4 ms·

Parent comment might be referring to Kiwi Browser, a closed source fork of Chromium for Android that allows desktop extensions. Though it's currently available

Parent comment might be referring to Kiwi Browser, a closed source fork of Chromium for Android that allows desktop extensions. Though it's currently available on the Android app store, and the reason it was briefly removed was because it included built-in background YouTube video playback, not ad-blocking. Of course, you could always get the app from another store. - Kiwi Browser (Play Store): https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.kiwibrowser.browser https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.kiwibrowse... - Kiwi Browser (XDA): https://labs.xda-developers.com/store/app/com.kiwibrowser.browser https://labs.xda-developers.com/store/app/com.kiwibrowser.br...

lightedman 7y ago
"Though it's currently available on the Android app store, and the reason it was briefly removed was because it included built-in background YouTube video playback," Oh, so being anti-competitive as their native youtube app will NOT let you play in the background unless you pay for it. Bingo.
- vatueil 7y ago
  Eh, that's sort of like saying Spotify is being "anti-competitive" when they block apps that give you Spotify Premium features for free. Third-party apps for streaming services aren't meant to be a competitive market. At least with YouTube you can still download third-party apps elsewhere, such as youtube-dl for desktops or NewPipe on F-Droid, even if apps that violate YouTube's TOS are removed from Google's own app stores.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    > Eh, that's sort of like saying Spotify is being "anti-competitive" when they block apps that give you Spotify Premium features for free. Blocking it on Spotify is fine. If they merged with... let's say Medium, and now blocked articles about such apps, that would be a problem. Youtube's TOS should not get special treatment in unrelated products.
    - vatueil 7y ago
      What does blocking "on Spotify" mean? It's not as if Spotify is blocking songs within its own catalog or something: these pirate apps exist outside of Spotify, except they hijack Spotify's streaming service. They're dealt with in the same way, by getting legitimate app stores such as Apple's to take down the pirate apps: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/iphone-app-hack-spotify-piracy-ios-ads-free-music-a8779341.html https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/ne... Spotify has also threatened to ban users caught using these third-party apps: https://torrentfreak.com/spotify-emails-warning-to-pirates-using-hacked-apps-180305/ https://torrentfreak.com/spotify-emails-warning-to-pirates-u... At least YouTube doesn't go that far. > If they merged with... let's say Medium, and now blocked articles about such apps, that would be a problem. Writing about piracy, as TorrentFreak or a Medium blog might do, is not the same as piracy itself. The former is journalism, protected by free speech; the latter is not.
      - Dylan16807 7y ago
        > What does blocking "on Spotify" mean? Detecting and blocking those apps from accessing the Spotify servers. > They're dealt with in the same way, by getting legitimate app stores such as Apple's to take down the pirate apps Those are modified versions of the official app, violating its copyright. That's not the same thing as blocking a third-party app because it doesn't work the way Spotify likes. In other words, the app itself is being pirated. That's a completely separate issue from "Spotify Premium features for free". > Writing about piracy, as TorrentFreak or a Medium blog might do, is not the same as piracy itself. The former is journalism, protected by free speech; the latter is not. Sure. I thought you were talking about third party apps, since your second paragraph was about third party apps... A pirated official app is piracy itself. A third party app is not piracy.
        vatueil 7y ago
        It's a distinction without a difference. Whether you use legal or technical means, blocking an offending app that violates the terms of streaming service is not "anti-competitive", as the parent comment accused. Neither Spotify nor YouTube is obliged to offer bandwidth. I'd rather YouTube use legal means to remove offending apps from app stores, rather than technical means that would interfere with apps outside of app stores as well. I like having youtube-dl available, thanks.

lightedman 7y ago

"Though it's currently available on the Android app store, and the reason it was briefly removed was because it included built-in background YouTube video playback," Oh, so being anti-competitive as their native youtube app will NOT let you play in the background unless you pay for it. Bingo.

vatueil 7y ago
Eh, that's sort of like saying Spotify is being "anti-competitive" when they block apps that give you Spotify Premium features for free. Third-party apps for streaming services aren't meant to be a competitive market. At least with YouTube you can still download third-party apps elsewhere, such as youtube-dl for desktops or NewPipe on F-Droid, even if apps that violate YouTube's TOS are removed from Google's own app stores.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  > Eh, that's sort of like saying Spotify is being "anti-competitive" when they block apps that give you Spotify Premium features for free. Blocking it on Spotify is fine. If they merged with... let's say Medium, and now blocked articles about such apps, that would be a problem. Youtube's TOS should not get special treatment in unrelated products.
  - vatueil 7y ago
    What does blocking "on Spotify" mean? It's not as if Spotify is blocking songs within its own catalog or something: these pirate apps exist outside of Spotify, except they hijack Spotify's streaming service. They're dealt with in the same way, by getting legitimate app stores such as Apple's to take down the pirate apps: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/iphone-app-hack-spotify-piracy-ios-ads-free-music-a8779341.html https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/ne... Spotify has also threatened to ban users caught using these third-party apps: https://torrentfreak.com/spotify-emails-warning-to-pirates-using-hacked-apps-180305/ https://torrentfreak.com/spotify-emails-warning-to-pirates-u... At least YouTube doesn't go that far. > If they merged with... let's say Medium, and now blocked articles about such apps, that would be a problem. Writing about piracy, as TorrentFreak or a Medium blog might do, is not the same as piracy itself. The former is journalism, protected by free speech; the latter is not.
    - Dylan16807 7y ago
      > What does blocking "on Spotify" mean? Detecting and blocking those apps from accessing the Spotify servers. > They're dealt with in the same way, by getting legitimate app stores such as Apple's to take down the pirate apps Those are modified versions of the official app, violating its copyright. That's not the same thing as blocking a third-party app because it doesn't work the way Spotify likes. In other words, the app itself is being pirated. That's a completely separate issue from "Spotify Premium features for free". > Writing about piracy, as TorrentFreak or a Medium blog might do, is not the same as piracy itself. The former is journalism, protected by free speech; the latter is not. Sure. I thought you were talking about third party apps, since your second paragraph was about third party apps... A pirated official app is piracy itself. A third party app is not piracy.
      - vatueil 7y ago
        It's a distinction without a difference. Whether you use legal or technical means, blocking an offending app that violates the terms of streaming service is not "anti-competitive", as the parent comment accused. Neither Spotify nor YouTube is obliged to offer bandwidth. I'd rather YouTube use legal means to remove offending apps from app stores, rather than technical means that would interfere with apps outside of app stores as well. I like having youtube-dl available, thanks.