6 ms·

Weird pivot in the middle of the article where all of a sudden they're promoting a product. Is this an ad disguised as a clickbait article?

jocoda 3y ago
[flagged]
- CodeCompost 3y ago
  Thanks! Luckily I was still allowed to modify my post.
- mort96 3y ago
  Literally what about the title is click bait? They got banned from the Unity store and they expose a clear double standard in Unity's enforcement. Exactly as the title suggests. The negative reception here is absolutely incoherent.
  - jocoda 3y ago
    [flagged]
oefrha 3y ago
[flagged]
- miyuru 3y ago
  this should have been 2 blog posts.
- mort96 3y ago
  The whole article is essentially: 1. "Some background our plug-in" 2. "Unity banned our plug-in from their store" 3. "We explain why this seems like a double standard" 4. "We made our own store where people can get our plug-in now that it's not in the Unity store" IMO the only thing wrong with the blog post is that it's missing a paragraph after the "Introducing the Videolabs Store" heading. There should be a sentence or two there about how people can now get the Unity plug-in through the Videolabs Store before they go on to talk about everything else people can get there.
  - oefrha 3y ago
    You left out half of the article (I’m definitely not exaggerating here) about consulting packages and other products in your “essentially”. Yes, the article would be a lot better without the half you also seem to believe doesn’t belong.
    - mort96 3y ago
      When the store is introduced, listing the services which can be bought through it is only natural. I am 100% convinced that neither you nor all the other people would have such a negative reaction if there was a simple connecting paragraph which explicitly connects the plug-in to the store in some PR-y "we care about our users" kind of way.
      - oefrha 3y ago
        It is not at all natural to dedicate half of the text to unrelated promotions in a negative piece about another company. When you do that, some people assume you’re taking the free publicity to promote unrelated stuff. As I said in another comment, it’s totally natural to mention <banned thing> is now available at your own store. It’s okay to briefly call attention to other products as well. But a long piece filled with marketing speak is not the way to do it. Anyway, I’ve wasted enough time on the marketing BS, I’m not going to respond further.
blauditore 3y ago
I wonder if the license was the actual reason for the ban, or some shenanigans like this article, trying to sneak in ads somewhwere.
- boomboomsubban 3y ago
  It's vlc, I doubt it.
- mort96 3y ago
  Are you suggesting that VLC is lying about the communication from Unity, including faking the screenshot (or lying by omitting other e-mail)? Or are you suggesting that Unity is lying to VLC about the reason for the ban?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
loup-vaillant 3y ago
Step 1: we’re banned from the store! Step 2: we have our own store now! That’s not a weird pivot, that’s what you do when a company you depend on no longer wants to do business with you.
- fwn 3y ago
  It's not even competition, as Unity seems to have decided to "deprecate" the Unity Store for VLC. /s
- PUSH_AX 3y ago
  "depends on" is a bit strong.
  - tankenmate 3y ago
    Have you seen VideoLAN's revenue? What percentage of their revenue came via the Unity Store?
    - PUSH_AX 3y ago
      They're a non profit organisation. They existed before the Unity store and they are existing after the Unity store. They did not _depend_ on Unity.
      - tankenmate 3y ago
        Non profit doesn't mean all the employees work for free. Your statement is the equivalent of saying "The Red Cross don't need money, they're a non profit!"
        PUSH_AX 3y ago
        Not sure how that relates to them "depending on Unity"? is really clear that they never have, nor do they now.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
nebulous1 3y ago
I agree that it came off as a bait and switch. Having looked a bit deeper, the plugin is open source and you can download, compile and distribute it for free. They charge for the precompiled binaries that you can get in the Unity Store (now videolabs store). If we were already aware of all this then this wouldn't have come off in the same way. The problem is that due to the way it was written I think most people expected the plugin to be free on the store. Personally I think it just could have noted that the general interest section of the article was finished when they segued into the store announcement. Anyway, assuming everything is as they say then it seems pretty clear that Unity have some other reason for banning it, most likely commercial.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
softfalcon 3y ago
I get how that can seem very jarring. On the other hand, VLC has single handedly solved the "how do I play all the world's weird ass video/audio files" for free with no gotcha's for years now. I think they're more than entitled to try and advertise a little bit. It's not like they're doing anything evil asking for some money. You can still go download all the code yourself and build it manually for free if you want.

jocoda 3y ago

[flagged]

CodeCompost 3y ago
Thanks! Luckily I was still allowed to modify my post.
mort96 3y ago
Literally what about the title is click bait? They got banned from the Unity store and they expose a clear double standard in Unity's enforcement. Exactly as the title suggests. The negative reception here is absolutely incoherent.
- jocoda 3y ago
  [flagged]

oefrha 3y ago

[flagged]

miyuru 3y ago
this should have been 2 blog posts.
mort96 3y ago
The whole article is essentially: 1. "Some background our plug-in" 2. "Unity banned our plug-in from their store" 3. "We explain why this seems like a double standard" 4. "We made our own store where people can get our plug-in now that it's not in the Unity store" IMO the only thing wrong with the blog post is that it's missing a paragraph after the "Introducing the Videolabs Store" heading. There should be a sentence or two there about how people can now get the Unity plug-in through the Videolabs Store before they go on to talk about everything else people can get there.
- oefrha 3y ago
  You left out half of the article (I’m definitely not exaggerating here) about consulting packages and other products in your “essentially”. Yes, the article would be a lot better without the half you also seem to believe doesn’t belong.
  - mort96 3y ago
    When the store is introduced, listing the services which can be bought through it is only natural. I am 100% convinced that neither you nor all the other people would have such a negative reaction if there was a simple connecting paragraph which explicitly connects the plug-in to the store in some PR-y "we care about our users" kind of way.
    - oefrha 3y ago
      It is not at all natural to dedicate half of the text to unrelated promotions in a negative piece about another company. When you do that, some people assume you’re taking the free publicity to promote unrelated stuff. As I said in another comment, it’s totally natural to mention <banned thing> is now available at your own store. It’s okay to briefly call attention to other products as well. But a long piece filled with marketing speak is not the way to do it. Anyway, I’ve wasted enough time on the marketing BS, I’m not going to respond further.

blauditore 3y ago

I wonder if the license was the actual reason for the ban, or some shenanigans like this article, trying to sneak in ads somewhwere.

boomboomsubban 3y ago
It's vlc, I doubt it.
mort96 3y ago
Are you suggesting that VLC is lying about the communication from Unity, including faking the screenshot (or lying by omitting other e-mail)? Or are you suggesting that Unity is lying to VLC about the reason for the ban?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

loup-vaillant 3y ago

Step 1: we’re banned from the store! Step 2: we have our own store now! That’s not a weird pivot, that’s what you do when a company you depend on no longer wants to do business with you.

fwn 3y ago
It's not even competition, as Unity seems to have decided to "deprecate" the Unity Store for VLC. /s
PUSH_AX 3y ago
"depends on" is a bit strong.
- tankenmate 3y ago
  Have you seen VideoLAN's revenue? What percentage of their revenue came via the Unity Store?
  - PUSH_AX 3y ago
    They're a non profit organisation. They existed before the Unity store and they are existing after the Unity store. They did not _depend_ on Unity.
    - tankenmate 3y ago
      Non profit doesn't mean all the employees work for free. Your statement is the equivalent of saying "The Red Cross don't need money, they're a non profit!"
      - PUSH_AX 3y ago
        Not sure how that relates to them "depending on Unity"? is really clear that they never have, nor do they now.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

nebulous1 3y ago

I agree that it came off as a bait and switch. Having looked a bit deeper, the plugin is open source and you can download, compile and distribute it for free. They charge for the precompiled binaries that you can get in the Unity Store (now videolabs store). If we were already aware of all this then this wouldn't have come off in the same way. The problem is that due to the way it was written I think most people expected the plugin to be free on the store. Personally I think it just could have noted that the general interest section of the article was finished when they segued into the store announcement. Anyway, assuming everything is as they say then it seems pretty clear that Unity have some other reason for banning it, most likely commercial.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

softfalcon 3y ago

I get how that can seem very jarring. On the other hand, VLC has single handedly solved the "how do I play all the world's weird ass video/audio files" for free with no gotcha's for years now. I think they're more than entitled to try and advertise a little bit. It's not like they're doing anything evil asking for some money. You can still go download all the code yourself and build it manually for free if you want.