• Scary le Poo@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    That content does not belong to YouTube. And they also do not pay for 99% of it.

    YouTube depends on people to use it for it’s existence. They also depend on those users to upload content so that YouTube can then treat that content as if it is its own and monetize it.

    If I was in such a precarious position I wouldn’t go about making the experience crappy for those users that I’m desperately dependent upon.

    • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      youtube hosts, handles bandwidth, provides creator tools, deals with monetization, handles royalties, and creates the platform…

      • Scary le Poo@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        That’s nice. Do they also create the content for the platform that is by far the most costly part of it? Or have they simply found a way to monetize content that does not belong to them?

          • Scary le Poo@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            Does every single creator get paid for their work and the value that they add to the platform? Or does YouTube arbitrarily get to decide who gets a tiny piece of the revenue from the content that YouTube doesn’t own?

  • Shurimal@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Third party apps: “OK. We’ll show ads. Muted. Behind a black overlay. If we really can’t find a workaround.”

  • Lad@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    It’s funny that free third party apps literally have more features and are more user friendly than the official app with premium.

    Why the fuck would I pay for less when I can get more for free?

    • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      I pay $4/mo, mainly for YouTube music (I’m part of a friend’s family plan).

      It’s pretty convenient since you can use the background audio on an iPad as well - I don’t use it often but it’s nice when I do. And there’s no ads there it’s pretty insane seeing the level of ads when I try and use my work phone which I’m not signed into.

      Also, you can make channels within your single goggle account so I made one for my mom and bro so they get no ads aswell. They have to sign in to my acct which can feel a little sketch but I trust them since they’re just using the YT app on their TVs. They stay in their own user acct. and it doesn’t affect my history or anything

    • frunch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      I think there’s a couple things at play:

      • You know enough to find a different app and make it do what you need it to. Not a hard thing, but something many non-tech savvy people could struggle with, or more likely–

      • People often will just use what’s there. We know we have options, we are aware of the privacy concerns… but many people simply aren’t and/or don’t care enough to do anything about it.

      We spend a lot of time here, so it seems to us like second nature to avoid intrusive apps… I find in my day-to-day life not many people are talking about that kind of stuff, or don’t have much knowledge/experience in that realm. (I realize that is anecdotal).

      I 100% agree with your statements–just trying to rationalize how so many people end up using/staying with these ever-worsening services/apps…

      • FlihpFlorp@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        To prove your point I am person #2, I know things liked invidious and piped exist but I just idk haven’t gotten around to it

    • okamiueru@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Some years ago ago, I was a happy subscriber to Google Music. But, they added it to the graveyard, and instead grafted on some music playing functionality to YouTube and called it YouTube Music. So, I went back to Spotify.

      Then I started paying for YouTube Premium Lite. It wasn’t unreasonably expensive, although it was a bit annoying I couldn’t just have “YouTube” in the household, like with Netflix. So if wife would cast a video to the TV, it would play with ads.

      It was about a year ago, when Google starting cracking down on adblockers, that they also removed an option to pay for the service. I think YouTube Premium Lite wasn’t a thing in the US (correct me if I’m wrong), but they removed YT Premium Lite, and the only option left was a twice as expensive YouTube Premium bundle that included YouTube Music.

      Tldr: fucked up Google Music, then removed an option to pay for YouTube premium, leaving a fairly expensive alternative with the pile of shit they replaced Google music with. It’ll be a rough time if they manage to force ads. I won’t pay for it, out of principle.

    • Spotlight7573@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      To be fair, one of the apps mentioned, [Re]Vanced, is literally just the stock app with extra features patched in and the premium features enabled for free (like no ads and downloads). It makes sense that it would be more user friendly. Allowing that modified version doesn’t get them any revenue though while still costing them to host and serve the content to those users.

      At least with NewPipe it supports multiple sites and is its own app with their own code and UI.

      • MrRazamataz@lemmy.razbot.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        I don’t understand this argument because NewPipe still gets the video from YouTube (primarily), costing them to host…

  • sweetpotato@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Fuck them. I’d rather donate quadruple the money for premium to my favourite creators directly than give a single penny to this parasitic mega corporation.

    The issue is not only the ads, it’s the stupid shit it throws you to keep you hooked, it’s the stupid shorts that literally no one asked for, it’s every stupid little thing that fights for your attention. Basically the app doesn’t work for you, it works against you. That’s not the case with third party apps, they have you, the user, in mind, not their profits.

  • Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Some of the youtube channels I watch also have channels on Peertube instances or on Odysee. Both options allow me to follow using RSS. I prefer my views to go to these platforms, so hopefully more content creators see these as viable hosts for their videos.

    Peertube is also federated, so you can follow channels from your Mastodon account (and I think Lemmy too). You could also spin up your own instance if you like too.

    • Firipu@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      I assume you help and financially support your instance of choice to help them with server costs? Video platforms are much more expensive to host than text platforms like mastodon or lemmy.

  • Avincentor@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    I personally have no problem with paying for a service. However, if I buy premium to remove the ads, YT has no longer the need to collect my data. But it is Google and they won’t stop collecting. That, plus the fact that Google basically has a monopoly with youtube are the reasons I don’t buy premium.

  • 0x1C3B00DA@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    It’s funny how this comes after Chrome’s switch to Manifest V3, which makes ad blocking not possible on Chrome and was purely for security reasons and not for disabling ad blockers. Now that Chrome users can’t block ads on the first-party site, they’re going after third-party clients. Such coincidental timing.

    • Dymonika@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      was purely for security reasons and not for disabling ad blockers.

      I had not heard of Manifest v3 and actually can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not. I guess you are.

      • umbrella@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        firefox!!!

        firefox and ublock origin has existed all along cmon, ditch that spyware already whats the holdup

        • PhAzE@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          My problem with Firefox comes down doley to the ui. I just can’t get over the blocky mess it is, but I really would switch otherwise.

          • verdigris@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            I literally don’t know what people who say this mean. It looks totally modern, almost identical to the chrome and edge UIs, it’s fully customizable, and there are thousands of extensions to alter the appearance in a single click, not to mention custom css styling if you want complete control.

        • PhAzE@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          It’s the UI, and how long it took them to finally get tab folders as an example. They’re always playing catch-up.

          Plus, the mobile app ui is terrible, and I can’t run FF on desktop and chrome on mobile and sync items between the two, so a switch to FF means a switch on all devices. I really want to but I always navigate back to chrome.

          • umbrella@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            ive been using it for a while and its always looked like a carbon copy of every other browser and vice versa

          • verdigris@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            How is the mobile app terrible? I’ve been using it for years with no issues, and it has many extensions that chrome on Android doesn’t allow like adblocking.

            The tabs in FF are great, for years now FF has been much better at handing huge accounts of passive tabs, and there are tons of extensions to provide any functionality you could want.

            I guarantee you if you just install a few extensions that you like and use it for a week you won’t even notice any more.

        • Spotlight7573@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          Are there any semi-popular alternative browsers still based on WebKit? I thought most of them like Brave and Vivaldi were based on Chromium’s Blink rather than WebKit.

          • sparky@lemmy.federate.cc@lemmy.federate.cc
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Technically not really, I just said WebKit to avoid breaking down the whole fork situation in my comment. Blink isn’t that different in reality so, WebKit for simplicity. Safari and Chrome are much closer to one another than Firefox is to either, so 🤷‍♂️

        • PhAzE@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          Let’s be honest, none of them compare to Chrome for many different reasons. Might be UI, or data syncing, or one of any other reasons. Given the opportunity to switch or patch chrome, I’d patch chrome.

            • PhAzE@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 months ago

              Yes, I mean if I don’t like the mobile app, I can’t switch on pc and leave mobile on chrome and expect those two to sync between them (Firefox on pc and Chrome on mobile) so I’m forced to swotch both.

              • Scary le Poo@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                7 months ago

                What the fuck? Can you sync chrome to edge and edge to opera? What kind of bad faith bullshit ass argument are you trying to pull here?

                You’re claiming that you cant sync data on Firefox, when you absolutely can. Then you claim that what you meant was that you cant cross browser sync on multiple devices. Well congratufuckinglations, you can’t on any other browser either.

                What is wrong with you?

                • PhAzE@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  What’s wrong with you? Are you unable to read my comment, or is it comprehension problems?

                  I’m saying if I switch to Firefox, I have to switch it on both PC and mobile, but I hate the UI on mobile. I can’t leave one as Chrome (mobile) and the other as Firefox (PC) and expect them to work together (sync). Thus, I’d rather stock to Chrome because the ui is better.

    • lightnegative@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      “security reasons” is the classic cop-out for making users lives more miserable.

      Like what are you gonna do, argue that you don’t care about security?

  • Adalast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Gotta love this shit. Conservatives/companies: “Let the market decide!” The market: “We are tired of you cramming ads down our throats and fundamentally do not want it and will actively fight you on it.” Companies: “Waaaaaa, they are fighting us.”

      • Adalast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        “A company should be able to decide not to do business with individuals for ideological reasons.”

        Twitter, Facebook, etc. start filtering misinformation and banning offenders.

        “Mah freedoms are being infringed!”

  • radiant_bloom@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Well, I really hope that doesn’t affect Vinegar

    ( Safari extension that replaces YouTube’s horrible video player with the system’s default.

    It’s great, it also allows you to force Best Quality, very useful on platforms where YouTube defaults to 480p for no reason like iPadOS )

      • fossphi@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        There’s already a patch for comments in the release candidate for the new version

        • huginn@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          I think Google engineers drag their feet on this.

          Like - Google’s pre-installed corporate Firefox and Chrome both have ad blockers. Ublock origin is installed by default on Firefox (I can’t remember what was installed on chrome, I only used it for the work suite/cloudtop and did everything else on FF).

          Nobody I worked with at Google liked ads… But I didn’t work at YouTube. So maybe it’s different there.

          But I suspect the engineers are doing it just to show management that they’re doing something but it’s half hearted.

          Real efforts and real threats of it getting locked down, sure, but half hearted effort.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    The company shut down one of the most popular third-party apps, “YouTube Vanced,” in 2022.

    Vanced takes the official YouTube Android client and installs a duplicate, alternative version with a bunch of patches.

    It also adds features the official app doesn’t have, like additional themes and accessibility features, “repeat” and “dislike” buttons, and the ability to turn off addictive “suggestions” that appear all over the app.

    Rather than going after the projects, Google says it’s going to start disrupting users who are using these apps.

    The company continues: “We want to emphasize that our terms don’t allow third-party apps to turn off ads because that prevents the creator from being rewarded for viewership, and Ads on YouTube help support creators and let billions of people around the world use the streaming service.”

    If you remember back to when Google aggressively fought to keep third-party YouTube apps off of Windows Phone, the company seemed to take a similar stance against all third-party YouTube clients, even if they wanted to integrate ads.


    The original article contains 344 words, the summary contains 170 words. Saved 51%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!