4 ms·

As much as it sucks for the author, if you're providing a service or app on top of another service (like providing a better way to browse a website's content or

by yladiz 9y ago

As much as it sucks for the author, if you're providing a service or app on top of another service (like providing a better way to browse a website's content or API) you're really at the mercy of that service provider, especially if you've registered to use their API. If they want to squash your service/app, they can either just revoke your API access, or just find some violation of their TOS, or just create one with a TOS update. Then they can report you to the respective app store (App Store, Google Play Store) and most likely get it removed. Without looking at the Youtube TOS, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a section that explicitly disallows paid apps besides Youtube's, probably to prevent competitors for their Youtube Red app. Although I wouldn't have bought it since the plain Youtube app is fine for me, it looks like he put a lot of work and soul into the app, and I feel for him. I also appreciate the level headedness of the statement, explaining the situation without much vitriol, although I'm surprised he doesn't mention anything about one of the issues Google likely had, which was ad-blocking (see edit below). Good luck to him on his next project. Edit: It looks like the author of the app likely got in a lot of trouble with Google for not having ads when playing videos, on top of the other issues, a commenter below points out. I think it's a little disingenuous of the author to not put this in his statement as I'm sure Google wasn't happy about it (and probably said so in the emails) and it's likely another violation of the TOS (and I'm surprised they haven't pulled/didn't pull API access). What I said still stands, but he should be more direct about the issues that Google had.

Kequc 9y ago
This is an argument against the authoritarian character of the Apple App Store and by extension it's operating system that doesn't allow you to use anything else. Does anybody actually like having a walled off heavily regulated user experience after they've spent so much money on a device? Or are people still just pretending they do. Without having even so much as the option of installing a third party application without going through the Apple App Store. Seems like stretching it, nobody can like that. He should be able to sell the App standalone. There is no technical reason why not, it's a political one from Apple to artificially limit this functionality. They spent money making sure you couldn't do it.
- yladiz 9y ago
  Not exactly your argument, but I much prefer the App Store to something like Google's Play Store. App Store, even though it has its issues, is a lot better simply because there is more oversight. There have been numerous cases where malware has gotten into Play Store apps, and only taken down once someone tells Google, instead of Google actually doing their due diligence as arbiters of the Play Store and verify each app before allowing it to publish. Apple does actually verify each app, and consequences aside this means I don't really have to worry about malware issues. It would be nice if I could install something on my own, e.g. side-load an app, but I haven't come across an app that I've seemingly needed that for. I think the fact that you can only go through the App Store also keeps things consistent for the consumer, so they don't wonder why they sometimes have to install it using iTunes, sometimes through the App Store. Of course there's also the economics of Apple's 30% cut of App Store app purchases.
  - mahyarm 9y ago
    The apple app store doesn't prevent malware either. Reviews are done by just using the app and running an automated program on it. If you turn off your malware features during review time, then it wont be caught. There is a good chance your malware behavior wouldn't be caught even if they were on. After you've released the app, it's up to users to report the bad behavior to apple. Also the OS is far more locked down than android and devices are frequently updated, which limits what malware can do.
- chipotle_coyote 9y ago
  At risk of raining on your parade a bit, the underlying complaint was from Google, not Apple. ("This comes after multiple requests and threats by YouTube which ultimately led Apple to suddenly pulling the app from the App Store.") You're trying to make this all about Apple and the Walled Garden™, but the story as described by ProTube's author is rather more complicated than that. In an alternate universe where Apple let people sideload applications, the outcome isn't "ProTube 2 keeps being sold and everyone is happy," the outcome is "Google sues ProTube 2's creator into destitution." And, you know, while I'd like to see Apple allow sideloading of signed apps (I think in the long run it's essential if they're serious about making iOS a general purpose computing platform), it's just a bit on the presumptuous side to assert that all iOS users must surely be chafing under the heavy heel of Apple's Evil Draconian Rule. The number of application classes that aren't allowed on the App Store is, in practice, pretty small--it's just that developers and other Hacker News fans are more likely to want/need apps that do run afoul of those restrictions. Even so, the amount of stuff I can do right now with apps installed from the Evil Draconian App Store™ would probably surprise you.
ezoe 9y ago
It should rater be thought as if Apple take down wget or curl for it isn't the appropriate "app" for a particular web site. This happens because they depended on the proprietary closed lock-in platform. They totally deserve it. Avoid those platform which doesn't respect your freedom.
- fred_is_fred 9y ago
  -- Posted from Debian Phone
  - tomcam 9y ago
    -- Posted from cuneiform tablet
lbenes 9y ago
You're missing the main issue here, that service he provides is an an adblocker along with other Red features. Google ProTube and every review spells it out. "ProTube as an ad blocker for YouTube"..."It's an alternative to paying for YouTube Red"..."ProTube also supports audio playback while you work in another app, which the YouTube app doesn't do without a YouTube Red subscription"[1] Seems clear to me, this is a way of cheating Google out of their Red subscription fee or their standard ad revenue. I'm really don't get the outpouring of sympathy here. He's essentially pirating their Red service and charging a fee for it. [1] https://www.macstories.net/reviews/protube-review/ https://www.macstories.net/reviews/protube-review/
- yladiz 9y ago
  You're right, and I updated by comment.
- comstock 9y ago
  It's not cheating, you should have the right to render content as you see fit. That includes using Adblockers on the web and elsewhere. I don't think they really need to use the developer API to implement any of the functionality used. And I don't understand why it's Apples job to police their ecosystem in Googles favor. Seems like an anti-user move on Apples part.
  - yladiz 9y ago
    It's because if an author makes an app that goes against Youtube's TOS, if Apple doesn't take action, then Apple is liable for it. Apple isn't actively policing it, as well, it's more that Google requested it be taken down.
- codemusings 9y ago
  To be fair: there is no YouTube Red in Germany yet and the author is German. So he couldn't pay YouTube even if he wanted to.

by yladiz 9y ago

Kequc 9y ago

This is an argument against the authoritarian character of the Apple App Store and by extension it's operating system that doesn't allow you to use anything else. Does anybody actually like having a walled off heavily regulated user experience after they've spent so much money on a device? Or are people still just pretending they do. Without having even so much as the option of installing a third party application without going through the Apple App Store. Seems like stretching it, nobody can like that. He should be able to sell the App standalone. There is no technical reason why not, it's a political one from Apple to artificially limit this functionality. They spent money making sure you couldn't do it.

yladiz 9y ago
Not exactly your argument, but I much prefer the App Store to something like Google's Play Store. App Store, even though it has its issues, is a lot better simply because there is more oversight. There have been numerous cases where malware has gotten into Play Store apps, and only taken down once someone tells Google, instead of Google actually doing their due diligence as arbiters of the Play Store and verify each app before allowing it to publish. Apple does actually verify each app, and consequences aside this means I don't really have to worry about malware issues. It would be nice if I could install something on my own, e.g. side-load an app, but I haven't come across an app that I've seemingly needed that for. I think the fact that you can only go through the App Store also keeps things consistent for the consumer, so they don't wonder why they sometimes have to install it using iTunes, sometimes through the App Store. Of course there's also the economics of Apple's 30% cut of App Store app purchases.
- mahyarm 9y ago
  The apple app store doesn't prevent malware either. Reviews are done by just using the app and running an automated program on it. If you turn off your malware features during review time, then it wont be caught. There is a good chance your malware behavior wouldn't be caught even if they were on. After you've released the app, it's up to users to report the bad behavior to apple. Also the OS is far more locked down than android and devices are frequently updated, which limits what malware can do.
chipotle_coyote 9y ago
At risk of raining on your parade a bit, the underlying complaint was from Google, not Apple. ("This comes after multiple requests and threats by YouTube which ultimately led Apple to suddenly pulling the app from the App Store.") You're trying to make this all about Apple and the Walled Garden™, but the story as described by ProTube's author is rather more complicated than that. In an alternate universe where Apple let people sideload applications, the outcome isn't "ProTube 2 keeps being sold and everyone is happy," the outcome is "Google sues ProTube 2's creator into destitution." And, you know, while I'd like to see Apple allow sideloading of signed apps (I think in the long run it's essential if they're serious about making iOS a general purpose computing platform), it's just a bit on the presumptuous side to assert that all iOS users must surely be chafing under the heavy heel of Apple's Evil Draconian Rule. The number of application classes that aren't allowed on the App Store is, in practice, pretty small--it's just that developers and other Hacker News fans are more likely to want/need apps that do run afoul of those restrictions. Even so, the amount of stuff I can do right now with apps installed from the Evil Draconian App Store™ would probably surprise you.

ezoe 9y ago

It should rater be thought as if Apple take down wget or curl for it isn't the appropriate "app" for a particular web site. This happens because they depended on the proprietary closed lock-in platform. They totally deserve it. Avoid those platform which doesn't respect your freedom.

fred_is_fred 9y ago
-- Posted from Debian Phone
- tomcam 9y ago
  -- Posted from cuneiform tablet

lbenes 9y ago

You're missing the main issue here, that service he provides is an an adblocker along with other Red features. Google ProTube and every review spells it out. "ProTube as an ad blocker for YouTube"..."It's an alternative to paying for YouTube Red"..."ProTube also supports audio playback while you work in another app, which the YouTube app doesn't do without a YouTube Red subscription"[1] Seems clear to me, this is a way of cheating Google out of their Red subscription fee or their standard ad revenue. I'm really don't get the outpouring of sympathy here. He's essentially pirating their Red service and charging a fee for it. [1] https://www.macstories.net/reviews/protube-review/ https://www.macstories.net/reviews/protube-review/

yladiz 9y ago
You're right, and I updated by comment.
comstock 9y ago
It's not cheating, you should have the right to render content as you see fit. That includes using Adblockers on the web and elsewhere. I don't think they really need to use the developer API to implement any of the functionality used. And I don't understand why it's Apples job to police their ecosystem in Googles favor. Seems like an anti-user move on Apples part.
- yladiz 9y ago
  It's because if an author makes an app that goes against Youtube's TOS, if Apple doesn't take action, then Apple is liable for it. Apple isn't actively policing it, as well, it's more that Google requested it be taken down.
codemusings 9y ago
To be fair: there is no YouTube Red in Germany yet and the author is German. So he couldn't pay YouTube even if he wanted to.