8 ms·

I hope you realize that apps like these kill the ecosystem for content creators who are paid based on ads. If you don't like YT ads, pay for the premium version

I hope you realize that apps like these kill the ecosystem for content creators who are paid based on ads. If you don't like YT ads, pay for the premium version. But suggesting that this app is great is not right. Anyways, I trust if this becomes big, YT will kill them anyways. YT API requires keys and they know exactly what is going on here and can shut it down in a heartbeat if they want to. This is exactly what happened to apps built on top of Twitter APIs back in the day.

bargl 6y ago
I would hope we can find a way for apps like this to exist while still paying youtube and content creators. Something like and API subscription for a third party algorithm tool like this that pay youtube part of the subscription.
valvar 6y ago
If I want to support a content creator, I do so by donating to them directly, not by allowing a massive and (in my personal opinion) evil company to profit both of my and their backs. Not to mention that both seeing ads and using the official YouTube app is quite unpleasant. I am very grateful to the developers of NewPipe for providing me with a painless way to experience the content produced by creators that I like, and which also respects my freedoms and my privacy. It is unfortunate that YouTube has an effective monopoly on its market, and that a lot of the content is not available elsewhere -- I'd much rather watch content served by a platform which respects its users, but unfortunately that is not really possible today. So in the meanwhile, I am happy that I don't have to support a nasty company with a nasty business model.
- ehsankia 6y ago
  Honest and serious question, if Youtube were to shut down tomorrow, do people think that whatever alternative (or even better, competing alternatives) would have a different model? I'm curious to know what exactly would you do differently if you were to make a replacement for Youtube.
  - keb_ 6y ago
    I believe, based on conversations I've had, that the target audience of NewPipe overlaps with the target audience of solutions such as PeerTube, Mastodon, and other FOSS, privacy-centric alternatives.
    - ehsankia 6y ago
      Does PeerTube pay people? Or is the assumption that creators should get all their revenue from external sources?
      - cycloptic 6y ago
        PeerTube is not a company, it's an open source implementation of a peer-to-peer video sharing platform. Any person or company that wants to can pick it up and build a commercial platform on top of it. Whether that includes advertising or not is up to them.
        ehsankia 6y ago
        Sure, but my point is that this doesn't answer my question. I wasn't asking which technology would the next company use. If Youtube used P2P, it still wouldn't solve many of the issue people have with Youtube.
        keb_ 6y ago
        The assumption is: yes, the content creators who host their videos via P2P solutions like PeerTube would have to rely on external sources such as Patreon, or in-video sponsorships, or as another user pointed, use the built-in donations feature. > If Youtube used P2P, it still wouldn't solve many of the issue people have with Youtube. What issues in particular are you talking about and how would P2P fail to resolve them?
        ehsankia 6y ago
        This very thread is about an ad-free client for Youtube. How would P2P change ads?
- shripadk 6y ago
  > If I want to support a content creator, I do so by donating to them directly, not by allowing a massive and (in my personal opinion) evil company to profit both of my and their backs. Not to mention that both seeing ads and using the official YouTube app is quite unpleasant. There is a big problem in your model. But before that let me address the reason why the current model is better. You are right that the intermediary company is profiting out of your and content creator's backs. That is true. But that is not the complete picture. The company is also paying for hosting the content. In essence, the money that advertisers pay is split in the following way: 1. Content Creator 2. Content hosting 3. Company gets the remaining chunk Now here is why the current model is better: you can watch all videos on Youtube for free. Discovery is an essential part of how Content Creators are discovered. Now if you put all these Content Creators behind a paywall how are you going to decide if the Creator is worth supporting or not? And even if the Content is good, is s/he going to stick around for long? How many can you support? 10? 100? 1000? There is a limit isn't it? And what happens if the Content Creator stops releasing more content? Eventually subscribers will unsubscribe (stop payments). Then what happens to the Content? Will it remain hosted? Who is going to pay for the cost of hosting content that no one is watching? You won't be able to pay more than X$ amount because you feel that is what the Content Creator is worth to you. An advertiser is different. An advertiser is driven by motive of making profits. If s/he finds that advertising with a particular Content Creator is lucrative s/he spends way more than X$ that you contribute. In essence, the advertiser values the Content Creator more than you will ever be able to. Because you are consuming content from the creator - that is where your link with the creator ends. The ad agencies are making profits from the creator. That is the big difference! You are not motivated to pay more and more to the creator right? Advertisers are! And that will only continue to increase the more quality content the Creator puts out. And even if the Creator decides to take a break, advertisers will still continue to pay for a spot in his/her content as long as people are watching it (which they have discovered because Youtube is free). Would you pay for a Creator if s/he takes a break for 6 months to a year? Advertising right now monetizes even 10 year old videos. However irrelevant that video might be for today's scenario you still have people watching extremely old videos and advertisements running on it with the Creator getting passive income. So even though a Content Creator might get a lesser chunk of the overall payment in the short term s/he would recover everything and a lot more over the longer term. But if s/he starts taking payment for Content then it will only continue until s/he is posting content. Once that is stopped people will leave the creator in droves. Then that content becomes a deadweight! The platform will never allow content to just sit around stale with no one paying for it. The platform will have no choice but to remove it.
input_sh 6y ago
If YouTube's own app wasn't so bad, I wouldn't have searched for an alternative. Plus like 90% of YouTube channels I'm following mirror their content to their own subscription service (https://watchnebula.com/ https://watchnebula.com/), and I'm happily paying for that instead of paying for YouTube Premium.
mastazi 6y ago
Can you cite any content creator who actually stated that they are making significant money from Youtube ads (AdSense)? It seems that all the content creators that I follow keep repeating that they make money trough sponsored videos, organic/direct ads, brand partnerships and even affiliate links, while on the other hand YouTube ads are basically a negligible share of their income. Here’s one example, I can find more if needed https://youtu.be/v8F4jrtZtNE https://youtu.be/v8F4jrtZtNE
colordrops 6y ago
It's not the job of end users to support and maintain the ecosystem. If YouTube wanted to protect their services with authentication, they are very capable of doing so. It's not the end users fault, even a tiny bit. YouTube is a corporate for-profit walled garden platform. Corporate entities put massive effort into designing complex and subtle policies for these platforms in order to drive first and second order effects that sustain them and extract value from them. It is absolutely not the job of random user to spend any effort figuring out whether their actions are in support of the particular platform policies. In fact I'd go so far as to say that YouTube is monopolistic and unethical and users should do everything they can to subvert it.
chrysoprace 6y ago
I'll grant you the second point but RE: ads, it's my understanding that ad rates are so low on YT that content creators have to resort to product placements in addition to pre-roll ads. (For the record, I pay for YouTune Premium which directly contributes to content creators on YT).
chin123 6y ago
Except, newpipe doesn't use the YouTube API. Similar to youtube-dl, it scrapes the YouTube webpage for all its functionality. The only way I can imagine YouTube can shut this down is by introducing DRM, at which point I hope people will boycott them anyway.
- Mindwipe 6y ago
  The vast, vast majority of users (99.9999+%) wouldn't even notice.
cyphar 6y ago
People already use ad blockers on YouTube which have a similar effect, so this isn't a unique "problem" to NewPipe. I also directly financially support creators whose content I enjoy and most large creators these days have advertisements embedded in their videos, as well as asking for support through means other than AdSense. But more importantly, the main reason I use NewPipe is because it has basic features that the official YouTube app doesn't provide -- playing videos in an overlay and in the background (so you can lock your screen and continue playing the video). You can get this incredibly basic feature if you pay for YouTube Red, which seems to indicate the only reason this feature isn't provided for the free version is spite. And that is the benefit of free software.
- Mindwipe 6y ago
  > You can get this incredibly basic feature if you pay for YouTube Red, which seems to indicate the only reason this feature isn't provided for the free version is spite. It's because YouTube's music agreements prohibit it on mobile platforms to prevent it competing with Spotify et al.
userbinator 6y ago
Claiming that NewPipe is stealing is like saying that using WINE is stealing from Microsoft.
- efreak 6y ago
  Bad analogy. WINE doesn't use Microsoft's services to run, and it doesn't cause the application to run in a different manner than intended; NewPipe connects to Google's servers to fetch video, and unlike the way Google intends, it doesn't show the other content in the page (ads, etc). NewPipe uses Google resources; WINE itself only uses resources on your personal computer.
ekianjo 6y ago
> hope you realize that apps like these kill the ecosystem for content creators who are paid based on ads. If your only source of revenue is Youtube, you probably have to worry about Google more than this kind of clients taking away your earnings.
- StencilofLife 6y ago
  Patreon is probably a better source of income for them. Until peertube is good enough atleast.
myopenid2 6y ago
I get pre-roll ads for every video, even for channels I've never watched before. I cannot control who I want to support.
Fiveplus 6y ago
Quite a passive aggressive reply. I'll donate to creators and support them directly if I wish. Not running ads on my system is my personal decision and suggesting otherwise is not a great argument. Whoever wrote this comment also mentions YT APIs coming into play here, which further takes away any air of authenticity the author had to begin with.
anoncake 6y ago
> I hope you realize that apps like these kill the ecosystem [...] based on ads. That's a good thing.
CivBase 6y ago
Virtually every content creator who depends on the content for their livelyhood has figured out some other way to monetize it (Patreon, Floatplane, Twitch, merch, etc). I use NewPipe and a PiHole so I practically never see YouTube ads, but I always make sure I'm paying the creators I watch regularly somehow. Of course, I don't even use NewPipe for its lack of ads. If Google improved their own app, maybe I'd go back to it.
rasz 6y ago
Watching ads on videos of my favorite youtuber translates to around 3 cents per year for him. I rather support them directly with merch/patreon.
shoulderfake 6y ago
Fuck youtube. The content creators also know ppl use adblock, yet they're still producing content arent they ?

bargl 6y ago

I would hope we can find a way for apps like this to exist while still paying youtube and content creators. Something like and API subscription for a third party algorithm tool like this that pay youtube part of the subscription.

valvar 6y ago

If I want to support a content creator, I do so by donating to them directly, not by allowing a massive and (in my personal opinion) evil company to profit both of my and their backs. Not to mention that both seeing ads and using the official YouTube app is quite unpleasant. I am very grateful to the developers of NewPipe for providing me with a painless way to experience the content produced by creators that I like, and which also respects my freedoms and my privacy. It is unfortunate that YouTube has an effective monopoly on its market, and that a lot of the content is not available elsewhere -- I'd much rather watch content served by a platform which respects its users, but unfortunately that is not really possible today. So in the meanwhile, I am happy that I don't have to support a nasty company with a nasty business model.

ehsankia 6y ago
Honest and serious question, if Youtube were to shut down tomorrow, do people think that whatever alternative (or even better, competing alternatives) would have a different model? I'm curious to know what exactly would you do differently if you were to make a replacement for Youtube.
- keb_ 6y ago
  I believe, based on conversations I've had, that the target audience of NewPipe overlaps with the target audience of solutions such as PeerTube, Mastodon, and other FOSS, privacy-centric alternatives.
  - ehsankia 6y ago
    Does PeerTube pay people? Or is the assumption that creators should get all their revenue from external sources?
    - cycloptic 6y ago
      PeerTube is not a company, it's an open source implementation of a peer-to-peer video sharing platform. Any person or company that wants to can pick it up and build a commercial platform on top of it. Whether that includes advertising or not is up to them.
      - ehsankia 6y ago
        Sure, but my point is that this doesn't answer my question. I wasn't asking which technology would the next company use. If Youtube used P2P, it still wouldn't solve many of the issue people have with Youtube.
        keb_ 6y ago
        The assumption is: yes, the content creators who host their videos via P2P solutions like PeerTube would have to rely on external sources such as Patreon, or in-video sponsorships, or as another user pointed, use the built-in donations feature. > If Youtube used P2P, it still wouldn't solve many of the issue people have with Youtube. What issues in particular are you talking about and how would P2P fail to resolve them?
        ehsankia 6y ago
        This very thread is about an ad-free client for Youtube. How would P2P change ads?
shripadk 6y ago
> If I want to support a content creator, I do so by donating to them directly, not by allowing a massive and (in my personal opinion) evil company to profit both of my and their backs. Not to mention that both seeing ads and using the official YouTube app is quite unpleasant. There is a big problem in your model. But before that let me address the reason why the current model is better. You are right that the intermediary company is profiting out of your and content creator's backs. That is true. But that is not the complete picture. The company is also paying for hosting the content. In essence, the money that advertisers pay is split in the following way: 1. Content Creator 2. Content hosting 3. Company gets the remaining chunk Now here is why the current model is better: you can watch all videos on Youtube for free. Discovery is an essential part of how Content Creators are discovered. Now if you put all these Content Creators behind a paywall how are you going to decide if the Creator is worth supporting or not? And even if the Content is good, is s/he going to stick around for long? How many can you support? 10? 100? 1000? There is a limit isn't it? And what happens if the Content Creator stops releasing more content? Eventually subscribers will unsubscribe (stop payments). Then what happens to the Content? Will it remain hosted? Who is going to pay for the cost of hosting content that no one is watching? You won't be able to pay more than X$ amount because you feel that is what the Content Creator is worth to you. An advertiser is different. An advertiser is driven by motive of making profits. If s/he finds that advertising with a particular Content Creator is lucrative s/he spends way more than X$ that you contribute. In essence, the advertiser values the Content Creator more than you will ever be able to. Because you are consuming content from the creator - that is where your link with the creator ends. The ad agencies are making profits from the creator. That is the big difference! You are not motivated to pay more and more to the creator right? Advertisers are! And that will only continue to increase the more quality content the Creator puts out. And even if the Creator decides to take a break, advertisers will still continue to pay for a spot in his/her content as long as people are watching it (which they have discovered because Youtube is free). Would you pay for a Creator if s/he takes a break for 6 months to a year? Advertising right now monetizes even 10 year old videos. However irrelevant that video might be for today's scenario you still have people watching extremely old videos and advertisements running on it with the Creator getting passive income. So even though a Content Creator might get a lesser chunk of the overall payment in the short term s/he would recover everything and a lot more over the longer term. But if s/he starts taking payment for Content then it will only continue until s/he is posting content. Once that is stopped people will leave the creator in droves. Then that content becomes a deadweight! The platform will never allow content to just sit around stale with no one paying for it. The platform will have no choice but to remove it.

input_sh 6y ago

If YouTube's own app wasn't so bad, I wouldn't have searched for an alternative. Plus like 90% of YouTube channels I'm following mirror their content to their own subscription service (https://watchnebula.com/ https://watchnebula.com/), and I'm happily paying for that instead of paying for YouTube Premium.

mastazi 6y ago

Can you cite any content creator who actually stated that they are making significant money from Youtube ads (AdSense)? It seems that all the content creators that I follow keep repeating that they make money trough sponsored videos, organic/direct ads, brand partnerships and even affiliate links, while on the other hand YouTube ads are basically a negligible share of their income. Here’s one example, I can find more if needed https://youtu.be/v8F4jrtZtNE https://youtu.be/v8F4jrtZtNE

colordrops 6y ago

It's not the job of end users to support and maintain the ecosystem. If YouTube wanted to protect their services with authentication, they are very capable of doing so. It's not the end users fault, even a tiny bit. YouTube is a corporate for-profit walled garden platform. Corporate entities put massive effort into designing complex and subtle policies for these platforms in order to drive first and second order effects that sustain them and extract value from them. It is absolutely not the job of random user to spend any effort figuring out whether their actions are in support of the particular platform policies. In fact I'd go so far as to say that YouTube is monopolistic and unethical and users should do everything they can to subvert it.

chrysoprace 6y ago

I'll grant you the second point but RE: ads, it's my understanding that ad rates are so low on YT that content creators have to resort to product placements in addition to pre-roll ads. (For the record, I pay for YouTune Premium which directly contributes to content creators on YT).

chin123 6y ago

Except, newpipe doesn't use the YouTube API. Similar to youtube-dl, it scrapes the YouTube webpage for all its functionality. The only way I can imagine YouTube can shut this down is by introducing DRM, at which point I hope people will boycott them anyway.

Mindwipe 6y ago
The vast, vast majority of users (99.9999+%) wouldn't even notice.

cyphar 6y ago

People already use ad blockers on YouTube which have a similar effect, so this isn't a unique "problem" to NewPipe. I also directly financially support creators whose content I enjoy and most large creators these days have advertisements embedded in their videos, as well as asking for support through means other than AdSense. But more importantly, the main reason I use NewPipe is because it has basic features that the official YouTube app doesn't provide -- playing videos in an overlay and in the background (so you can lock your screen and continue playing the video). You can get this incredibly basic feature if you pay for YouTube Red, which seems to indicate the only reason this feature isn't provided for the free version is spite. And that is the benefit of free software.

Mindwipe 6y ago
> You can get this incredibly basic feature if you pay for YouTube Red, which seems to indicate the only reason this feature isn't provided for the free version is spite. It's because YouTube's music agreements prohibit it on mobile platforms to prevent it competing with Spotify et al.

userbinator 6y ago

Claiming that NewPipe is stealing is like saying that using WINE is stealing from Microsoft.

efreak 6y ago
Bad analogy. WINE doesn't use Microsoft's services to run, and it doesn't cause the application to run in a different manner than intended; NewPipe connects to Google's servers to fetch video, and unlike the way Google intends, it doesn't show the other content in the page (ads, etc). NewPipe uses Google resources; WINE itself only uses resources on your personal computer.

ekianjo 6y ago

> hope you realize that apps like these kill the ecosystem for content creators who are paid based on ads. If your only source of revenue is Youtube, you probably have to worry about Google more than this kind of clients taking away your earnings.

StencilofLife 6y ago
Patreon is probably a better source of income for them. Until peertube is good enough atleast.

myopenid2 6y ago

I get pre-roll ads for every video, even for channels I've never watched before. I cannot control who I want to support.

Fiveplus 6y ago

Quite a passive aggressive reply. I'll donate to creators and support them directly if I wish. Not running ads on my system is my personal decision and suggesting otherwise is not a great argument. Whoever wrote this comment also mentions YT APIs coming into play here, which further takes away any air of authenticity the author had to begin with.

anoncake 6y ago

> I hope you realize that apps like these kill the ecosystem [...] based on ads. That's a good thing.

CivBase 6y ago

Virtually every content creator who depends on the content for their livelyhood has figured out some other way to monetize it (Patreon, Floatplane, Twitch, merch, etc). I use NewPipe and a PiHole so I practically never see YouTube ads, but I always make sure I'm paying the creators I watch regularly somehow. Of course, I don't even use NewPipe for its lack of ads. If Google improved their own app, maybe I'd go back to it.

rasz 6y ago

Watching ads on videos of my favorite youtuber translates to around 3 cents per year for him. I rather support them directly with merch/patreon.

shoulderfake 6y ago

Fuck youtube. The content creators also know ppl use adblock, yet they're still producing content arent they ?