, that requires step 1 and also a
| great deal of creativity.
|
| Anyone can copy same the features _after_ someone as good
| as Christian Selig has made an app, Few can do similar or
| better starting on their own, especially indie
| developers, so he can always be ahead if he wants to.
|
| Christian also chooses apps to work which are third party
| platform controlled for a reason I think. He can operate
| in markets like this as a extremely talented indie
| developer that very few competent teams with capital
| funding would attempt with platform risk. Beeper is the
| most recent example on Apple, Christian himself got
| burned in Reddit[1][2].
|
| Finally he prices at a point so low that people are just
| paying for the brand - for a well designed reliable
| software which won't crash on them.
|
| He likely will not lose all that much sales if a lower
| priced/free product comes out Safari browser based
| Youtube.com is already there .
|
| ---
|
| [1] He can afford to in the sense his monthly cash burn
| is very low compared to any normal company and he doesn't
| have 100's of employees to worry about if he gets kicked
| out.
|
| [2] Even then he has carefully choose an API that Google
| will have a hard time just blocking him ( and not every
| other use of embedded playback), and he also is careful
| not to use APIs to render the UI he has just skinned the
| main website with light CSS.
| RockRobotRock wrote:
| It's the first one so it's currently the best one. If
| someone else makes a worse app, why would you use it? I
| don't get what's confusing here.
| lagt_t wrote:
| "There are three ways to make a living in this business:
| be first, be smarter, or cheat."
| cnity wrote:
| If you have a link to the other similar ones that would
| be useful.
| roland35 wrote:
| I thought the article did a good job addressing it. There
| were a lot of nice touches which make this app work well
| with the vision pro.
| p-e-w wrote:
| The iframe embed API _is_ API access, and YouTube can
| remove, paywall, or rate limit it any time they want. How
| old the underlying technology is is completely irrelevant
| to that.
| adesanmi wrote:
| Unlike Reddit, Apollo was stopping users from seeing ads
| and Reddit gaining ad revenue from them, so they went to
| charge the Reddit app devs for this loss in revenue.
|
| The YouTube embed API supports ads, and works perfectly
| with Premium so Google are not losing any potential
| revenue with this app existing.
|
| Sounds like Christian learned his lesson with his
| experience with Reddit: "don't get in the way of the
| company's ad revenue".
|
| Your statement still stands though, you are ultimately
| correct.
| speff wrote:
| That's an interesting way to frame the reddit debacle.
| Reddit could have mandated ads to be displayed as a part
| of their TOS of API usage, but just decided not to - for
| the clear reason of centralizing users to their app. It
| wasn't /just/ about the loss of revenue - it was also
| about the metrics they can collect on their platform
| which they could not do on others'.
| shafyy wrote:
| YouTube disabling embedding would be fucking insane.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Nah this approach is solid. It's web views not api. It's
| basically a web browser. I imagine other iOS browsers like
| brave will come to vision and have YouTube etc video playback
| and demonstrate it's tolerated even with Adblock probably.
| But maybe easier to get by if more clearly a multipurpose web
| browser.
| po wrote:
| He's not selling it as a subscription so there's very little
| downside. Some people will send him $5 and if/when YouTube
| cuts it off (can they really?) he doesn't really owe anyone
| anything.
| Hamuko wrote:
| > _if /when YouTube cuts it off (can they really?)_
|
| It's called "Juno for YouTube" so they could definitely
| send a cease and desist for the YouTube trademark.
| withinboredom wrote:
| It uses the magic word: "for"
|
| They'll probably still send a C&D but it will be
| defensible.
| yard2010 wrote:
| But.. aren't most of the c&d defensible? It's like a
| mafia scare tactic to dominate something - sometimes just
| the "or else" destroys ppl lives
| unobatbayar wrote:
| It seems that he found a (momentary?) gap in the Vision Pro
| app market and promptly seized the opportunity.
| consumer451 wrote:
| Absolutely. He's an indie product hacker who we could all
| learn from.
|
| "oh, he's entirely reliant on the platforms!"
|
| Meanwhile, his cap table is himself, he does quite well,
| and doesn't owe anything to anybody.
|
| https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/largest-spca-
| fund...
| zyang wrote:
| I have a feeling is going to be a speedrun of the reddit saga.
| Google obviously doesn't want a smooth youtube experience on
| vision pro.
| spiderice wrote:
| Why is that? Obviously they don't want a third party app to
| be that experience, but they make native apps for everything
| else.
|
| Also, Christian can't help himself but attach his apps to
| large companies that can cut him off overnight. Haha.
| justworkout wrote:
| > but they make native apps for everything else.
|
| They do. But it's difficult to call anything they make
| "smooth." Google does some decent backend stuff but their
| frontend experience is not.
| jack_pp wrote:
| the android youtube / music app is much better than any
| other audio / video app i have including spotify, netflix
| Mindwipe wrote:
| Come on.
|
| The YouTube Music app blocks you from navigating to a
| different song at the same time as playing a track if it
| decides that the track is primarily aimed at under 18s
| (such as the theme from a retro cartoon).
|
| It's UI might charitably be described as a total
| catastrophe.
| heapoverflow wrote:
| That is a COPPA compliance thing and is true on the
| regular YouTube app as well:
|
| https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/01/30/why-youtube-
| videos-...
| jack_pp wrote:
| Well compare that to Spotify which can only show videos
| full screen in one orientation and needs to be force
| stopped constantly because podcasts block a lot.
|
| Also, I never encountered the problem you complain about.
| echelon wrote:
| Everything Google does in their own ecosystem is smooth.
| unobatbayar wrote:
| Not as smooth as Apple.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| I don't know if that's still true. The Music app is still
| sluggish, Notes has poor UX, almost every built-in app
| has a better third-party replacement. It has been
| downhill since iOS 7.
| SSLy wrote:
| What the replacements for contacts and clock would be?
| ricardobeat wrote:
| Contacts+ and Cardhop are two.
|
| To be fair the clock app is a lot better since they
| introduced the sleep schedule, but I used to have a
| separate alarm app, and still use Sleepytime to calculate
| wake up times.
| lawgimenez wrote:
| What's so poor about Apple Notes? It's my most used app.
| Just curious.
| Gorbzel wrote:
| And in all 3 cases, the Google equivalents are worse.
| History shows they'll probably just be replaced with a
| different product to solve the same problem which will be
| worse in its own ways.
|
| Subjective, but I use both Android and iOS daily.
| Interesting byproduct of Android being the favorite of
| those obsessed with customization is that the stock apps
| are almost universally bad because everyone just replaces
| them with different niche alternatives.
| tiltowait wrote:
| Has it ever been the case that the built-in apps are the
| best in their category? _Should_ it be the case? Apple 's
| strategy seems to be to make a simple offering that
| appeals to most people, and to leave the
| advanced/special/power features to third-party
| developers. I think that's a pretty healthy arrangement,
| though I bet many devs would prefer Apple not offer
| defaults in some categories at all.
| ciroduran wrote:
| until the product gets killed
| Gigachad wrote:
| The YouTube app would have just worked on the vison pro if
| they hadn't explicitly opted out.
| erk__ wrote:
| A example would be Windows phone where they just not only
| did not make a YouTube app they denied access to the
| YouTube app made by Microsoft.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| That app literally broke YouTube's agreements with the
| music labels though (by allowing free downloads etc),
| which this one doesn't.
| nindalf wrote:
| Short answer - usually individual app developers, even of
| Google's size, need the platform (iOS) more than the
| platform needs them. This means Apple has historically
| driven hard bargains with even the most popular apps. Now
| Apple is launching a new platform (visionOS) the 3 most
| popular in their categories - YouTube, Netflix and Spotify
| decided that visionOS needs them more than they need
| visionOS. For now.
|
| It's possible they might use this leverage to negotiate
| better terms on iOS. For example, Netflix would like to
| offer in app subscriptions and to keep more the revenue
| without sharing with Apple.
|
| If Apple sells millions of visionOS devices then that gives
| Apple more leverage and these 3 might come crawling back.
|
| Long answer - The Apple Vision Pro's Missing Apps by
| Stratechery (https://stratechery.com/2024/the-apple-vision-
| pros-missing-a...)
| yard2010 wrote:
| That's just apple being apple though, shipping half baked
| stuff 3 years before they're ready
| turquoisevar wrote:
| > For example, Netflix would like to offer in app
| subscriptions and to keep more the revenue without
| sharing with Apple.
|
| Netflix already has that option[0] at a 15% commission
| rate, but they snubbed their nose. Allegedly because they
| didn't want to play nice with the TV app, like other
| streamers do.
|
| Personally I think it's that (and the potential loss of
| data) + them just wanting to pay $0.
|
| 0: https://developer.apple.com/programs/video-partner/
| HHaan wrote:
| Tons of respect for Ben Thompson, but reason for not
| shipping visionOS apps (or allowing your iPad app to work
| on them) for these big co's is literally a matter of
| "Bang for your buck":
|
| > Building a new app from scratch makes zero sense for
| the size of the install base. Only reason to ever do that
| would be to get some love back from Apple in the form of
| features and attention (which, for YouTube / Netflix /
| Spotify are hardly necessary) > Allowing YOUR iPad app to
| function on visionOS means that your customers will hold
| YOU responsible for its functioning. At the size of
| customer base of these companies, that's a bunch of risk
| for no reward > When your users use a browser that
| promises 'regular access to all websites' (built by
| Apple) to access your service, the responsibility for
| that experience lies with the browser builder, not you
|
| There's 100% no negotiation over fees happening with
| individual developers, regardless of how big they are,
| regardless of what type of support for a platform they
| promise Apple, as that's exactly what has gotten Apple
| and Google in hot water with regulators worldwide.
|
| Ben worded it well in the article:
|
| "It's certainly possible that I'm reading too much into
| these absences" < Yes
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| >Why is that?
|
| Operating system fatigue, supporting three native apps as
| well as apples own browser engine is a lot of engineering
| time.
|
| End of the day Vision Pro needs YouTube more than YouTube
| needs it.
| jwells89 wrote:
| On the other hand, I have to imagine that to some extent
| YouTube is making maintaining their apps across multiple
| platforms harder than it has to be.
|
| The app is almost entirely made up of
| tableviews/collection views/recycler views, save for the
| video player... really not rocket science. If YouTube's
| public API were more capable I'm positive that third
| party devs would have no issue maintaining their YouTube
| apps across N platforms simply because they wouldn't be
| overcomplicating them like Google is theirs.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Why do you say that?
|
| I don't think the Youtube product managers really care enough
| about Vision Pro to prioritise making an app for it. That
| doesn't mean they strategically disgree with the product and
| actively wish to hamper it.
|
| Indepedently of Vision Pro, I think they just might not be
| that enthusastic about third party youtube apps.
| shmoogy wrote:
| They explicitly opted the YouTube iPad app out of working
| on vision pro
| frei wrote:
| Maybe it was a UX bug that hampers the experience to the
| point that where the website is a better experience, and
| they felt that a bad app would hurt the brand more than
| no app.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Or, maybe there wasn't but they didn't care enough to
| test so they disabled it 'just to be on the safe side'.
| ewzimm wrote:
| This looks beautiful. I think Alphabet just won a more premium
| app than they might have made by choosing not to play. I hope a
| Quest port might happen someday.
| drusepth wrote:
| There might be less incentive for a Quest port because there's
| already an official YouTube app that works quite well on the
| platform.
| ewzimm wrote:
| It's not meant for MR like this. An immersive app for YouTube
| that let you have a window management experiece closer to the
| Vision Pro would be welcome.
| drusepth wrote:
| For the record, both the YouTube app and YouTube in the
| built-in browser seem to work just fine in mixed reality /
| passthrough (at least on my Quest 3), but the big feature
| they're both missing from Juno's feature list is resizable
| MR windows.
|
| Would love to see a Juno port at some point if it includes
| this too!
|
| Edit: According to the Internet, apparently there is
| actually a way to resize the MR windows (their "switch
| view" button lets you resize them); I'm apparently just
| blind. Would still love to see a Juno port though; more
| options is always good.
| charcircuit wrote:
| You can resize windows by clicking and dragging the
| corner of the window.
| ewzimm wrote:
| I would just like to see people copy some of Apple's UI
| functionality inside Quest apps. The official YouTube app
| can do the standard flat panels that any Quest app can
| do, but it's limited to living inside the 1x3 app row
| that all flat Quest apps are bound to. The thing I like
| best about the Vision Pro is that it's MR-first and apps
| can be placed and anchored anywhere without being locked
| to each other. That's not implemented in the base UI of
| Quest yet, but it could be implemented inside an app like
| YouTube, allowing either virtual screens or various
| levels of immersive 3D to be anchored to spots in a room.
| With the v62 update, the Quest can now bring up its 1x3
| app row while running an immersive app and also save
| multiple rooms. My dream YouTube app would be something
| that could play videos anchored to spots in various rooms
| while also running regular 2d apps through the standard
| Quest interface. For example, imagine that you had your
| favorite news program attached to your refrigerator and a
| night sky view attached to your bedroom ceiling and a 3D
| jungle instead of the brick wall outside your apartment
| if you have an unlucky view. This is obviously beyond the
| scope of this app right now, but I think there will be
| interest among Quest owners to run apps that copy some of
| the MR-focused features of the Vision Pro interface and
| expand upon them. Using something like an embedded web
| view with a nice interface and then incorporating some
| anchoring abilities would be enough to expand the
| usability of something like a video player. And although
| this app doesn't run 3D videos, I think that's more of a
| limitation of the Safari APIs right now. Something using
| the Quest browser's native ability to run 3D video should
| theoretically work.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| I might be missing it but I don't see any mention of actual VR
| videos (180 and 360).
|
| It probably would require a huge dev effort to support, but
| that's definitely a miss compared to the offical Quest app.
| zachrip wrote:
| AFAIK this is a webview that Christian is hijacking certain
| navigation events on. So the app itself isn't really
| native/probably wouldn't support this feature.
| basil-rash wrote:
| > and YouTube still gets to show ads
|
| Is this true? I have never seen an ad on my embedded youtube
| player. Which I was honestly kind of bummed about, as I wanted
| some way to give back to the creators of the tutorials I was
| rendering.
| shiroiuma wrote:
| >Which I was honestly kind of bummed about, as I wanted some
| way to give back to the creators of the tutorials I was
| rendering.
|
| I'm sure they'd be happy to take direct donations. Many have
| Patreon accounts you can subscribe to. Those creators aren't
| getting any meaningful revenue from ads; that's why they all
| added those annoying sponsor segments.
| basil-rash wrote:
| If I had any revenue, I'd be happy to share it. In reality I
| bear the full cost of all the resources required to host the
| site at the benefit of the community with no ads or anything
| else to offset it, and despite having several thousand active
| users nobody has interacted with the prominent "tip {channel
| name}" buttons I added.
|
| I'd love if folks could use my site as a 0-guilt alternative
| to watching the same videos on youtube (plus lots of AI-
| enhanced goodness), but with the ads stripped away its not
| quite the same.
| cityzen wrote:
| I miss Apollo every day :(
| sssilverman wrote:
| I tried using the official client for a while but just couldn't
| stand it and switched back to Apollo about a month ago.
|
| Sideloadly + ApolloPatcher was surprisingly easy to set up. Who
| knows how long it'll last, but it's basically set and forget
| once you create the Reddit+imgur API keys and enable wifi
| sync/auto refresh.
| Oreb wrote:
| I always kind of liked Apollo, but I never saw what was so
| exceptional about it. These days, I use Narwhal 2, and I can't
| say I miss any functionality from Apollo. For my use, Narwhal
| is just as good as Apollo on the iPhone, and vastly superior on
| the iPad.
| andsoitis wrote:
| Indy developer charges $5 for app to access 1.78 trillion dollar
| company's ad-driven video sharing platform.
| ubiquitysc wrote:
| That seems pretty fair given the work put in to make what
| appears to be a much better experience than having to use it in
| the browser in VisionOS
| michaelhoney wrote:
| I'm not sure what your point is. Should they not charge
| anything?
| huytersd wrote:
| It's a solo developer, a guy.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| 'they' is a great pronoun for ambiguous cases of sex &
| plurality
| theshrike79 wrote:
| My native language doesn't have gendered pronouns, so I
| make an explicit point of using "they" for a pronoun
| every time I can.
| danjc wrote:
| It's a terrible pronoun since that usage is a retrofit of
| a word intended to be used as a plural.
| GaryNumanVevo wrote:
| Retrofit? The singular they has been used in English
| literature as far back as the 13th century, not exactly
| recent
| zapzupnz wrote:
| Singular they dates back to the 14th century. Isn't 600
| years long enough to stop quibbling over it?
| weego wrote:
| Was here to say the same thing. OP ignoring history to
| double-down on gender bigotry is disappointing to find on
| HN.
| Merik wrote:
| I know an individual who used to think like that; do you
| want to know why they changed their mind?
| swexbe wrote:
| So just like "you"? What's thi problem?
| wodenokoto wrote:
| Do you also avoid "you" when referring to just one
| person?
| huytersd wrote:
| There is no ambiguity here.
| Someone wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
| manquer wrote:
| This is not reddit however have to say relevant username
| :'-)
| hiddencost wrote:
| Bad hill to die on.
| yakkityyak wrote:
| 1.78 trillion dollar company could have made app, or even
| better, not disable the iPad version in contempt.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| is it contempt or simply a negotiation tactic?
| yard2010 wrote:
| Does it matter?
| yellow_lead wrote:
| It would matter to me, or maybe a Vision Pro user. If
| Google is holding out as a negotiation tactic, there may
| be an official app in the future, if Apple compromises on
| revenue share.
|
| If it is contempt or another reason, maybe the
| possibility if an official app is less likely.
| sbarre wrote:
| Again, as a user, why is this our problem?
|
| Let's all stop picking sides when trillion dollar
| companies fight each other at the expense of an open
| inter-operable Internet.
| endisneigh wrote:
| If you want an open internet don't use the app and just
| use the website that works.
|
| Good grief
| sbarre wrote:
| I think you missed my point there, but yes I agree with
| you on that.
| dubrocks wrote:
| They surely have their own business plan for AR/VR that you're
| not aware of.
| p-e-w wrote:
| > So I dunno, if you can afford an expensive Apple Vision Pro,
| I'd really consider treating yourself to YouTube Premium!
|
| The reason I don't have premium (and one of the reasons I block
| ads) is that I don't want YouTube tracking my viewing habits,
| which I cannot prevent if I'm forced to log in to access premium.
|
| It has nothing to do with monetary cost. I'm always surprised
| when I see statements like this one that appear to be completely
| ignorant of this aspect.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| Does their Incognito Mode meet your needs?
| p-e-w wrote:
| No, because I don't trust them. Otherwise I wouldn't have to
| worry in the first place.
| eurekin wrote:
| I love this comic on-topic:
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/11gxpcu/our_little
| _...
| joemi wrote:
| Stopping Google's tracking isn't as big a priority to most
| people as it seems to be to you (otherwise google would be out
| of business). So it shouldn't really be all that surprising
| when people make statements that aren't about stopping google's
| tracking.
| newaccount74 wrote:
| They track you whether you are logged in or not. I really don't
| think it is easy to escape their tracking.
| simiones wrote:
| I think most people log in to YouTube specifically so YouTube
| can see what they look at and show them more content like that
| and sync across their device, even when they don't have
| Premium. Yours is a tiny tiny niche use case, even among people
| who would pay for a YT app.
| jdminhbg wrote:
| So nice to see a YouTube client that makes sense on the platform
| it's on. Compare to the official YT client for iPad, for example,
| which bizarrely uses the same tiny Material touch targets as on
| phones.
| MengerSponge wrote:
| FYI, Vinegar is well worth a couple of bucks.
| https://apps.apple.com/us/app/vinegar-tube-cleaner/id1591303...
|
| Install it, and delete the janky "native" app. Now Youtube is a
| webpage that does everything it does on a regular browser. PiP?
| Audio with the screen locked or in the background? Yes and yes.
| rjzzleep wrote:
| I've been using vinegar forever(Orion browser supports PiP
| without extension by the way)
|
| But it's bizarre to me how bad the PiP experience on iOS is.
| When you press play on your bluetooth headset it will pause
| the video you're playing instead play whatever was on your
| Music app.
|
| If you lock your screen, it will stop playing the youtube
| video and then you have press play again on the lock screen
| to resume.
|
| Contrast that to either third party youtube clients on
| Android or (Re)vanced, and it's not even close.
|
| And it seems every app has its own PiP issues. Every iOS I'm
| secretly hoping that Apple will address this issue, but it
| never happens ...
| callalex wrote:
| The first problem you describe (wanting to play both music
| and a video?) is just weird, and I'm glad the default
| pehavior doesn't do that. Your second problem is jank
| intentionally introduced by YouTube.
| isametry wrote:
| Does it still block ads? I happily used Vinegar before, but
| it lost that functionality when YouTube's crusade against ad
| blockers began (I don't recall if it just let the ads
| through, or if it triggered the "Ad Blocker Detected" pop-
| up).
|
| With that, YouTube single-handedly forced me to move browsers
| on all my devices - from Safari to Orion, where I get to use
| uBlock Origin. uBlock seems to have stayed a step ahead of YT
| since.
| moi2388 wrote:
| Set your vpn to India and buy YouTube premium there for
| like 1 dollar a month. Cheaper than adblockers and works
| everywhere
| shiroiuma wrote:
| In what universe is 1 less than 0? I haven't paid one red
| cent for uBlock Origin.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| Yeah, but does that work everyw-
| oliwarner wrote:
| Universes where your time isn't worthless? A low cost,
| fire-and-forget solution might easily out-value free.
| chrismorgan wrote:
| I'm confident that installing uBlock Origin will be
| faster and easier than subscribing to YouTube Premium.
| oliwarner wrote:
| Until YouTube blocks you.
|
| I'm really not arguing for any particular course of
| action but these options have real and potential time
| costs that need to be weighed against financial and
| mental load.
| lupusreal wrote:
| If you're using a VPN already, youtube won't block you
| for using an adblocker. At least, not if you don't use an
| account. I definitely spend less than a dollar a month in
| time spent keeping my adblocker working, I haven't
| fiddled with it in years...
| kergonath wrote:
| > Does it still block ads? I happily used Vinegar before,
| but it lost that functionality when YouTube's crusade
| against ad blockers began (I don't recall if it just let
| the ads through, or if it triggered the "Ad Blocker
| Detected" pop-up).
|
| It does. The experience is worse than it was a couple of
| months ago, though, as both YouTube and the blockers have
| to get creative. I think it's engaged in the general cat-
| and-mouse game and occasionally I see YouTube's anti-ad
| blocker screen, but usually it resolves after a day or two.
| Overall it's still much better than out-of-the-box YouTube.
| thrdbndndn wrote:
| > which bizarrely uses the same tiny Material touch targets as
| on phones
|
| I personally think iPad YouTube app's touch is not too bad; but
| in general (not limited to YouTube), I think the UI design of
| web video players are _all_ too fixated on the existing design.
|
| For example, when not in fullscreen mode, I don't see why all
| the controls need to be confined to the video frame and
| disappear when not hovering. While this design choice has its
| benefits, it also presents significant drawbacks: it obscures
| the actual content when you're interacting with the controls (a
| problem that's particularly acute on smaller screens), and
| performing quick, repetitive actions becomes difficult because
| the controls aren't visible until you hover over them, among
| other issues. This approach to web video player UI has been a
| pet peeve of mine for some time.
| eurekin wrote:
| Another one with a same pet peeve here.
|
| It's especially "interesting", when the slider allows to
| navigate to the exact frame you want (that happens very
| rarely) and the information you want to see is in the
| subtitles burned into the video - the ones not shifting with
| UI controls. The UI obscures that and I have to make tens of
| attempts with increased sloppiness due to frustration to take
| it all in.
|
| Most often it's something I keep mishearing and need
| subtitles to actually understand what's being talked about.
| For example, I keep hearing "Hello awful person" in Anton
| Petrov's videos.
| https://youtu.be/PyRf7B1Ji4A?si=bIA7S8qB_WLdLgVs&t=45
| andrepd wrote:
| You just need to accept that "user interface design" has
| stopped being a thing in everything but niche/pro
| applications for at least the past 10 years. You have "follow
| the trend", yes, or "design it so it looks good on
| screenshots", but not "user interface design".
|
| Accept it and you will be less frustrated.
| brookst wrote:
| Acceptance can be wise, but this is not a 10 year old
| problem. Look at your oven; unless you are very lucky (or
| picky, if you bought it yourself), it has terrible UX.
|
| Most people don't care enough about UX to make purchasing
| decisions based on it. Therefore, most companies don't
| prioritize it. Therefore, most product designers have no
| incentive to care about UX.
|
| This has always been true.
| wolpoli wrote:
| In other words, the designers are just engaging in
| screenshot-centric design.
| thrdbndndn wrote:
| It would be helpful if you you can hide the UI when
| pausing for screenshot, then!
| edflsafoiewq wrote:
| It used to be like that.
|
| https://www.versionmuseum.com/images/websites/youtube-
| websit...
| bisRepetita wrote:
| _> it obscures the actual content when you 're interacting
| with the controls (a problem that's particularly acute on
| smaller screens) _
|
| What's the right trade-off here in your mind then? Leave the
| controls always-on/visible? On a small screen, it takes a lot
| of real estate (except in portrait mode), and small UI
| controls are a pain to use so you need to make them big
| enough. I struggle with this, I really don't know what is the
| right trade-off here.
| rakoo wrote:
| > On a small screen, it takes a lot of real estate
|
| That's why the full-screen mode exists
| Thorrez wrote:
| thrdbndndn was only advocating for always-on controls in
| non-fullscreen mode.
|
| One reason people might enter fullscreen mode is to avoid
| seeing distracting things on the screen. Controls might
| be distracting.
| thrdbndndn wrote:
| > except in portrait mode
|
| Portrait mode is exactly what I have in my mind. You have
| plenty of places on the bottom of the video canvas.
|
| For YouTube at least, you only has full-screen mode when in
| landscape anyway.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| On iPhone the YouTube app will do full-screen in portrait
| mode. Grab the video title (under the video) with your
| finger and pull down. The rest of the UI goes away and
| you just get the video shown in the middle of the screen
| with large black areas above and below the screen.
|
| This is besides your point but I thought I would mention
| it. I like controls that hide in full screen mode
| regardless of portrait or landscape because you want to
| focus on the content.
| joseda-hg wrote:
| Not anymore, you can force portrait fullscreen In desktop
| for example: If you go into a vertical video with a
| regular "/watch?v=" URL, you can see vertical format
| video with regular controls
|
| There was some way to get the same effect in android, but
| I can't recall right now
| pests wrote:
| > when not in fullscreen mode, I don't see why all the
| controls need to be confined to the video frame and disappear
| when not hovering
|
| YouTube Premium offers Premium Controls which is a sidebox
| with the controls like you are asking for.
| SebFender wrote:
| what what what? I've been using Premium for years what is
| this feature exactly? I don't see it. Cheers.
| barrell wrote:
| If you tap on the settings/cog icon on a video, there's
| an item for "additional settled", which then has another
| item for playback controls or something.
|
| Once you want to do anything else you have to exit
| everything and open it back up though, it's not really
| efficient
| pests wrote:
| Desktop only feature. Have to enable it. It puts a
| sidebox with a mini remote where suggested videos usually
| are.
|
| It's under "Modify Playback with Premium Controls":
|
| https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6308116?hl=en
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| Oh my gosh they're paywalling video controls now wow.
| wodenokoto wrote:
| And extra controls appear when pausing. I get that most of
| the time when you pause it's because you are not watching,
| but it completely obscures the use case where you want to
| look at a still frame.
|
| Worst though is YouTube shorts where you can't rewind
| freedomben wrote:
| Oh wow, is this because I have YouTube premium? I
| absolutely loathe this feature, because 99% of the time I
| am pausing, it is because I want to read what text is on
| the screen. It gets completely obscured by the controls,
| and even the text that is visible is difficult to read
| because it has a darkened background. Is there a way to
| turn this feature off?
| ek750 wrote:
| I also have YT premium. On desktop, I use firefox and the
| popout video feature. It is easily resizable and movable.
| Downside is that js-player controls still show on the
| webpage, not the popout. On ios, once paused, just tap
| anywhere on the video anywhere there isn't a widget. That
| hides all the video controls for me.
|
| Edit: Also there are keyboard controls for going frame-
| by-frame, if you need that much control. Or there was
| last time I used it a long time ago.
| yard2010 wrote:
| It's on purpose though, YouTube app is designed to maximize
| time spent on app, not UX
| danpalmer wrote:
| This strategy has changed now as far as I can remember. Google
| used to have a strategy of using material on iOS, but has
| decided to switch to a more native UIKit feel. I imagine that
| will be a long transition, but it's promising.
| cbovis wrote:
| The YouTube app on our Sony TV kills me. Out of a variety of
| apps installed (Netflix, HBO, Disney, Apple, Prime) it's the
| only one that we need to adjust volume for EVERY SINGLE TIME
| because they decided 15 should be loud vs 30 on all the other
| apps. Especially frustrating when a lot of the time the first
| play experience in YouTube is being blasted with some kind of
| rapid-fire ad sequence.
| bj-rn wrote:
| Don't know about the volume difference. But haven't seen any
| yt ads in a long time thanks to SmartTube:
| https://github.com/yuliskov/SmartTube
| datpiff wrote:
| The volume issue persists on SmartTube
| badgersnake wrote:
| Same on AppleTV, YouTube is louder than everything else
| except for Spotify which is even louder.
| cbovis wrote:
| I've been resisting the urge to splurge on an Apple TV to
| try and solve this particular problem. Useful to know!
| hapticmonkey wrote:
| The AppleTV YouTube app is so bad that I'm convinced nobody
| responsible for it owns a TV.
|
| It even forces its own built in screensavers to run instead of
| the OS one if the app is left paused. Who approves that?!
|
| What Steve Jobs said about Microsoft in the 90s applies to
| Google today: They have no taste.
| deergomoo wrote:
| > It even forces its own built in screensavers to run instead
| of the OS one if the app is left paused
|
| Eh? YouTube is my most-used app on Apple TV by a country mile
| and I've never seen this, I get the tvOS screensavers. Is it
| because I have YouTube Premium maybe?
|
| I agree though, it is a garbage app. Everything on a TV, from
| the built-in apps to Roku boxes to Apple TV use basically the
| same app (certainly the same layout) and it's really quite
| bad.
| heapoverflow wrote:
| This is because of YouTube's obsession to build cross-
| platform, lowest-common-denominator apps, resulting in
| mediocre experiences across all the platforms they support,
| and rarely excellent on any single platform.
|
| Their Apple TV app is basically a web view which doesn't
| conform to any of AppleTV's UI principles. Same as their
| YouTube TV app. It's sad.
| isatty wrote:
| N=1 obviously but I use the YouTube app a lot on my Apple tv
| and think it works fine? I don't get anything besides the
| native screensaver and they even added the option to browse
| comments natively.
|
| Only bug seems to be a black screen for a second when I close
| the app (maybe a bug with suspend?).
| rob74 wrote:
| Don't get me started on the official YT app on ChromeOS... it's
| so bad (one example: the seek bar was barely usable with a
| touchscreen) that I eventually disabled it, using the website
| is much better.
| freedomben wrote:
| Same, with the added benefit that in the browser I have lots
| of knobs and dials I can turn with uMatrix and other Dev
| tools. Oh and of course, sponsor block. Youtube should be
| insanely grateful for sponsor block, because if not for that
| tool I would have canceled my premium membership because I
| hate seeing ads. I will simply find something else to watch
| if I have to watch ads.
| LegitShady wrote:
| all the youtube apps suck. I can't tell you how many times I've
| accidentally clicked on another video while watching the one I
| actually am trying to watch. If you aren't full screen they
| fill up half the space with giant links to other videos and
| there's no confirmation or option for confirmation. I'm not
| sure anyone who works on them actually uses them in real life
| situations.
| ftio wrote:
| Christian isn't charging enough! This could easily be $10 or
| more.
|
| I still grumble every time I use the Reddit app. RIP Apollo.
| dcchambers wrote:
| I basically just stopped using Reddit after that whole fiasco.
| I had already been drifting away for years. The site has
| changed. It was time to move on.
| cookiesandmilk wrote:
| I started using Yesterday for Old Reddit. It's a safari
| extension which makes old.reddit.com very mobile friendly!
| yard2010 wrote:
| Same here. Twitter as well
| midasz wrote:
| I still selfhost a libreddit instance for search results but
| no more browsing
| vinnymac wrote:
| That sounds very useful, how much space does it utilize?
| midasz wrote:
| Pretty much nothing. The docker image is less than 10mb
| and it uses barely any RAM for me, like 15 idle? I've got
| it running locally and can access it through tailscale
| everywhere. Having it open to internet is a bad idea
| since rate limiting becomes an issue but for a single
| user it's perfect.
| jjcm wrote:
| You can sideload Apollo. It's a bit sketchy, but it's been
| nice having it back.
| slg wrote:
| Seriously, what percentage of people who just spent at least
| $3,500 on the hardware would quibble over an extra $5 when it
| comes to as essential a native app as Youtube?
| sammy2255 wrote:
| Not everyone is greedy and profiteering
| blagie wrote:
| I didn't buy the hardware, but if I had, I would quibble over
| the extra $5.
|
| No, seriously. I would.
|
| Here's the basic problem:
|
| * I wouldn't mind spending $10 on something which I know I'm
| using.
|
| * Most apps sit on my phone unused. Most are horrible. I have
| no idea before I buy whether it's good or horrible for me.
|
| * I often don't mind spending a buck or two on something to
| see if I'll use it. $10 is right above that threshold.
|
| * No apps do a decent free trial. I'm busy, so one of the
| 30-day things doesn't work for me. I'll install it, and when
| / if I get around to using it, the trial is already done. My
| life doesn't revolve around the app. Likewise, many apps will
| limit functionality to where the free trial is basically an
| advertisement, and I don't see if it's something I'd use.
|
| I think what would work for me (n=1) is:
|
| * The app is free for the first 40 hours of actual use. Or
| perhaps some annual quota.
|
| * Continuing using it beyond that costs e.g. $20 for
| something simple like a video player and e.g. $100 for
| something complex like a video editor.
|
| That aligns incentives right too.
|
| For a video player, I don't think I'd use one without the
| option for an ad blocker. I'm not getting Youtube Premium no
| matter how cheap or expensive it is, since I don't think it'd
| be unethical for me to do so (it's a bit of a broken social
| contract by Google). That's another story (and I'm not trying
| to push my values on anyone else).
| criddell wrote:
| The app is only $5.
|
| Best case scenario: you get an app you use all the time for
| almost nothing and are supporting an independent developer
| making cool stuff.
|
| Worst case scenario: you never use the app but supported an
| independent developer with a tiny donation.
| blagie wrote:
| The question wasn't over $5. The question was over an
| extra $5, for a total of $10. $5 is basically the upper
| bound of where I'm willing to experiment.
|
| The question is also very much about whether I am
| "supporting an independent developer with a tiny
| donation." A lot of stuff on app stores is spammy,
| scammy, and I explicitly don't want to support. Our
| dollars determine where our resources (as a society) go.
| I don't mind supporting good things, even with donations.
| I am currently fighting a company over <$3 which they got
| by fraud, not because it's worth my time, but because
| it's my civic duty; if I don't, they'll scam another
| million people.
|
| The audience are HN readers -- entrepreneurs trying to
| make apps. The point isn't about me as what I ought to be
| doing (or about convincing others to be like me). The
| point is to honestly give customer insight, again, with
| an n=1. If enough people do that, there's a sample bias,
| but you do get better insight than nothing.
|
| I'm probably going to stop doing that since "customers
| doing what we don't like" increasingly leads to
| downvotes. Either I'm communicating badly, people reading
| are increasingly bad at reading comprehension, or some
| combination there-of. These posts used to be valued a few
| years back.
|
| However, as much as it didn't come across, the take-home
| message was intended to be that if you're running an
| honest business, you want to (and can) charge me more if
| you:
|
| 1) Clearly signal you're not evil. E.g. my data is
| treated with respect, you won't scam me, etc.
|
| 2) Give me enough information to be able to determine
| it's a product I want.
|
| That's basic transparency, and a lot of startups lose my
| business because they screw it up.
| spacedcowboy wrote:
| Well, I don't really use Youtube, so ...
| slg wrote:
| Then why would you buy a $5 YouTube client?
| monkeywork wrote:
| While not as good as Apollo the "Dystopia for reddit" (iOS) or
| the "Red Reader" (android) are both better than the official
| reddit app.
| geoelectric wrote:
| iOS has Narwhal 2, as well. It's got its own subscription to
| defray the API costs but it's a reasonable price.
| pantulis wrote:
| Dystopia is excellent not only because it's free but because
| it is great for people with poor eyesight like myself,
| allowing for pretty big fonts that are broken on the official
| iOS Reddit App. The only alternative way I've found to
| achieve this is to browse Reddit with Safari and use page
| zoom.
|
| I'm still missing Apollo quite a lot. Narwhal2 is good and
| comes close but it's not exactly there.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| thanks for reminding me to double check my stylesheets for
| big text compatibility.
| pantulis wrote:
| I always used to think that accessibility is for blind
| people, text readers and all that shit. Turns out that
| over the years accessibility ends up catching you one way
| or the other.
| yard2010 wrote:
| Yo just for this incident reddit should be fined, but not
| peanuts, like 10-20% their revenue. Any business that
| discriminates disabled people mustn't be a business IMHO
|
| Don't worry. The EU will teach them a lesson when they're
| done with everyone else. Thank god we have the EU to
| balance US.
| isatty wrote:
| Dystopia is indeed amazing.
|
| The "command line" lite experience for browsing is also
| very good.
| BlindEyeHalo wrote:
| In general I would agree but charging $10 for something that
| can be shut down tomorrow just because google doesn't like it
| seems a bit much.
| sbarre wrote:
| He admits it uses the official embed API, doesn't block or
| skip ads and generally plays nice with their systems. He's
| not trying to circumvent anything, he's just filling a gap
| left by Google themselves.
|
| It would be quite the precedent for Google to shut someone
| down who is _technically_ playing by all their rules.
|
| (Yes I'm sure the ToS allows them to do this if they want to
| - but it would be a bad look).
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Lots of apps block YouTube ads by default. Including Brave
| palla89 wrote:
| You can sideload without jailbreak, it perfectly works!
| snalty wrote:
| I'm quite liking Winston for Reddit.
|
| https://testflight.apple.com/join/3UF8bAUN
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Why do this when YouTube would have one eventually? This isn't
| like Reddit client, I've never heard of a 3rd party YouTube
| client. Is he doing it for fun or just to get the initial
| impatient $$ before YouTube shows up?
| hokumguru wrote:
| You didn't use an iPhone before iOS6? Hate to break it to you
| but they took quite a few years with the last platform!
| wrsh07 wrote:
| The worst part of being an early adopter (very first world
| problems) is that nothing exists yet. When 4k HDR was first
| being supported, a couple of Netflix shows were there and...
| not much else (some YouTube videos of dubious quality) VisionOS
| is going to have a lot of new app developer excitement, and
| that's good! YouTube is one of the most used apps on my phone,
| $5 seems pretty reasonable.
| neurostimulant wrote:
| > I've never heard of a 3rd party YouTube client.
|
| There are plenty of cool 3rd party youtube clients. SmartTube,
| NewPipe and Invidious come to mind. Youtube Revanced could be
| considered as 3rd party youtube client as well.
| jdoss wrote:
| I echo the author's praise of YouTube Premium. When it first came
| out I was like there is no way I would ever pay for such service.
| Being an early YouTube user, pre Google buyout, I still was in
| love with the platform that gave me content from real people.
|
| Fast forward to 2020 the US election cycle broke me. I could not
| stand the amount of political ads that were being shoved down my
| throat. My kids were perma home due to COVID and we were running
| out of things to watch. I finally caved and got YouTube Premium.
| I told myself OK after this shit show of an election cycle ends I
| will cancel and yet here I am still paying for it. It is that
| good.
|
| Yes I realize that I am part of the problem. I just got my first
| Amazon Prime ad tonight trying to catch up on the train wreck
| Wheel of Time show they are putting out... and I am going to
| upgrade to not have them because I simply DGAF about whatever
| bullshit that they are filling advertisement slots with.
|
| $2.99 a month is worth it. Kill me now.
| imiric wrote:
| So a corporation acquired the platform you enjoyed using, and
| corrupted the user experience so much that it forced you to pay
| them to get the old UX back, and... you're happy about it?
|
| Sounds like Stockholm syndrome, to be honest, with Google
| laughing all the way to the bank.
| brabel wrote:
| I think running the biggest video platform on the planet
| entirely for free is not realistic. Why are you so against
| Google charging a minimum fee for doing that while still
| giving you the opportunity to watch for free in exchange for
| being shown a few ads? Do you think they should be run as a
| charity?
| imiric wrote:
| > Why are you so against Google charging a minimum fee for
| doing that while still giving you the opportunity to watch
| for free in exchange for being shown a few ads?
|
| I'm against it because advertising is not the only business
| model that works at scale. Google effectively introduced
| itself as a middleman between content creators and
| consumers, which they continue to do whether you pay with
| your attention/data or cash.
|
| I happily support content creators who don't rely on
| advertising or Google itself. I just refuse to be forced
| into a corrupt business model.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| > Google effectively introduced itself as a middleman
| between content creators and consumers, which they
| continue to do whether you pay with your attention/data
| or cash.
|
| anybody else is free to introduce a content discovery &
| delivery scheme that would obviate the need for a
| advertising-laden middleman, but for some reason people
| keep downloading the YouTube app
| tiborsaas wrote:
| What would be your ethical business model alternative to
| maintain YoutTube's staff, engineering, energy bill and
| hardware costs? Just to break even.
| sbarre wrote:
| Not to mention paying the creators!
| judge2020 wrote:
| Advertising is the only business model that works at
| scale AND can support hypergrowth.
|
| We know that subscriptions work at scale, mostly. YT
| Premium[1] has 100 million (Maybe 90M if there are 10M
| people only getting Music premium). But if YT was only
| available via subscription in 2010 during the gaming
| channel boom, it probably would have failed out of the
| gate.
|
| But advertising is necessary to maintain the scale YT
| runs at today. 100 Million subscribers is nothing
| compared to the >2.7 billion humans that use it. Not all
| of them would pay even $2/month if you let them.
|
| 1: https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/youtube-music-
| premium-1...
| charcircuit wrote:
| No ads is not sustainable. It's not like the alternative is
| youtube remaining ad free. The alternative is youtube
| shutting down.
| imiric wrote:
| That's a false dichotomy. There are many monetizing
| alternatives besides advertising, or paying the platform to
| remove advertising they introduced in the first place.
| jdoss wrote:
| OK, I'll bite. What are some alternatives besides
| advertising or paying a fee to get no Ads?
| imiric wrote:
| It's not my role to come up with consumer-friendly
| business models, or to vouch for any specific ones. I'm
| just saying that, as a consumer, I don't want Google's
| business.
|
| If someone is selling apples in exchange for punching me
| in the face (and actually watching me and doing that
| while I eat, for a more accurate analogy :), then I
| wouldn't like going to their store. I would prefer going
| to the farmers' market and buying directly from the
| farmer by paying for it with cash. Farm-to-table type of
| transaction. Would this make the farmer as rich as
| selling their apples to the face-punching store? Probably
| not. They would probably have to work harder for less
| money, because they would have to manage more of their
| business themselves, and their products wouldn't reach as
| many people. There would probably be less apple farmers
| overall as well. But would it be a more consumer-friendly
| business that is actually incentivized to put care in
| their product? Absolutely.
|
| It's not my fault that there aren't more farmers' market
| equivalents on the web. I'll use them if/when they exist,
| but in the meantime I'll have to resort to acquiring my
| apples in alternative ways.
| framapotari wrote:
| In your analogy when you say buying directly from the
| farmer by paying with cash, what does that translate to
| in the real world? How are you supporting content
| creators on YouTube if you block ads?
| imiric wrote:
| For most of them, I'm not. But some creators have
| alternative revenue streams which I do support.
|
| This is not my problem to fix. I don't feel guilty in any
| way for refusing to participate in a business model I
| don't agree with.
| pb7 wrote:
| You should feel guilty. It's no different than going to a
| restaurant and not tipping knowing full well that is the
| accepted business model. It's not illegal, but it's a
| morally reprehensible thing to do. And tipping one server
| $50 and the next 10 nothing is not worthy of praise
| either.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| > It's not my role to come up with consumer-friendly
| business models, or to vouch for any specific ones. I'm
| just saying that, as a consumer, I don't want Google's
| business.
|
| "The many monetisation models I claimed exist go to
| another school. In Canada."
| charcircuit wrote:
| With keeping the same old UX yes it is. What YouTube
| offers for free is very generous. There is unlimited
| uploads. The high resolution options are free. The site
| is not behind a paywall. You can make an infinite amount
| of playlists which each have an unlimited size. You can
| have unlimited tabs open. Videos get automatic
| transcriptions, subtitles, and translations. Your
| streaming does not get throttled. Every user gets their
| own personalized feed. etc
| summerlight wrote:
| You will be surprised to see how much money you need to
| pay in order to match the ads numbers. And running a
| global video platform needs very high CapEx/OpEx numbers
| compared to other web businesses. YT premium is very
| likely a much less profitable business, mostly meant for
| mitigating user complaints against ads + revenue
| diversification.
| imiric wrote:
| > You will be surprised to see how much money you need to
| pay in order to match the ads numbers.
|
| I'm well aware of that. Advertising is clearly the most
| profitable online business model. It has a low barrier of
| entry for users, it scales with the amount of users, and
| is simple to implement. Companies can collect user data
| and use it in perpetuity to monetize it in infinite ways
| beyond just ad impressions. Data is gold.
|
| My point is that it's all corrupt to the core. It's
| driven by generating wealth for companies over anything
| else, least of all the well-being of people. It actually
| relies on manipulating the human psyche, pioneered by the
| machiavellian mind of Edward Bernays nearly a century
| ago. It inserts itself as a leech between the goods
| producer and people, to not only connect producers with
| interested consumers as its proponents would like us to
| believe, but to create consumers out of people who
| wouldn't otherwise be interested. And then the internet
| came along, and made it more profitable than it's ever
| been. Oh, and it's also being exploited to spread
| propaganda, influence elections and topple democracies,
| but no matter, the charts must go up and to the right.
|
| So, yeah, sorry for the rant, but my point is that there
| are plenty of ways that companies can monetize their
| business that doesn't involve advertising. It might not
| be as easy or profitable, but I have this silly opinion
| that the well-being of society should be higher priority
| than generating wealth for shareholders.
| pb7 wrote:
| Explain what role advertising plays in you not paying a
| subscription to have access to ad-free videos.
|
| You are using a lot of words to justify the fact that you
| would prefer to steal from the same creators that you
| rely on for information and entertainment. You do not
| care about their well being but you're standing on that
| soapbox nonetheless.
|
| And please, don't tell me that you support them in other
| ways because I don't believe you. People that are too
| cheap to pay for a service that all parties have agreed
| to the terms of are too cheap to support in other ways
| too. No to mention there's no practical way to compensate
| every creator whose videos you may have watched.
| imiric wrote:
| > Explain what role advertising plays in you not paying a
| subscription to have access to ad-free videos.
|
| Paying YouTube to not show me ads simply removes the
| inconvenience of not interrupting my watching experience.
| It doesn't get rid of any of the other issues I mentioned
| inherent to advertising as a business, which Google still
| is, whether I pay them or not. My data will still be used
| to show me ads on other Google sites, I'm still training
| their algorithms on how to keep me on their site for
| longer and how to better show me ads in the future, etc.
| And I'm supporting their empire, which I'd rather not do.
|
| > And please, don't tell me that you support them in
| other ways because I don't believe you.
|
| I don't care whether you believe me or not. The creators
| certainly don't get compensated nearly enough by
| alternative means, and I don't do regular donations or
| have any system to keep track of how much I've spent.
| It's surely a minuscule amount compared to what they earn
| from advertising. But it's not my problem they chose to
| rely on a business model I refuse to be a part of. If
| this bothers them, they're free to put up their content
| on other platforms, or behind a paywall. If, however,
| they upload their content on a public site, I have no
| qualms with accessing a public resource on my own terms.
| The fact you equate this to stealing is laughable.
| reportgunner wrote:
| You are very silly to think that youtube would shut down
| just because you don't pay your three monthly doubloons.
| datagram wrote:
| As someone with a YouTube channel, from looking at my
| metrics it's pretty clear that YouTube is being held
| afloat by a) the fact that non-technical users can't
| easily block YouTube ads on mobile devices, and b)
| YouTube Premium.
|
| A single user depriving YouTube of their revenue is
| inconsequential sure, but when hundreds of millions of
| people do it (like with blocking ads on desktop) it
| obviously runs the risk of making the entire company
| unviable. Hosting videos for free is a great way to lose
| a lot of money.
| 7jjjjjjj wrote:
| >The alternative is youtube shutting down.
|
| We can only hope.
| joemi wrote:
| Something like youtube (streaming _huge_ amounts of videos
| with with no monetization) was bound to either get ads or
| die. The corporation didn't kill it. In fact, quite the
| opposite: they made it so it could keep living.
| jdoss wrote:
| I said kill me now at the end of my post and that I am part
| of the problem and you yet think I am happy about it? Ok you
| got me bud. Yep 100% Stockholm syndrome. No, I am not happy
| about it, but what else is there? Do you block YouTube on
| your network so you don't see content from that platform? I'd
| wager you don't.
|
| Also, do you really think that any platform as big as YouTube
| can remain free forever? I will pay for things that bring
| value to my life. YouTube Premium brings value almost every
| day. I am pretty sure you pay for things that bring value or
| make thing easier for you in life, so maybe don't post these
| kinds of responses in the future as they are cynical and
| bring no value to the conversation.
| imiric wrote:
| > Do you block YouTube on your network so you don't see
| content from that platform? I'd wager you don't.
|
| I don't block YouTube, I just don't use any of their
| official frontends. There are plenty of alternatives in
| this space[1]. This might not work for everyone, but I get
| a much better UX with these tools. Not seeing ads is one
| benefit, but it's also about not being a participant in
| training algorithms that have a, mostly negative,
| psychological impact.
|
| > I am pretty sure you pay for things that bring value or
| make thing easier for you in life
|
| Of course. And I happily support content creators who don't
| rely on advertising or Google itself. I just refuse to be
| forced into a corrupt business model.
|
| Anyway, I didn't mean to antagonize you, so apologies if my
| response came across that way.
|
| [1]: https://github.com/mendel5/alternative-front-
| ends?tab=readme...
| jdoss wrote:
| You came across antagonistic, but fair enough, thanks for
| the apology.
|
| Let me put it this way. I understand that you can block
| YouTube ads and have the techicnal means to block them at
| the DNS level. I also understand I can run different
| frontends for YouTube, but it is flat out easier and
| faster for me personally to not do that and to pay $22.99
| a month for my entire family to enjoy ad free content.
| Time is money.
|
| Also, I play a decent amount of video games and I send
| money monthly to content creators on said games I play.
| If something brings value to my life or makes things
| easier, I will pay for it. Just because I pay for
| something you do not like doesn't mean I don't support
| content creators via other means.
| imiric wrote:
| That's fine. We obviously have different opinions and
| priorities. I'm not saying that my approach is
| objectively better, or that it works for everyone.
|
| I just found your observation that YouTube Premium is a
| good thing peculiar, especially coming from someone who's
| experienced YT pre-Google. To me it only solves part of
| the problem that Google introduced themselves, while
| still making you a participant in the other less obvious
| problems with the business.
| manquer wrote:
| it is $13.99 / month in the US now. $150/year is a lot of money
| - for a product you can choose not to pay and still mostly use.
| stevenwliao wrote:
| I'm skipping 2 hours of ads per month for $15. IMO it's a
| pretty good deal.
|
| (Assumptions: I watch 10 hours of YouTube videos per week,
| YouTube shows 30 seconds of ads per 10 minutes of video)
| turquoisevar wrote:
| Yeah, $2.99/mo would be a great value.
|
| $13.99/mo is at streamer levels who spend millions on
| production on top of infrastructure cost and allow you to
| share (within same household).
|
| $23/mo for family is just plain robbery.
| orangepanda wrote:
| But does it block the ads that are still shown with youtube
| premium?
| xyst wrote:
| Only a matter of time until G blocks access to whatever API he is
| using or throttles it. YT invests a shit ton of money to ensure
| you use the official YT app to make sure you view their stupid
| ads, pump their ad profits, or buy YoUtUbE PrEmIuM
|
| looks good though! Won't be adopting the apple vision pro for
| awhile. but the developers pushing their apps to this ecosystem
| will definitely be awarded for early adoption until "native" apps
| are made available.
|
| pump out a AVP app. early adopters of AVP likely to buy ($5-$10).
| Rake in that easy money while the big companies take their time
| in building their own app. Big companies then throttle or block
| those apis used by indy developers or require fee to use them.
| Indy developers likely to halt development and thus people end up
| on the official apps.
| quic5 wrote:
| > At its core, Juno uses the YouTube website itself. No, not
| scraped. It presents the website as you would load it, but
| similar to how browser extensions work, it tweaks the theming
| of the site through CSS and JavaScript.
| serf wrote:
| I don't know why it matters much, there is a near limitless
| plethora of tools one can use to do agent profiling, meaning
| that if Google cared enough they could still engage in
| hostile behavior to break the product in various ways.
| Moldoteck wrote:
| they could, but on the other hand there are a lot of apps
| like vanced/newpipe that still exist, so... Not just that,
| if under the hood the dev is using webkit+some extension-
| like blocking, it'll again be pretty hard to block and I'm
| not sure google is willing to invest effort/money in
| investigating this, esp considering that afaik juno doesn't
| even block ads
| agos wrote:
| they can probably go at it with just lawyers
| pjmlp wrote:
| Google already did this before, to Microsoft on Windows
| Phone.
| reportgunner wrote:
| So kind of like adblock works
| rvz wrote:
| No idea why this comment was downvoted. YouTube (Google) can
| easily get Apple to ban unauthorized third party apps.
|
| Once YouTube releases support for the Vision Pro, either Google
| will get Juno banned as an unauthorized third party app or make
| the API expensive to use even if Juno becomes popular.
|
| > pump out a AVP app. early adopters of AVP likely to buy
| ($5-$10). Rake in that easy money while the big companies take
| their time in building their own app. Big companies then
| throttle or block those apis used by indy developers or require
| fee to use them. Indy developers likely to halt development and
| thus people end up on the official apps.
|
| Precisely. Unfortunately the creator of Apollo has not learned
| anything about what happened to his reddit client and the same
| will certainly happen with this YouTube client.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Just wait until Google blocks Juno, just like they did to
| Microsoft on Windows Phone when they created their own client.
| simiones wrote:
| To be fair, there were plenty of 3rd party YouTube clients on
| Windows Phone that they didn't block (I even payed for one).
| They only really didn't want an official YouTube app to exist
| on Windows Phone, and the same will likely be true for
| VisionPro (even assuming that Google wants to try to bury
| VisionOS like they did with Windows - which is not clear yet).
| And a payed YouTube app will obviously have a tiny install base
| on any platform, so they don't really care.
| tobiasbischoff wrote:
| Is there already a word for this fetish of putting your fate in
| the hands of big companies not shutting you down from their APIs?
| blowski wrote:
| Let's ask some of the people who made a fortune out of doing
| it. Entrepreneurial, maybe?
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| marketshareophelia
| hiddencost wrote:
| Capitalism
| graphe wrote:
| Fetishes are sexually derrived or worship of an idol. Are you
| calling them losers for not scraping?
| derefr wrote:
| Masochists, more like.
| graphe wrote:
| Does scraping ever cause an app to stop working?
| newaccount74 wrote:
| I assume that Christian Selig made enough money with Apollo
| before it was shut down to make it a worthwhile business, even
| if it was not forever. He seems to be doing just fine despite a
| big company shutting him down.
| manquer wrote:
| Why do you think this is a flawed decision to do so ? In my
| opinion this is a conscious choice by Selig both times and a
| good one.
|
| There are business models where venture funding is unsuitable
| as there will never be hockey stick growth or unit economics or
| competitive moats etc, traditionally companies usually small
| operate here, they are not startups, just SMB doing non flashy
| stuff.
|
| Similarly also many business models unsuitable talented product
| teams to risk on , that are perfect for a highly talented
| freelancer such as Christian Selig - like third party API
| dependent ideas.
|
| He is amongst the best indie developers in the Apple ecosystem
| and doesn't have to worry about competition quality too much in
| these ideas.
|
| These are four main ways that I know of, to be a professional
| talented product developer -
|
| 1. Become a founder, raise funding, chase growth and do things
| you don't really like anymore
|
| 2. Freelance and do boring consulting work, trying to keep
| customer happy
|
| 3. Work in a big bureaucratic tech company and be frustrated
| constantly with everything from politics to red tape.
|
| 4. Pour your heart and soul into a early stage startup and
| watch it either outgrow you or crash and burn.
|
| He instead gets to build _products_ at a massive scale without
| having any overhead of an organization, and also making decent
| amount of money (upwards of few million /year with Apollo),
| what more can a developer aspire for ?
| notso411 wrote:
| What is the point? Just load up youtube.com press a video full
| screen it then drag the window around your vision UI
| awsanswers wrote:
| Great moves, great write up. This is simple world class software
| decision making
| nntwozz wrote:
| If you're into self-hosting there is https://github.com/iv-
| org/invidious which works great with
| https://github.com/yattee/yattee for macOS/iOS/tvOS.
|
| This combo is amazing, haven't looked back ever since I deployed
| it with docker.
|
| Hopefully Yattee will make a native visionOS app in the future.
| smith7018 wrote:
| Does this system provide the same level of content
| recommendations as the Youtube homepage? If so then I'll set it
| up tonight!
| ozarker wrote:
| There aren't recommendations like youd see on the YouTube
| front page. There are "next video" recommendations like
| YouTube though
| keb_ wrote:
| Part of the appeal for these privacy front-ends is the zero
| tracking, so you don't get the hyper-aware recommendations of
| normal YouTube. I'd say if that's a major selling point to
| you, you probably wouldn't enjoy Invidious.
|
| Though, I'd recommend people try self curating a list of
| subscriptions and discover new videos a more organic way
| (friends making recommendations, or seeing videos on HN or
| Reddit). I personally have found my YouTube experience to be
| less distracting when I started using Invidious.
| keb_ wrote:
| Also in this realm, for Roku there is
| https://github.com/iBicha/playlet which works great when hooked
| up to my self-hosted Invidious instance.
| iseanstevens wrote:
| Such a good read. This Apollo dev has a good worldview
| Zenul_Abidin wrote:
| Brought to you by the man who created Apollo for Reddit.
| consumer451 wrote:
| For reference, please see the #2 top post on Reddit in the last
| year.
|
| This is the impact that a single developer can have.
|
| If that's not inspirational, then I don't know what is.
|
| https://old.reddit.com/top/?sort=top&t=year
| poochkoishi728 wrote:
| All I see is a picture of a dick-shaped 9/11 memorial..
| Sutanreyu wrote:
| Needs VR video support. :)
| KhalPanda wrote:
| I think $5 is _beyond_ fair, considering every user will have
| dropped >$3k on hardware.
| graphe wrote:
| With that logic every app that is free on an iPhone pro max
| must be unfair.
| spiderfarmer wrote:
| If you think that for every fact in life, the inverse is also
| true, then you're bad at logic.
| KhalPanda wrote:
| For apps that run exclusively on brand new iPhone pro max's,
| sure.
|
| ...but seeing as that isn't the case.
| londons_explore wrote:
| If developers could price apps differently for the cheap Vs
| expensive iPhones, they would.
| graphe wrote:
| They do. Death stranding only works on the newest iphone.
| You're free to buy a non functional app but it happens as
| for ipad only.
| simiones wrote:
| Conversely, if I spent $3.5k on a device, I'm not paying a cent
| more to watch YouTube on it.
| dubcanada wrote:
| You would certainly be in the minority, Apple profits alone
| state that people are more then willing to pay an excessively
| large sum of money for products and then buy $1000 stands.
| Aissen wrote:
| Question for Christian: doesn't YouTube limit the player when
| using the embed API (max resolution for example) ?
| whatsthatabout wrote:
| He answers this on the website: "...There's no API keys, or
| limits to how many times a day you can call it..."
| Aissen wrote:
| Have you never had an issue while using an embedded video on
| a website ? Whether a message "it cannot be played, go to
| YouTube", or trying to select a high-resolution, or subtitles
| and failing ?
| criddell wrote:
| He addresses this:
|
| > The one downside is that occasionally you'll get a
| creator who disabled playback for YouTube embeds. This is
| rare, especially with videos made in the last few years,
| but for those Juno will auto-detect that and just load up
| the normal video website page rather than the fancy player.
| Aissen wrote:
| That answers my question about the embeds not playing at
| all (thank you, that's what I get for speed reading), but
| I'm curious if there are other limitations.
| yard2010 wrote:
| I wish Google is the the Blockbuster of our time, making money
| off nefarious patterns just to be replaced completely by
| something more novel ...that ends up making money off nefarious
| patterns
| rixrax wrote:
| I can't even begin to describe how excited I am about the Vision
| Pro and how much I want it to be everything it claims to be! Are
| there any info available from people who have received their
| headsets that are 'standard' production versions, and not Apple
| supplied early access versions? I want to hit that order button,
| but the rational me tells me to wait for some initial real life
| reviews to roll in.
| lfkdev wrote:
| I think the MKBHD video is on a normal consumer one
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| They're the same thing you'll get at retail
| julienreszka wrote:
| Very cool
| danjc wrote:
| A little off topic but absence of a first party app like YouTube
| is notable and will really hurt AVP - as intended of course.
| SeriousM wrote:
| > Does it block ads? It doesn't, I don't think Google would like
| that, but if you have YouTube Premium you won't see ads, just
| like the website.
|
| I just realised that a new product means new eco system, means
| less/no customization possibilities.
|
| What a wonderful world...
| reustle wrote:
| I wouldn't necessarily call it a new ecosystem. It's mostly the
| same walled garden that runs iOS/iPadOS.
| password54321 wrote:
| "Google layoffs x percent of its employees". HN: Fckin Google!
|
| "Here is an option to support a platform you use without
| watching ads". HN: Go fck yourself!
| krapp wrote:
| Do you think Google pays their employees directly from
| Youtube ad revenue?
| password54321 wrote:
| That is definitely what I implied. /s
| jameshart wrote:
| What do _you_ think Google pays their employees with?
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| As little a share of it as they can get away with, in
| other words market rate wages
| jameshart wrote:
| ... which they fund from what source?
| Nullabillity wrote:
| Right, won't someone please think of the poor little
| underpaid corporate behemoth.
| mromanuk wrote:
| I like how Christian Selig find big tech problematic UI/Ux
| products and fix that with an app.
| hhh wrote:
| This feels like an early iPhone app launch in the best of ways.
| CivBase wrote:
| > Does it block ads? It doesn't, I don't think Google would like
| that
|
| I suspect Google already doesn't like what you're doing. They
| chose to make their own app unavailable on the AVP even though it
| sounds like it would be trivial for them to do so. Whatever their
| reasons are, I doubt they're keen about a third party stepping in
| with an alternative.
| thatxliner wrote:
| Just wondering, how does the logistics of pricing it at a one
| time purchase work? Isn't there a $99/year Apple developer
| program?
| infinitecost wrote:
| It's $5. Can you imagine it remaining supported in 5 years?
| jdminhbg wrote:
| He's probably hoping to get more than 20 purchases.
| LeSaucy wrote:
| Talented developer for sure, but has a knack for developing
| software that piggy backs of silicon valley giants that can turn
| off access at a moments notice.
| grashalm wrote:
| I don't understand what reasonable alternative there could be.
| Develop your own YouTube?
| krapp wrote:
| For certain values of "reasonable":
|
| Peertube is one distributed option[0].
|
| Many content creators have started hosting videos on other
| services like Patreon because of Youtube's censorship and
| demonetization policies. Which doesn't entirely avoid the
| centralization problem but it's better not to put all of your
| eggs in one basket.
|
| It's also possible (although obviously not always feasible)
| to self-host or torrent.
|
| [0]https://joinpeertube.org/en_US
| grashalm wrote:
| Thanks for the link. I didn't know Peertube, yet.
|
| I can't see how you can avoid the centralization problem
| and also have decent monetization for the videos. But I
| want to certainly become convinced that it can work. Crypto
| made me a decentralization skeptic.
| docmars wrote:
| Worth mentioning that Rumble, Odysee, and Bitchute are all
| excellent alternative platforms to host videos at, without
| the concerns YouTube has introduced. Although, I can't
| speak to monetization for any of these -- which is where
| Patreon excels here.
|
| X.com is also trying to enter the space by hosting longer
| videos and allowing accounts to earn ad revenue as well as
| building a subscriber base who can support creators
| directly. It's not half bad.
|
| Full disclaimer:
|
| I think it might be implied, but there's certainly a lot of
| political distaste around these platforms since they
| finally freed themselves from the shackles of government-
| aided censorship, and takedowns that are heavily biased
| towards promoting progressive views (especially radical).
|
| With that said, everyone please refrain from attacking this
| reply for merely mentioning these platforms as options, as
| they are equally valid ways to build a following and/or
| monetize your content, even if they support creators who
| run against your own views. As they say, diversity is our
| strength!
| thih9 wrote:
| Alternative to what?
|
| Most devs work on projects that don't actively compete with
| large companies on their own ground.
|
| Or do you mean alternative to watching video on Vision - I
| suppose youtube still works via safari, is that not the case?
| grashalm wrote:
| Alternative to working with a big silicon valley giant. If
| you want to integrate/use YouTube you need to deal with
| whatever that company puts you up with. And as the article
| states, you don't want them to become grumpy at you;
| otherwise, they will turn you off even quicker. The only
| alternative I see is to develop a new YouTube, which seems
| unreasonable given how dominant Google is.
| thih9 wrote:
| You don't need a direct alternative to youtube to stop
| using youtube. You can just not deal with it, or access
| it via browser when needed, and use other platforms/media
| more instead. It might even become irrelevant on its own,
| like facebook and google search are slowly becoming.
|
| But sure, if that's not enough and you need a clone of
| youtube then yes, you need to develop a new youtube.
| unshavedyak wrote:
| I think the idea was that they would develop apps that don't
| require the giants. Which sure, could be your own YouTube,
| but more often it's a smaller in scope project because you're
| a solo dev. If i understand them correctly, they're just
| acknowledging the risk.
|
| Ie work in a way that doesn't require the giants shadow, as
| the giant may move unexpectedly. The shade can be quite
| lucrative though, if you're nimble.
| jimbokun wrote:
| I'm assuming this developer is aware of that, and will move on
| to the next thing as soon as Google develops their own Youtube
| Vision OS app.
| turtlebits wrote:
| Or they might just find the user experience lacking and want to
| improve on it.
|
| I make all sorts of small apps and utilities because to improve
| usability of services i consume. It doest mean I'm some lackey
| to big corp.
| alexsereno wrote:
| That's more of a statement of the monopolization of hardware
| access the App Store gives than it is him "piggy backing". It's
| not like you have a real choice without Apple being forced to
| allow software downloads via a web browser globally.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| I think they meant more about being beholden to Youtube's
| current implementation.
| alexsereno wrote:
| That's valid
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Here's an almost trivial bit of "permissionless innovation"
| thanks to Silicon Valley giants:
|
| https://mastodon.social/@UP8/111049822586450100
|
| 30 years ago somebody who wanted to develop a "new object you
| can use to distribute music" had to spend $100 million on some
| project like
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Compact_Cassette
|
| today it is very simple because almost everyone has a player in
| their pocket that connects the card to software which runs in
| the cloud. It wouldn't be technically difficult at all for me
| to host the music file in S3, R2 or Azure storage and the
| storage and network costs are insignificant so far as I expect
| these cards to be distributed. If I did that I could get in
| trouble over copyright, so a link to YouTube is a safe and easy
| solution w/ the disadvantage that people in many geographies
| can't view licensed music videos.
|
| Fortunately that QR code is a redirect and I can send it to
| another service. I demoed the cards with quite a few people and
| found that they usually felt it was a letdown to go to YouTube
| (maybe because they go to YouTube all the time and there is
| nothing special about it) but that there was more satisfaction
| with a link to SongWhip which might send them to YouTUbe in the
| end but gives them a feeling of agency at the expense of
| another click.
| dbtc wrote:
| I've been imagining making song/album cards for a long time
| now! Just like that! Very nice.
| mlsu wrote:
| Making something like youtube would be much easier technically
| than it would have been in 2006 or so. A solo dev could create
| a small scale streaming service for HTML5 video pretty
| reasonably.
|
| It's the copyright that's the problem. You would be
| annihilated, not by YouTube's lawyers, but by UMG and Sony's
| lawyers, immediately after getting even a small amount of
| traction.
| dharma1 wrote:
| What other choice you have?
|
| Anyway YouTube aren't going to disable embeds. So don't see it
| being turned off
| diggan wrote:
| > What other choice you have?
|
| Anything that isn't a client to proprietary platforms?
| Moto7451 wrote:
| He probably had fun with this one and expects (or hopes!) it to
| become irrelevant after YouTube for VisionOS comes out. We'll
| see.
| ipshii wrote:
| This look very very cool!
| AISnakeOil wrote:
| Why do you need an app when you can watch it on the web browser?
| Shank wrote:
| > but YouTube.com stinks -- it's a minefield of UI targets that
| are too small for eye-tracking's precision [0]
|
| [0]: https://daringfireball.net/2024/01/the_vision_pro
| bambax wrote:
| > _Does it block ads? It doesn't_
|
| Having recently tried to watch Youtube on iPad without an
| adblocker, I discovered Youtube advertising. It's insufferable.
| Ads appear every few minutes, and they're not like the TV ads of
| yore. They're exclusively get-rich-quick schemes with people
| explaining how they're able to earn $10,000 a month doing nothing
| -- all one has to do is go to that website and subscribe to a
| shady course.
|
| Fortunately Brave still blocks ads successfully, even on an iPad.
| Without it, it would be unusable. I wonder who puts up with this.
| LegitShady wrote:
| I think youtube ads are terrible and frequent because youtube
| decided they have no competition and if people want to watch
| videos, they'll either put up with that shit or pay for premium
| which is what youtube actually wants.
| thih9 wrote:
| > There's no API keys, or limits to how many times a day you can
| call it
|
| Yet. Just like with Apollo and Reddit API, at some point there
| weren't any.
| vessenes wrote:
| This looks awesome. Christian, you mention comments as a possible
| future feature -- I think the idea of a livestream off in the
| corner with comments as a separate spatial box might be nice. I
| don't like to leave streams on while I'm doing other things, but
| lots of younger folk I know do, and part of the stream
| consumption experience is the comments.
| thallavajhula wrote:
| I like Christian. I was a Apollo (Reddit client) user. I
| supported him during the whole Reddit vs Devs fiasco of 2023.
|
| I'm not sure this is a good idea. YouTube (Google) intentionally
| didn't want to put up their app on the AppStore. They had their
| reasons. Ignoring their reasons and creating an app using their
| APIs and putting up an app in the AppStore against their will,
| just doesn't seem like a good move here.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-02-02 23:01 UTC)