4 ms·

The author expects Google to pay for the storage and bandwidth cost, while the author monetizes that with no revenue sharing? Not only that, the author also re

The author expects Google to pay for the storage and bandwidth cost, while the author monetizes that with no revenue sharing? Not only that, the author also refused to release the app for free on Cydia: > Some people might suggest that I re-release ProTube 2 on Cydia. Few people even have jailbroken devices anymore and only a fraction of my user base would be able to access Cydia. Purchases from the App Store also can't be carried over to Cydia so people would have to purchase the app again. And YouTube might still come after me. If the author refuses to give it the app for free, why does he/she expects Google to do the same? And it goes beyond that: none of the money the author makes by stealing traffic from YT goes to the creators. Zero. The author is defunding both the creators and YT while making money for him/herself. If ProTube was free/oss, I could see some valid points behind it, but the creator is actually making money on that copyrighted content. Seriously, why would anyone have any reasonable expectations of a different outcome?

comstock 9y ago
Maybe Google/creators need a new business model that doesn't depend on adverts? Your argument is essentially the same one against Adblockers in general.
- lobster_johnson 9y ago
  Isn't that what they're doing with the YouTube Red thing?
  - comstock 9y ago
    If you can obtain YouTube Red functionality by using an Adblocker, it may not work as a business model...
    - kyrra 9y ago
      Youtube Red features: 1) offline viewing. 2) no ads. 3) original programming. 4) background audio-only playing. 5) Google Play Music subscription.
      - vetinari 9y ago
        6) Works with Chromecast Audio. Yes, the "normal" Youtube doesn't.
  - the_mitsuhiko 9y ago
    Which does not exist for most users. Unless you live in a handful of countries it does not exist.
romanovcode 9y ago
> If the author refuses to give it the app for free, why does he/she expects Google to do the same? Enough said. Would this app be open-source and google would've shut it down - completely different story. But in this case it's just business, nothing personal. I don't get why OP is so angry.

comstock 9y ago

Maybe Google/creators need a new business model that doesn't depend on adverts? Your argument is essentially the same one against Adblockers in general.

lobster_johnson 9y ago
Isn't that what they're doing with the YouTube Red thing?
- comstock 9y ago
  If you can obtain YouTube Red functionality by using an Adblocker, it may not work as a business model...
  - kyrra 9y ago
    Youtube Red features: 1) offline viewing. 2) no ads. 3) original programming. 4) background audio-only playing. 5) Google Play Music subscription.
    - vetinari 9y ago
      6) Works with Chromecast Audio. Yes, the "normal" Youtube doesn't.
- the_mitsuhiko 9y ago
  Which does not exist for most users. Unless you live in a handful of countries it does not exist.

romanovcode 9y ago

> If the author refuses to give it the app for free, why does he/she expects Google to do the same? Enough said. Would this app be open-source and google would've shut it down - completely different story. But in this case it's just business, nothing personal. I don't get why OP is so angry.