3 ms·

> It will end up being an arms race. Everytime they change something you'll race to hack it again. In the meantime your service will be inoperable. They (any s

> It will end up being an arms race. Everytime they change something you'll race to hack it again. In the meantime your service will be inoperable. They (any service with a large user base across many devices) are at a serious disadvantage of not being 100% in control of app upgrades across the legion of devices and app versions supported. They are just as likely to break a legitimate user's app as yours (even higher, imo). I don't think the technical war is nearly as difficult as you imagine. On the legal side, you might be right depending on the geographical location of the dev. In regard to the original question, I think we'll begin to see a shift in that direction as these services tighten the screws. Like youtube-dl, Youtube++ app is a relief to anyone who watches much YT on a phone/tablet. It's easily sideloadable even on iOS and actually puts the user first with regard to permanently settable playback speed and ability to hide algorithmic suggestions among many other tweaks. It's based on a year+ old version of the official app and is still working fine even after being DMCAd. So you know they got Google's attention, but haven't had to update the app in almost a year. I also see these gray area tools as an important check on the power of the platforms to not abuse their dominance. Like jailbreaking was before Apple started incorporating many of the more popular tweaks into iOS itself.

roryisok 8y ago
I've never even heard of YouTube++ but it sounds like I need it in my life
jhall1468 8y ago
> They (any service with a large user base across many devices) are at a serious disadvantage of not being 100% in control of app upgrades across the legion of devices and app versions supported. They are just as likely to break a legitimate user's app as yours (even higher, imo). Yes they are? Alternative apps use the official API, their internal services use their internal API's, which are also likely versioned. So if the internal DM API has an upgrade, the website can change to the new version while the mobile app is using the previous version. youtube-dl and Youtube++ are already solved problems. The fact that you have to sideload it means the user market is tiny and at this point I highly doubt YT even cares anymore. > I also see these gray area tools as an important check on the power of the platforms to not abuse their dominance. This is the weirdest thing you've said in a whole lot of weird things. YT proved how powerful it was via demonetization of so many creators videos. Nobody could do anything about it, primarily because the real power behind YT is that creators don't have an alternative, not users.
- ballenf 8y ago
  > Yes they are? Alternative apps use the official API, their internal services use their internal API's, which are also likely versioned. So if the internal DM API has an upgrade, the website can change to the new version while the mobile app is using the previous version. I think we might be speaking about different things. My original point was that reverse-engineering Twitter's private APIs (used by the first-party app) is not as difficult to do or maintain as the parent suggested. My reasoning was that for the foreseeable future there will be legitimate users on non-updated clients, forcing Twitter to choose between disabling those clients or letting your 'cloning' of those apps' API calls continue to function. > This is the weirdest thing you've said in a whole lot of weird things. YT proved how powerful it was via demonetization of so many creators videos. Nobody could do anything about it, primarily because the real power behind YT is that creators don't have an alternative, not users. Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not speaking about creators-vs-YT, but consumers-vs-YT in terms of anti-user restrictions in the YT app and website. Issues that grey area tools alleviate and therefore provide the only effective check on YT's ability to take them further. Just as abusive ads and tracking has caused a jump in adblock usage. The harder it gets to enjoy YT content through the first-party app, the more people will take the time to discover alternatives. The concept generalizes to Twitter or YT or any platform (or creative industry) that achieves ubiquity or monopoly. Even if you disagree, maybe it sounds less 'weird'.

roryisok 8y ago

I've never even heard of YouTube++ but it sounds like I need it in my life

jhall1468 8y ago

> They (any service with a large user base across many devices) are at a serious disadvantage of not being 100% in control of app upgrades across the legion of devices and app versions supported. They are just as likely to break a legitimate user's app as yours (even higher, imo). Yes they are? Alternative apps use the official API, their internal services use their internal API's, which are also likely versioned. So if the internal DM API has an upgrade, the website can change to the new version while the mobile app is using the previous version. youtube-dl and Youtube++ are already solved problems. The fact that you have to sideload it means the user market is tiny and at this point I highly doubt YT even cares anymore. > I also see these gray area tools as an important check on the power of the platforms to not abuse their dominance. This is the weirdest thing you've said in a whole lot of weird things. YT proved how powerful it was via demonetization of so many creators videos. Nobody could do anything about it, primarily because the real power behind YT is that creators don't have an alternative, not users.

ballenf 8y ago
> Yes they are? Alternative apps use the official API, their internal services use their internal API's, which are also likely versioned. So if the internal DM API has an upgrade, the website can change to the new version while the mobile app is using the previous version. I think we might be speaking about different things. My original point was that reverse-engineering Twitter's private APIs (used by the first-party app) is not as difficult to do or maintain as the parent suggested. My reasoning was that for the foreseeable future there will be legitimate users on non-updated clients, forcing Twitter to choose between disabling those clients or letting your 'cloning' of those apps' API calls continue to function. > This is the weirdest thing you've said in a whole lot of weird things. YT proved how powerful it was via demonetization of so many creators videos. Nobody could do anything about it, primarily because the real power behind YT is that creators don't have an alternative, not users. Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not speaking about creators-vs-YT, but consumers-vs-YT in terms of anti-user restrictions in the YT app and website. Issues that grey area tools alleviate and therefore provide the only effective check on YT's ability to take them further. Just as abusive ads and tracking has caused a jump in adblock usage. The harder it gets to enjoy YT content through the first-party app, the more people will take the time to discover alternatives. The concept generalizes to Twitter or YT or any platform (or creative industry) that achieves ubiquity or monopoly. Even if you disagree, maybe it sounds less 'weird'.