8 ms·

So, I am the one who disabled it from the Amazon Store. Not Amazon. So, the issue is not that dramatic. The reason is that they refused to approve the 3.0 vers

by jbk 9y ago

So, I am the one who disabled it from the Amazon Store. Not Amazon. So, the issue is not that dramatic. The reason is that they refused to approve the 3.0 version of VLC, which meant that people were downloading a beta version from quite a long time ago, with lots of bugs. So I preferred to disable it instead of having more people load an old version. The actual issue is that this precise version had a small database bug/issue that is very annoying to fix/work-around, and when you update, you lose the first audio playlist (video files, audio files, playlist files work fine). So, I'm not even sure that we can fix that in a correct way. But, for Amazon, they think it is a blocker. Sure, that meant that version is buggy, but that's even more the reason to not have more people download it. Remember, we don't make any money from VLC, even if it is free, you are not the product (no ads, no spying, no telemetry). Anyway, this is one of the reason why I dislike appstores: they make you lose a lot of time jumping through hoops, and the quality is not even there. All of those appstores have lots of crap in there. And, except the Google PlayStore (that has other issues), all the interfaces to upload/edit are very bad and buggy...

bambax 9y ago
Thanks for the info, but why won't they approve v3.0??
- jbk 9y ago
  Because when people update from 2.1.1 to 3.0.0, they would lose their custom playlists. Indeed, it is a bit annoying, but we considered that it was not worth fixing that, notably for the FireTV UI, where it is very hard to create some playlists, therefore not many people are impacted.
  - logicallee 9y ago
    Hi, First of all I appreciate the work all of you put into VLC. This is my media player on desktop. I've tried lots of other players but always ended up going back. In my respectful opinion as an outsider with no Amazon Fire device or association with Amazon, an update should not lose user bookmarks, playlists, documents, etc. Users should feel confident clicking "update" on any software, ever. I am sure you can empathize with your users if you consider what might happen if you updated Chrome or Firefox and lost all of your bookmarks. It is easy to see how users might feel the same way about playlists they put work into. (Some users might even feel the same way about something much more trivial such as what page number they were on in each book in an ebook reader. If the ebook reader changes some internal structure it's easy to see how the new version might not migrate that stuff. I personally would find this okay, since I could find my old place within a few minutes.) To try to empathize: how many hours might some of your users have spent making a custom playlist? There is something big and important here: helping users feel confident always clicking "update" without a second thought. Although the amount of work seems excessive in this case (and would be even more excessive in an ebook reader that has to export all of page numbers you're on, even if this is difficult technically) I think the secondary effect might be worth it. I definitely see your point of view too, just thought I would offer this perspective. Thanks again for all of your work, which I appreciate.
    - jbk 9y ago
      > an update should not lose user bookmarks, playlists, documents, etc. I'm waiting for your patch. I'm very happy for your volunteering.
      - dane-pgp 9y ago
        You may not like what the parent is (politely) saying, but your response is toxic.
        sah2ed 9y ago
        No actually, jbk is being honest and realistic. The cost to fix the bug is currently too great for them to devote resources to fixing it correctly, so s/he is merely trying to economize scarce resources here. This is an open source project we are talking about here, not a paid product. If the gp thinks they have time on their hands, then by all means, the project will gladly accept patches.
        dane-pgp 9y ago
        jbk was not being honest or realistic, though. The gp was not volunteering, and jbk is not waiting for their patch. It's fine to say "We don't have the resources to fix this", but jbk's sarcastic remark is not the best way to convey this. Of course, jbk is welcome to phrase their comments however they want, but I don't think that the way they chose was the most effective way to invite patches (and the gp presumably already knew that a valid patch would be accepted).
        sah2ed 9y ago
        I think you and I mostly agree but I will try to address the possible source of your disagreement with his phrasing. @jbk's original phrasing was: I'm waiting for your patch. I'm very happy for your volunteering. You probably think his first sentence is sarcasm but it is not for two reasons: 1. He followed it up with a gentler "I'm very happy for your volunteering." 2. I've been online long enough to know that his phrasing is a bit odd, a hint that the commenter is likely not a native speaker. For a bit more context regarding #2, my suspicion is not unfounded. I remember the @jbk nickname from this highly upvoted post [0] last year, where he did something in the interest of the VLC project that a lot of people would find incredibly difficult to do under similar circumstances. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15372048 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15372048
  - drtillberg 9y ago
    I've gotten used to the android VLC functionality where it simply offers to play what is in storage. I'm not quite wrapping my head around what would be lost, why it matters, and why the playlist can't just be another object in storage. I am constantly amazed that high-quality independent open-source projects like VLC are maintained so well, year after year.
    - jbk 9y ago
      > why the playlist can't just be another object in storage. You got both: file playlists and playlists in the database.
  - mabbo 9y ago
    > they would lose their custom playlists > So, I'm not even sure that we can fix that in a correct way. Got a link to an issue tracker for this? You're posting about a hard technical bug for an open source project to a community with "hacker" in the name. Maybe someone has a good idea.
  - justinclift 9y ago
    Does the mobile version of VLC 3 also have the regression (from 2.x.x) of not handling [] characters in playlist paths and playlist item entries? https://trac.videolan.org/vlc/ticket/19594 https://trac.videolan.org/vlc/ticket/19594 On desktop's at least it's generally not too terrible for the end user to manually rename things to work again. On mobile though, I'm not sure.
  - johnklos 9y ago
    Does that mean that VLC 3.0.0 will now be approved, since there now are no playlists to preserve?
    - jbk 9y ago
      Nope, that's the point: 3.0.0 will migrate playlists from the old stable version, but not from this beta version, because of a bug in this specific version. And they don't want us to update it without this issue fixed.
      - mort96 9y ago
        I'm curious, why was the beta version pushed to the app store?
        jbk 9y ago
        Good point. Because Amazon requested it, because it was solving a major issue with playback of their new device at the time.
        xigency 9y ago
        This seems kind of moot, but is it possible to drop this type of playlist feature from VLC 3.0 and remove it from scope? If the feature has a blocking bug you could maybe just drop that feature entirely.
        lostmsu 9y ago
        Maybe stupid question, but why not rename beta to VLC Beta, and release 3.0 as VLC?
      - fencepost 9y ago
        3.0.0 will migrate playlists from the old stable version, but not from this beta version, because of a bug in this specific version When you say "this specific version" as containing a bug are you referring to "this beta version" or "3.0.0"?
  - teovall 9y ago
    Because your UI is bad and makes it difficult to create playlists, you don't want to bother fixing your bug that causes users' data to be lost, and you blame all of this on Amazon. I know you do all of this for free, but that doesn't mean you can blame all of your mistakes and problems on Amazon.
    - oblio 9y ago
      Another comment by the developer says that the new release improves the UI...
    - flyingcircus3 9y ago
      I see a whole bunch of assumptions and demands for a piece of free software that no one demanded you use. In regards to who he can blame, and can't blame, can we all decide to blame you if he decides he's sick of ungrateful users and just stops development all together?
  - compsciphd 9y ago
    why not release it as vlc3, not as an upgrade to the previous release, so people could have oth installed side by side if they wanted?
pritambaral 9y ago
Does the publisher removing an app from the store (not just a specific version like 3.0) also uninstall the app from users' devices (like the 2.1.1 thing OP mentions)?
- jbk 9y ago
  It should not. I'm a bit surprised, tbh. But at the same time, the developer console is soo bad for Amazon Store, that this is possible...
- lostmsu 9y ago
  I would not have noticed, if a couple a days ago I wouldn't find VLC on the stick anymore.
auggierose 9y ago
Maybe just remove the custom playlist feature then?
- jbk 9y ago
  We tried that, they refused, because "removal of functionality". And if you update, you lose the playlists, but the new ones will work again, so the result would be similar.
  - IshKebab 9y ago
    So no apps on Amazon's platform can ever remove functionality? That is every more restrictive than the App Store. Crazy!
    - sah2ed 9y ago
      It's actually a reasonable stance IMHO. They are likely trying to discourage app vendors from using batch-and-switch as a growth tactic.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    Wow, I'm not sure, but, I think I'm impressed - Amazon are really going over things with a fine-toothed comb. However, not allowing an update because it deprecates features seems overzealous, they're not paying for the app. What do they do about unfixable features?
givinguflac 9y ago
No disrespect intended, but I’d just like to point out- “I don’t like app stores because they don’t have quality” and yet here they are trying to ensure quality, and you’re upset about it because they’re trying to stop users from having a bad experience by losing content they cared enough to curate? I’m not entirely sure the problem is in the review process here...
- jbk 9y ago
  Exactly my point: they annoy us over a slight bug, and yet avoid upgrade to a stable version that fixes around 2000 bugs, over 2 years. So, for a small bug, they let thousands get unfixed. And go on the appstores: how many scams, fake VLC and so on, do you see? They claim to do reviews to get quality, and yet so many apps are fake, scams, and got approved nevertheless. It's the same on Apple, Windows, Android and Amazon.
  - lowtolerance 9y ago
    A bug that results in data loss is not “slight” or “small”. I’d honestly rather have an unstable beta app than a production release that doesn’t offer a proper data migration. I’m disappointed that the VLC team would rather remove their app from an app store (again) than fix an issue with their app. At least Google is trying to look out for their users.
    - flyingcircus3 9y ago
      Troll me once shame on you, troll me twice shame on me. What if the older, available version, which he just claimed had 2000 bugs, had 2000 bugs that resulted in data loss? How can you legitimately argue that he's not looking out for his users?
    - godzillabrennus 9y ago
      Hard to shame the developers who donate their time to open source software. How about we shake the App Store for trying to decide that 2,000 bugs are better for their users than losing a playlist.
fouc 9y ago
How about introducing VLC 3.0 under a slightly different name? or under a different publisher account?
- jbk 9y ago
  Sorry, but no. This would just re-appear further with a different account.
al2o3cr 9y ago
All of those appstores have lots of crap in there. Sounds like there's one less buggy app in there now.
- jbk 9y ago
  And more than 2 millions users that are blocked with an old beta version, with several hundred of bugs.
sbr464 9y ago
Why not include a small script that backs up their playlist before upgrading, whatever the workaround? Pretend it's one of those Apollo 13 duct tape situations, I'm sure some solution would come up! I don't use Amazon fire but love VLC.
tzs 9y ago
If you are willing to consider ugly, shameful kludges, could you release a 2.1.2 version to Amazon that is just like 2.1.1 except that it creates and maintains an empty sacrificial audio playlist and puts that first on the list? People could update to that, and then update to 3.0.0.
- jbk 9y ago
  Sorry, but I don't see how that would work. Also, same problem as lack of time as the rest.
  - gamblor956 9y ago
    It sounds like it would sacrifice the first playlist, which you describe is the problem, and leave all other playlists intact, which is what Amazon requires.
- gamblor956 9y ago
  But such a simple solution goes up against the developer claiming that Amazon is the big bad that wouldn't let them update their buggy software... That being said, if someone can point out to me where this code is in the source I can hack out a solution for the next week or two.
newnewpdro 9y ago
Seems like they're just prohibiting what can be considered a regression. How is this any different from the majority of other software release policies? It's fairly common to block a release which fixes numerous things because it includes a fairly visible regression.
MatthewWilkes 9y ago
If post description is accurate and the old version has been remote-wiped from devices, does that mean the data migration issue is no longer relevant?
WhiteOwlLion 8y ago
Does this mean you can submit VLC 3.0 at a later time? Good luck.

by jbk 9y ago

bambax 9y ago

Thanks for the info, but why won't they approve v3.0??

jbk 9y ago
Because when people update from 2.1.1 to 3.0.0, they would lose their custom playlists. Indeed, it is a bit annoying, but we considered that it was not worth fixing that, notably for the FireTV UI, where it is very hard to create some playlists, therefore not many people are impacted.
- logicallee 9y ago
  Hi, First of all I appreciate the work all of you put into VLC. This is my media player on desktop. I've tried lots of other players but always ended up going back. In my respectful opinion as an outsider with no Amazon Fire device or association with Amazon, an update should not lose user bookmarks, playlists, documents, etc. Users should feel confident clicking "update" on any software, ever. I am sure you can empathize with your users if you consider what might happen if you updated Chrome or Firefox and lost all of your bookmarks. It is easy to see how users might feel the same way about playlists they put work into. (Some users might even feel the same way about something much more trivial such as what page number they were on in each book in an ebook reader. If the ebook reader changes some internal structure it's easy to see how the new version might not migrate that stuff. I personally would find this okay, since I could find my old place within a few minutes.) To try to empathize: how many hours might some of your users have spent making a custom playlist? There is something big and important here: helping users feel confident always clicking "update" without a second thought. Although the amount of work seems excessive in this case (and would be even more excessive in an ebook reader that has to export all of page numbers you're on, even if this is difficult technically) I think the secondary effect might be worth it. I definitely see your point of view too, just thought I would offer this perspective. Thanks again for all of your work, which I appreciate.
  - jbk 9y ago
    > an update should not lose user bookmarks, playlists, documents, etc. I'm waiting for your patch. I'm very happy for your volunteering.
    - dane-pgp 9y ago
      You may not like what the parent is (politely) saying, but your response is toxic.
      - sah2ed 9y ago
        No actually, jbk is being honest and realistic. The cost to fix the bug is currently too great for them to devote resources to fixing it correctly, so s/he is merely trying to economize scarce resources here. This is an open source project we are talking about here, not a paid product. If the gp thinks they have time on their hands, then by all means, the project will gladly accept patches.
        dane-pgp 9y ago
        jbk was not being honest or realistic, though. The gp was not volunteering, and jbk is not waiting for their patch. It's fine to say "We don't have the resources to fix this", but jbk's sarcastic remark is not the best way to convey this. Of course, jbk is welcome to phrase their comments however they want, but I don't think that the way they chose was the most effective way to invite patches (and the gp presumably already knew that a valid patch would be accepted).
        sah2ed 9y ago
        I think you and I mostly agree but I will try to address the possible source of your disagreement with his phrasing. @jbk's original phrasing was: I'm waiting for your patch. I'm very happy for your volunteering. You probably think his first sentence is sarcasm but it is not for two reasons: 1. He followed it up with a gentler "I'm very happy for your volunteering." 2. I've been online long enough to know that his phrasing is a bit odd, a hint that the commenter is likely not a native speaker. For a bit more context regarding #2, my suspicion is not unfounded. I remember the @jbk nickname from this highly upvoted post [0] last year, where he did something in the interest of the VLC project that a lot of people would find incredibly difficult to do under similar circumstances. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15372048 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15372048
- drtillberg 9y ago
  I've gotten used to the android VLC functionality where it simply offers to play what is in storage. I'm not quite wrapping my head around what would be lost, why it matters, and why the playlist can't just be another object in storage. I am constantly amazed that high-quality independent open-source projects like VLC are maintained so well, year after year.
  - jbk 9y ago
    > why the playlist can't just be another object in storage. You got both: file playlists and playlists in the database.
- mabbo 9y ago
  > they would lose their custom playlists > So, I'm not even sure that we can fix that in a correct way. Got a link to an issue tracker for this? You're posting about a hard technical bug for an open source project to a community with "hacker" in the name. Maybe someone has a good idea.
- justinclift 9y ago
  Does the mobile version of VLC 3 also have the regression (from 2.x.x) of not handling [] characters in playlist paths and playlist item entries? https://trac.videolan.org/vlc/ticket/19594 https://trac.videolan.org/vlc/ticket/19594 On desktop's at least it's generally not too terrible for the end user to manually rename things to work again. On mobile though, I'm not sure.
- johnklos 9y ago
  Does that mean that VLC 3.0.0 will now be approved, since there now are no playlists to preserve?
  - jbk 9y ago
    Nope, that's the point: 3.0.0 will migrate playlists from the old stable version, but not from this beta version, because of a bug in this specific version. And they don't want us to update it without this issue fixed.
    - mort96 9y ago
      I'm curious, why was the beta version pushed to the app store?
      - jbk 9y ago
        Good point. Because Amazon requested it, because it was solving a major issue with playback of their new device at the time.
        xigency 9y ago
        This seems kind of moot, but is it possible to drop this type of playlist feature from VLC 3.0 and remove it from scope? If the feature has a blocking bug you could maybe just drop that feature entirely.
        lostmsu 9y ago
        Maybe stupid question, but why not rename beta to VLC Beta, and release 3.0 as VLC?
    - fencepost 9y ago
      3.0.0 will migrate playlists from the old stable version, but not from this beta version, because of a bug in this specific version When you say "this specific version" as containing a bug are you referring to "this beta version" or "3.0.0"?
- teovall 9y ago
  Because your UI is bad and makes it difficult to create playlists, you don't want to bother fixing your bug that causes users' data to be lost, and you blame all of this on Amazon. I know you do all of this for free, but that doesn't mean you can blame all of your mistakes and problems on Amazon.
  - oblio 9y ago
    Another comment by the developer says that the new release improves the UI...
  - flyingcircus3 9y ago
    I see a whole bunch of assumptions and demands for a piece of free software that no one demanded you use. In regards to who he can blame, and can't blame, can we all decide to blame you if he decides he's sick of ungrateful users and just stops development all together?
- compsciphd 9y ago
  why not release it as vlc3, not as an upgrade to the previous release, so people could have oth installed side by side if they wanted?

pritambaral 9y ago

Does the publisher removing an app from the store (not just a specific version like 3.0) also uninstall the app from users' devices (like the 2.1.1 thing OP mentions)?

jbk 9y ago
It should not. I'm a bit surprised, tbh. But at the same time, the developer console is soo bad for Amazon Store, that this is possible...
lostmsu 9y ago
I would not have noticed, if a couple a days ago I wouldn't find VLC on the stick anymore.

auggierose 9y ago

Maybe just remove the custom playlist feature then?

jbk 9y ago
We tried that, they refused, because "removal of functionality". And if you update, you lose the playlists, but the new ones will work again, so the result would be similar.
- IshKebab 9y ago
  So no apps on Amazon's platform can ever remove functionality? That is every more restrictive than the App Store. Crazy!
  - sah2ed 9y ago
    It's actually a reasonable stance IMHO. They are likely trying to discourage app vendors from using batch-and-switch as a growth tactic.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  Wow, I'm not sure, but, I think I'm impressed - Amazon are really going over things with a fine-toothed comb. However, not allowing an update because it deprecates features seems overzealous, they're not paying for the app. What do they do about unfixable features?

givinguflac 9y ago

No disrespect intended, but I’d just like to point out- “I don’t like app stores because they don’t have quality” and yet here they are trying to ensure quality, and you’re upset about it because they’re trying to stop users from having a bad experience by losing content they cared enough to curate? I’m not entirely sure the problem is in the review process here...

jbk 9y ago
Exactly my point: they annoy us over a slight bug, and yet avoid upgrade to a stable version that fixes around 2000 bugs, over 2 years. So, for a small bug, they let thousands get unfixed. And go on the appstores: how many scams, fake VLC and so on, do you see? They claim to do reviews to get quality, and yet so many apps are fake, scams, and got approved nevertheless. It's the same on Apple, Windows, Android and Amazon.
- lowtolerance 9y ago
  A bug that results in data loss is not “slight” or “small”. I’d honestly rather have an unstable beta app than a production release that doesn’t offer a proper data migration. I’m disappointed that the VLC team would rather remove their app from an app store (again) than fix an issue with their app. At least Google is trying to look out for their users.
  - flyingcircus3 9y ago
    Troll me once shame on you, troll me twice shame on me. What if the older, available version, which he just claimed had 2000 bugs, had 2000 bugs that resulted in data loss? How can you legitimately argue that he's not looking out for his users?
  - godzillabrennus 9y ago
    Hard to shame the developers who donate their time to open source software. How about we shake the App Store for trying to decide that 2,000 bugs are better for their users than losing a playlist.

fouc 9y ago

How about introducing VLC 3.0 under a slightly different name? or under a different publisher account?

jbk 9y ago
Sorry, but no. This would just re-appear further with a different account.

al2o3cr 9y ago

All of those appstores have lots of crap in there. Sounds like there's one less buggy app in there now.

jbk 9y ago
And more than 2 millions users that are blocked with an old beta version, with several hundred of bugs.

sbr464 9y ago

Why not include a small script that backs up their playlist before upgrading, whatever the workaround? Pretend it's one of those Apollo 13 duct tape situations, I'm sure some solution would come up! I don't use Amazon fire but love VLC.

tzs 9y ago

If you are willing to consider ugly, shameful kludges, could you release a 2.1.2 version to Amazon that is just like 2.1.1 except that it creates and maintains an empty sacrificial audio playlist and puts that first on the list? People could update to that, and then update to 3.0.0.

jbk 9y ago
Sorry, but I don't see how that would work. Also, same problem as lack of time as the rest.
- gamblor956 9y ago
  It sounds like it would sacrifice the first playlist, which you describe is the problem, and leave all other playlists intact, which is what Amazon requires.
gamblor956 9y ago
But such a simple solution goes up against the developer claiming that Amazon is the big bad that wouldn't let them update their buggy software... That being said, if someone can point out to me where this code is in the source I can hack out a solution for the next week or two.

newnewpdro 9y ago

Seems like they're just prohibiting what can be considered a regression. How is this any different from the majority of other software release policies? It's fairly common to block a release which fixes numerous things because it includes a fairly visible regression.

MatthewWilkes 9y ago

If post description is accurate and the old version has been remote-wiped from devices, does that mean the data migration issue is no longer relevant?

WhiteOwlLion 8y ago

Does this mean you can submit VLC 3.0 at a later time? Good luck.