10 ms·

Juno for YouTube has been removed from the App Store

184 points by MaximilianEmel 2y ago

HorizonXP 2y ago
Bah! Humbug! I use this all the time. Thanks for making it.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
[flagged]
- afavour 2y ago
  > You can’t modify your browser’s view of your own client side data? They have absolutely no right to encroach on that Is that true? Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely believe we should have that right but is it actually specified anywhere?
  - vdqtp3 2y ago
    You're questioning whether it's your right to run the code you want to, instead of the code they want you to?
    - DannyBee 2y ago
      Yes. If you separate out "how should things be" from "how things are", then from duke-nukem levels to you name it, caselaw is very clear that they can control this through fairly simple copyright law principles (derivative works, etc), without even having to resort to more complex theories. Your best argument is fair use, but it's not a particularly good fair use argument in this case. This isn't even a close case. Your only secondary argument is antitrust but it seems like a really weak one in this case as well.
      - 0xcde4c3db 2y ago
        Not that you're under any obligation to suffer the peanut gallery, but I'm curious as to how it is that Micro Star v. FormGen (which I assume is your Duke Nukem reference) obviously applies more readily here than Galoob v. Nintendo and Sega v. Accolade. As far as I can tell, the key distinctions are in how permanent the derivative works are and to what extent the erstwhile infringement is forced by the platform owner as a condition of interoperability, which seem like they're debatable questions for third-party client apps. Granted, maybe the DMCA makes these distinctions practically moot because a service can get away with just applying arbitrary restrictions via a "technological measure" now.
        DannyBee 2y ago
        First, as a point of amusement - last i looked, companies were still suing people over duke nukem decades later: https://www.scribd.com/doc/208676148/GEARBOX-SOFTWARE-v-3D-REALMS-ENTERTAINMENT-and-INTERCEPTOR-ENTERTAINMENT#download&from_embed https://www.scribd.com/doc/208676148/GEARBOX-SOFTWARE-v-3D-R... (too lazy to look up the resolution, but thought you might find it amusing) So this is a totally reasonable question/debate to have. I'll mix practical and academic views, but happy to discuss more of one or the other in detail. The first answer I can give you is single-purpose apps/things have faired quite poorly in the copyright realm, any principled caselaw/etc aside. It just turns out to be really hard to convince a judge/jury (to the degree there are any fact specific questions) that an app you made with a specific purpose of displaying someone else's content, whose entire value is in displaying that content, is not a derived work of that content. It fits fairly squarely in the definition: "A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, .... [in] any other form in which a work may be recast". But even to the degree it doesn't end up a derivative work, it almost certainly ends up a distribution or reproduction or public performance the other work. So as a defense attorney trying to defend it, you have a pretty hard non-infringement argument simply because you have to simultaneously argue "it's not a derivative work, it's not a distribution, it's not a reproduction, it's not a public performance" The line does get fuzzy somewhere, obviously - but one thing to keep in mind on that front is that derivative works are not like a single-parent-only structure. Something can be a derivative work of multiple works simultaneously :) They usually are. This app is a derivative work of apple's libraries/frameworks, LLVM libraries or whatever it was compiled with, etc. I also expect you'd agree that if someone copied the HTML/etc of youtube's website into the app and shipped it directly, it would a derivative work of that too. That is a clear transformation/adaption of an existing work. So what's the practical difference here? That it's dynamically loaded and then modified? that seems like a hard place to hang your hat :) Now mind you, i've actually made this argument before in the LGPL context, so i have taken both sides before depending on the facts/complexities :) As an example, if i make a book, and there is no text on the pages, instead each page says something like "for the text of this page, please see characters <x>-<y> of page <a>-<b> of book <c>-<d>, ISBN number <e>", is my book a derivative work of the works it references? it has no text or content on its own, and is only incorporating by reference. There are reasonable arguments on both sides. All that said, the practical line that gets drawn, for better/worse, is often around usually who is the agent/controller, and what dependencies exist. IE it usually end up like this: Me loading HN in a normal web browser - i'm creating a derivative work of the HN site in my browser, on my display. The web browser, shipped alone, not a derivative work of HN. Me using an HN app that downloaded all of HN and updates it once a week on its own - the app is a derivative work of HN, and it's creative derivative works of the content on a regular basis. i'm using/ browsing these derivative works. Here we are somewhat in the middle, but given the entire point of the app, who is doing the loading/modification, and the actual modification of content/styling, i think it falls a lot more on the latter side than the former. At least for derivative works. These days, to you other point, it rarely gets to the question of derivative works at all due to TOS/DMCA enforcement. You don't have a right to access the content at all except to the degree you are licensed to, app or not. Rather than argue about derivation, they'll just sue you for unauthorized reproduction or distribution, since that is more clear.
    - andyferris 2y ago
      It’s a fair question IMO. The YouTube APIs presumable come with “terms of service” for use, or some such. What exactly, legally speaking, can they specify? Can it be enforced (by Google lawyers and courts) to the point where Apple would be compelled to do things to force users to comply, like removing this App? I think the answer _should_ be no, but that’s different to asking what is your actual rights on your device vs their “right” to control use of their system.
      - hbn 2y ago
        He isn't even using YouTube's APIs. From the dev himself: > I’ve said from the initial launch, Juno is built as a web-wrapper for YouTube, akin to a browser extension, and purposefully built with full respect for the YouTube website and experience, and as a result does not block ads in any capacity, nor does it introduce extra functionality like downloading videos offline that could facilitate that. Further, Juno doesn’t even use any YouTube APIs, as it has no need to: it just wraps the website, and uses CSS and JavaScript to style the website and functionality more in line with visionOS. This is in contrast to other third-party tools that for instance scrape the YouTube website for applicable video URLs and use those directly, or those that integrate ad-blocking functionality. https://christianselig.com/2024/06/announcing-juno-2/#lastly-answering-googleyoutubes-issues-with-juno https://christianselig.com/2024/06/announcing-juno-2/#lastly...
- asveikau 2y ago
  Seems like a criticism of apple too. Why does this developer need permission from Apple to change some css?
  - ProfessorLayton 2y ago
    Putting ethical concerns aside (I'm definitely not on Big Tech's side on this), it just makes business sense to not piss off one of your biggest app developers in favor of someone making an unofficial client. We absolutely need more regulation for these big platforms, but until then it's difficult to blame Apple for acting rationally business-wise.
  - nozzlegear 2y ago
    Why do I need permission from my city council to build a bakery in a residential neighborhood? I shouldn't need it, it's all red tape like Apple's policies.
    - asveikau 2y ago
      This is such whataboutism. You might as well have asked why the state doesn't allow you to kill people. Why is there any rule at all ever? Clearly apple has a divine right to prevent you from changing CSS and it has equal legitimacy to the state.
      - nozzlegear 2y ago
        My analogy is poor but we're arguing for the same thing. Apple's App Store policies are arbitrary red tape¹ and we should be able to choose different stores. ¹ like zoning laws :p
        tough 2y ago
        Can't wait next election year to vote for my Apple representatives
        2y ago
- DannyBee 2y ago
  "More justification for anti trust action against Google." Antitrust is the RICO of HN, as far as i can tell. "They have absolutely no right to encroach on that, and they know it." Based on what, exactly? Other than your assertion, can you actually cite any cases/law that says this? Most caselaw i'm aware of says the exact opposite - they can in fact control it, legally. At a very base level, it's a derivative work - they have the literal right to decide which derivative works they approve of and don't. Caselaw has been clear on this since the days of duke nukem levels. Heck, even time-shifting (IE not even changing the content or presentation) only survives under fair use - it is otherwise a copyright violation. Courts really haven't accepted presentation or content changes except when being done for parody or satire reasons, and are very careful not to destroy the derivative work and public performance rights. Courts are in fact, much more accepting of very transformative use than this kind of use. You may not like this - I don't actually like it, mind you, but that's different from "are they within their rights". I assume next you will discover you also can't just take signals going through the air around you (satellite TV, cellular, etc) and just do whatever you want with them either.
  - kmeisthax 2y ago
    If third-party clients are derivative works then Google should have to negotiate a license with royalties for every search result they provide.
    - DannyBee 2y ago
      Third party clients that exist solely to display a certain site in a slightly different way are definitely derivative works of that site. That's not really an "if" question. I'm not aware of any disagreement by any court on this front, but feel free to cite cases if you've got them. This was even settled back in the days of iframing/etc. As for the rest, it turns out this particular argument has also already played out many times and reached what appears to be a fixed point - there is actually lots of caselaw on the snippets they use and how far they can/can't go, and for what purposes, before they would have to license them. This is also, to be quite honest, not a great legal argument. It helps a lot to realize the law is not logical, it just is. Particularly when it comes to copyright, which is a very weird bundle of rights applied in sometimes very specific and odd ways to different mediums. Things like copyright and how it applies end up very much the sum of the n thousand cases that apply it. While sometimes you get principles out of appeals courts or the supreme court, it's relatively rare in the scheme of things (IE happens once every 10000 cases or whatever), and it's even more rare that you get generally applicable principles that you can easily apply to a new situation. This is very different than lots of other areas of law. Some of this is an artifact of the fact that current copyright law was still mostly built for literary works and music, and concepts don't always have an easy/obvious translation to other kinds of works (so it took hundreds of cases for courts to reach a fixed point)
- angoragoats 2y ago
  The bigger problem here is Apple and the App Store. Google is run by user-hostile goons, but if there was a way to sideload apps on iOS/iPadOS/VisionOS/EIEIOS there’d still be a way for power users to use the app. Case in point: I use FreeTube on all my computers, which works just fine regardless of what Apple or Google would prefer.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    Google isn't great by any means, but at least Android OS (maintained by Google) lets you sideload apps all you want. So my TV running Android lets me sideload SmartTube so I can watch YouTube without ads. The root problem here isn't Google, it's Apple. Of course Google wants you to view their horrible ads, and isn't going to make it extremely easy to avoid this (which is why SmartTube isn't available on the Play Store and must be sideloaded), but they're not the ones with the super-locked-down platform. If you want some kind of freedom, stop buying Apple junk.
    - angoragoats 2y ago
      You're saying mostly the same thing I'm saying :) In my opinion _both_ platforms are awful, for different reasons. Google spies on everything you do, and Apple has a smaller amount of spying but a very high-walled garden. I've made the choice to hold my nose and continue to use an Apple device for my mobile phone, but I purposely do as little as I can on it and opt to use a general purpose computer as much as possible, where I can run whatever software I want. I have an iPad, but it's collecting dust in the corner, because anything I could do on it can be done better on my Thinkpad running linux or on my Macbook.
mholt 2y ago
Christian, you really don't get a break do you :( Thanks for the great apps you have made.
sonofhans 2y ago
This is the same developer whose Apollo app got screwed by Reddit. They seem to have a talent for finding simple ways to improve things in new contexts. Unfortunately, their improvements are typically of benefit to _actual users_, and the services in question would rather treat users as grist for the mill. It’s unjust, and I believe it’s short-sighted.
- minimaxir 2y ago
  A similar sequence of events happened to Jase Morrissey, who developed Alien Blue for Reddit in 2010, although in that case Reddit was more gracious and acquired the app in before killing it in favor of their own: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Blue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Blue He then made Jasmine, a YouTube client which was an order of magnitude better than the official YouTube app...which was then killed for the same reasons as Juno.
  - 3abiton 2y ago
    I am sensing a pattern.
    - ddtaylor 2y ago
      The history of Apple store abuse goes back far as well. For their own gain and others.
    - m463 2y ago
      The pattern is that companies make APIs so they can control things. (never at the start) Web scraping types of apps are more democratic.
  - _boffin_ 2y ago
    Funny enough, still have alienblue on my phone and still use. The app still works and everything.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Tech's really shifted from the days where an idea like Juno would get your app acquired, and possibly get you hired under their wing to help improve the base product. That's when you can really tell the hacker mentality left big tech.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rmbyrro 2y ago
A 15 year old bully reaches out to the other 15 year old bully and decide to take the lunch of a 4 year old kid.
- hbn 2y ago
  I mean I don't think Apple wanted to do this, it was a great value add for Vision Pro. I'm pretty sure Apple has directly promoted Juno, I thought I remember seeing it in an Apple live event? Apollo certainly was - Craig Federighi mentioned it by name shortly before Reddit killed it.
  - rmbyrro 2y ago
    Let's not pretend Apple hasn't become a bully. I respect Jobs, his brilliance and legacy. But Apple has never been farther away from what he stood for when he started it.
rekttrader 2y ago
Put the code on GitHub and make it open. It’s a shame, and yet you can ensure it a I’ll get used
- drpossum 2y ago
  Maybe not github and someplace that doesn't remove repos at corps' whims. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41711709 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41711709 https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/software/youtube-dl-removed-from-github-after-riaa-dmca-notice/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/software/youtube-dl-re... https://reclaimthenet.org/crunchyroll-downloaded-github-copyright https://reclaimthenet.org/crunchyroll-downloaded-github-copy... https://techdator.net/github-removed-mediabox-hd-for-streaming-copyrighted-content/ https://techdator.net/github-removed-mediabox-hd-for-streami... and so on
  - fouc 2y ago
    github is fine to start with imo, that's what forks are for (proper forks).
forrestthewoods 2y ago
This is one of many reasons why we need alternative app stores.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  The floodgates is slowly stating to crack, fortunately. But it'll still be some years before the US wisens up to what the EU has been doing for the past few years.
dewey 2y ago
Christian, if you are reading this...maybe a nice HN app as the next fun project?
- davidcollantes 2y ago
  Hack (https://apps.apple.com/us/app/hack-for-yc-hacker-news-reader/id1464477788 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/hack-for-yc-hacker-news-reader...) is absolutely amazing, but competition is always a good thing. Alternatively, creating a good Fediverse (aka Mastodon) client would also be great!
  - jascination 2y ago
    I use Harmonic on android for HN and can highly recommend it
  - keyle 2y ago
    The website is perfectly functional on mobile though. And fast. And the data is the latest.
    - bigfatkitten 2y ago
      Who could've imagined that you don't need 150MB of JavaScript to create an easily usable mobile UI?
    - skeaker 2y ago
      Vote buttons are too small. "Perfectly functional" for mobile app to me means input methods that can be reached consistently with little effort, like swiping to vote.
      - bigfatkitten 2y ago
        At least the buttons scale with the text size, and so to an limited extent this is within your control.
  - piyuv 2y ago
skybrian 2y ago
What does this app do?
- kmeisthax 2y ago
  Put YouTube's website in a slightly-modified web view. There currently is no YouTube app for visionOS. If you want to watch YouTube you have to open a web browser with all the restrictions and incompatibilities Apple does to the web. Juno makes that mildly more convenient.
megaunicorn123 2y ago
First Reddit now YouTube. Christian is a talented developer, but his efforts are wasted building applications for closed social media.
citizenpaul 2y ago
I find it funny that at the time of this comment this Submission and this one. >Don't build your castle in other people's kingdoms (2021) Are both on the top 10 of the frontpage of HN. Also thx for apollo but it wouldn't have mattered if it stayed active since reddit has plummeted in usefulness since the time of its removal anyway. I don't see reddits direction changing ever at this point.
- jjeaff 2y ago
  I haven't read that article yet. But it has become extremely hard not to build in someone else's kingdom. Just ask Facebook or Uber or various other unicorns.
  - like_any_other 2y ago
    And now our own phones are "someone else's kingdom". The corporate noose gets tighter by the day.
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      They've already pulled the lever, the neck just hasn't snapped yet.
jjcm 2y ago
This will continue to happen as long as the incentives of the platform are misaligned with the incentives of the user. For ad-supported sites, the customer is the advertiser, not the viewer. The site will optimize the experience for the customer. 3rd party apps simply don't provide a way to control ad delivery, so there's an incentive for the platform to shut them down. It's why I've been pushing for/working on a paid social sharing site, since at that point the customer is the user. It means the incentives are aligned, and 3rd party apps are a boon not an anathema.
haunter 2y ago
Yattee will always work because it's using Invidious or Piped as a backend that you can even self-host https://apps.apple.com/us/app/yattee/id1595136629 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/yattee/id1595136629 https://github.com/yattee/yattee https://github.com/yattee/yattee https://old.reddit.com/r/Yattee/comments/13d3lj7/how_to_set_up_and_use_yattee_to_watch_youtube/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Yattee/comments/13d3lj7/how_to_set_...
- piyuv 2y ago
  Invidious is in a precarious position right now: https://github.com/iv-org/invidious/issues/4734#issuecomment-2365205990 https://github.com/iv-org/invidious/issues/4734#issuecomment...
  - squarefoot 2y ago
    Yep. The Kodi/LibreElec client stopped working some days ago. FreeTube (and NewPipe on mobile) still rock, but for how long?
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      I don't get it: this seems to be an issue where YouTube is blocking 3rd-party client access from datacenter IPs. Why would you want to do that in the first place? Wouldn't you normally run a YouTube client from home (or wherever you happen to be at the moment, which for most people isn't a datacenter)? FWIW, SmartTube works just fine for me. Of course, I'm running it on my TV at home, not in a datacenter...
      - squarefoot 2y ago
        The YouTube client forces users to identify themselves by creating personalized API keys.
vfclists 2y ago
Is this for Apple's VR thingy? I take it this is for Apple's app store and Apple removed it. I thought Youtube removed it from Play store or something, so Apple is the bad guy here.
- latexr 2y ago
  It’s made pretty clear by the post that YouTube is to blame. Considering the poor developer adoption of the Vision Pro, I very much doubt Apple is happy about losing a popular app.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    No one forced Apple to remove it. Google just asked and Apple happily complied. By all accounts, the app didn't break any laws or even any TOS.
    - latexr 2y ago
      > happily Citation needed. Look, I’m not defending Apple here, I have my fair share of gripes with them (especially under Tim Cook), but let’s not assume to know what went into this decision. If YouTube is throwing copyright law and other shit at you, even if you think they’re wrong it’s probably not worth it (in terms of cost and broken relationships) to fight it. For all we know they could’ve threatened to removed the official app on iOS, which will undoubtedly have more users. Armchair criticism is easy.
  - talldayo 2y ago
    Apple really dug their own grave with the "zero sideloading" policy here, huh?
    - latexr 2y ago
      That is a bad policy, yes. It’s also orthogonal to the matter.
      - 2y ago
car 2y ago
The risks of a derivative business.
- talldayo 2y ago
  Derivative of Apple, or Google? Given the circumstances of App Store removal only, I don't know if it's very clear.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mococa 2y ago
Probably the same will happen to Reeder. Fuck you YouTube to make a worse UI & UX.
bentocorp 2y ago
I'm surprised that this app was actually allowed and approved in the first place. Apple has an App Store rule against allowing apps or wrappers using an API or third party content without the express permission of the content owner. Juno was likely given a pass by Apple due to the dearth of native Vision Pro video players. For instance, both YouTube and Netflix didn't have native apps available. Perhaps Apple was a bit more lenient on Juno initially as it provided their own platform with some credibility at a critical launch stage.
- dagmx 2y ago
  You don’t need explicit specific permission. You just can’t backdoor an API. A public facing API is enough, and why so many Reddit apps used to exist.
  - bentocorp 2y ago
    The guideline is: 5.2.2 Third-Party Sites/Services: If your app uses, accesses, monetizes access to, or displays content from a third-party service, ensure that you are specifically permitted to do so under the service’s terms of use. Authorization must be provided upon request. So, reading from the above, if Apple thinks you are doing the dodgy then they may request specific authorization proof from you which shows that the third party is ok with what you are doing. If you can't provide it, then they will likely not approve your app submission.
    - dagmx 2y ago
      Yes, if the site doesn’t have a public API, then you might have to prove specific authorization. But if a site does, like YouTube allows for embeds, then it falls under the “services terms of use”
quercus 2y ago
Time for Selig to build some original ideas instead of yet another wrapper around a popular service.
RIMR 2y ago
I love my MacBook, but this kind of App Store nonsense is exactly why you won't find me using any other Apple products. At least with MacOS I can install whatever software I want without Apple's approval, and I can write Mac OS programs and Apple doesn't get to decide if my users are allowed to run them on their machines. But iOS, iPadOS, watchOS, and visionOS are awful wall-garden hellscapes that force me to use Apple's store, or pound sand. This is a great example where a developer created a useful app in good faith, following all of the rules laid out by YouTube and Apple, and because Google didn't like it (despite it not breaking any rules or laws), the project has been killed with no recourse for the developer or the users. There's no alternative option to acquire this app, it's Apple's way, or the highway. Let me write the software I want to write, and use the software I want to use, and get the hell out of my way.
jherskovic 2y ago
Oh, man, Christian, are you going to do Discord next? Because it’d fit the pattern to a T. (This is a joke) I was a huge fan of Apollo and genuinely appreciate your UX design and aesthetic chops. Please make something 100% your own next time! You have the name recognition and development experience to pull it off. I can’t wait to see what you do next. Just… please not another client for someone else’s service.
NL807 2y ago
This highlights the reason why side-loading should be a right for users on the device they bought. Users get to control what gets installed on the device.
Terretta 2y ago
This less an iOS App Store dispute so much as a YouTube dispute. Selig's post makes it clear there was a process, started by YouTube, that took time, and the disagreement wasn't resolved between them. I'm going to quote here so what happened is part of the commenting narrative: For those not aware, a few months ago after reaching out to me, YouTube contacted the App Store stating that Juno does not adhere to YouTube guidelines and modifies the website in a way they don’t approve of, and alludes to their trademarks and iconography. I don’t agree ... Juno is just a web view ... that modifies CSS to make the website and video player look more “visionOS” like... Juno also doesn’t block ads in any capacity... I stated as much to YouTube, they wouldn’t really clarify or budge any, and as a result of both parties not being able to come to a conclusion I received an email a few minutes ago from Apple that Juno has been removed from the App Store. It's worth noting that the YouTubes of the world get self-hosters to take things down too.
- talldayo 2y ago
  This is an App Store dispute. My Android phone, with Google's own Play Services installed, does absolutely nothing to prevent me from sideloading third-party binaries that offer YouTube playback (I use NewPipe). Without sideloading, Apple's primary App Store becomes a juicy target for anyone that wants to enforce broad-stroke censorship. All you need is the legal authority (fuck moral superiority!) and Apple will enforce the censorship for you. It's easy: https://www.pcmag.com/news/apple-complies-with-russian-censorship-pulls-more-vpns-from-russia-app https://www.pcmag.com/news/apple-complies-with-russian-censo... If a sideloading mechanism existed on iOS, Google would have no authority to demand third-parties to stop. It is only because Apple is afraid of the legal repercussions that their users are deprived of third-party clients. The sole first-party mechanism for distributing apps was threatened into silence. A shame too, since AdBlock and free background playback is just soooo nice. But who am I to complain, I'm not the one buying phones that cuck my freedom as a user. The solution is for me to know, and for you to rationalize as a defense of Apple's business practices until the cognitive dissonance drives you insane. Hope you like Google's first-party YouTube app!
daryl_martis 2y ago
release the code then
MikeRichardson 2y ago
Why not implement Juno as a userscript? https://apps.apple.com/us/app/userscripts/id1463298887 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/userscripts/id1463298887 is supposedly compatible with Apple Vision.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
tpoacher 2y ago
I don't know iOS enough, but, is there no other way to provide this other than the app store? (e.g. like you can enable "untrusted" apk installs in Android?) i.e., while there's surely fat less visibility outside of the app store, is it not even possible to install such an app offerred in a different way? (especially given the wording that it is, in effect, a browser extension) along similar notes, is there a market for an alternative browser that is just extensible enough that you could effectively program useful apps on it and bypass such walled garden BS ... and does chrome/firefox not already provide that?
- talldayo 2y ago
  > is there no other way to provide this other than the app store? You can provide an .IPA file for the app, but users won't be able to use it like a normal app and have to pay $99/year for the privilege to sideload properly. There isn't an alternative in the same way Android provides, unfortunately - hopefully legislation can force Apple's hand there. > along similar notes, is there a market for an alternative browser that is just extensible enough that you could effectively program useful apps on it and bypass such walled garden BS Hahaha... maybe, but only if you're a European iPhone owner: https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/25/24050478/apple-ios-17-4-browser-engines-eu https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/25/24050478/apple-ios-17-4-b...

HorizonXP 2y ago

Bah! Humbug! I use this all the time. Thanks for making it.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

[flagged]

afavour 2y ago
> You can’t modify your browser’s view of your own client side data? They have absolutely no right to encroach on that Is that true? Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely believe we should have that right but is it actually specified anywhere?
- vdqtp3 2y ago
  You're questioning whether it's your right to run the code you want to, instead of the code they want you to?
  - DannyBee 2y ago
    Yes. If you separate out "how should things be" from "how things are", then from duke-nukem levels to you name it, caselaw is very clear that they can control this through fairly simple copyright law principles (derivative works, etc), without even having to resort to more complex theories. Your best argument is fair use, but it's not a particularly good fair use argument in this case. This isn't even a close case. Your only secondary argument is antitrust but it seems like a really weak one in this case as well.
    - 0xcde4c3db 2y ago
      Not that you're under any obligation to suffer the peanut gallery, but I'm curious as to how it is that Micro Star v. FormGen (which I assume is your Duke Nukem reference) obviously applies more readily here than Galoob v. Nintendo and Sega v. Accolade. As far as I can tell, the key distinctions are in how permanent the derivative works are and to what extent the erstwhile infringement is forced by the platform owner as a condition of interoperability, which seem like they're debatable questions for third-party client apps. Granted, maybe the DMCA makes these distinctions practically moot because a service can get away with just applying arbitrary restrictions via a "technological measure" now.
      - DannyBee 2y ago
        First, as a point of amusement - last i looked, companies were still suing people over duke nukem decades later: https://www.scribd.com/doc/208676148/GEARBOX-SOFTWARE-v-3D-REALMS-ENTERTAINMENT-and-INTERCEPTOR-ENTERTAINMENT#download&from_embed https://www.scribd.com/doc/208676148/GEARBOX-SOFTWARE-v-3D-R... (too lazy to look up the resolution, but thought you might find it amusing) So this is a totally reasonable question/debate to have. I'll mix practical and academic views, but happy to discuss more of one or the other in detail. The first answer I can give you is single-purpose apps/things have faired quite poorly in the copyright realm, any principled caselaw/etc aside. It just turns out to be really hard to convince a judge/jury (to the degree there are any fact specific questions) that an app you made with a specific purpose of displaying someone else's content, whose entire value is in displaying that content, is not a derived work of that content. It fits fairly squarely in the definition: "A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, .... [in] any other form in which a work may be recast". But even to the degree it doesn't end up a derivative work, it almost certainly ends up a distribution or reproduction or public performance the other work. So as a defense attorney trying to defend it, you have a pretty hard non-infringement argument simply because you have to simultaneously argue "it's not a derivative work, it's not a distribution, it's not a reproduction, it's not a public performance" The line does get fuzzy somewhere, obviously - but one thing to keep in mind on that front is that derivative works are not like a single-parent-only structure. Something can be a derivative work of multiple works simultaneously :) They usually are. This app is a derivative work of apple's libraries/frameworks, LLVM libraries or whatever it was compiled with, etc. I also expect you'd agree that if someone copied the HTML/etc of youtube's website into the app and shipped it directly, it would a derivative work of that too. That is a clear transformation/adaption of an existing work. So what's the practical difference here? That it's dynamically loaded and then modified? that seems like a hard place to hang your hat :) Now mind you, i've actually made this argument before in the LGPL context, so i have taken both sides before depending on the facts/complexities :) As an example, if i make a book, and there is no text on the pages, instead each page says something like "for the text of this page, please see characters <x>-<y> of page <a>-<b> of book <c>-<d>, ISBN number <e>", is my book a derivative work of the works it references? it has no text or content on its own, and is only incorporating by reference. There are reasonable arguments on both sides. All that said, the practical line that gets drawn, for better/worse, is often around usually who is the agent/controller, and what dependencies exist. IE it usually end up like this: Me loading HN in a normal web browser - i'm creating a derivative work of the HN site in my browser, on my display. The web browser, shipped alone, not a derivative work of HN. Me using an HN app that downloaded all of HN and updates it once a week on its own - the app is a derivative work of HN, and it's creative derivative works of the content on a regular basis. i'm using/ browsing these derivative works. Here we are somewhat in the middle, but given the entire point of the app, who is doing the loading/modification, and the actual modification of content/styling, i think it falls a lot more on the latter side than the former. At least for derivative works. These days, to you other point, it rarely gets to the question of derivative works at all due to TOS/DMCA enforcement. You don't have a right to access the content at all except to the degree you are licensed to, app or not. Rather than argue about derivation, they'll just sue you for unauthorized reproduction or distribution, since that is more clear.
  - andyferris 2y ago
    It’s a fair question IMO. The YouTube APIs presumable come with “terms of service” for use, or some such. What exactly, legally speaking, can they specify? Can it be enforced (by Google lawyers and courts) to the point where Apple would be compelled to do things to force users to comply, like removing this App? I think the answer _should_ be no, but that’s different to asking what is your actual rights on your device vs their “right” to control use of their system.
    - hbn 2y ago
      He isn't even using YouTube's APIs. From the dev himself: > I’ve said from the initial launch, Juno is built as a web-wrapper for YouTube, akin to a browser extension, and purposefully built with full respect for the YouTube website and experience, and as a result does not block ads in any capacity, nor does it introduce extra functionality like downloading videos offline that could facilitate that. Further, Juno doesn’t even use any YouTube APIs, as it has no need to: it just wraps the website, and uses CSS and JavaScript to style the website and functionality more in line with visionOS. This is in contrast to other third-party tools that for instance scrape the YouTube website for applicable video URLs and use those directly, or those that integrate ad-blocking functionality. https://christianselig.com/2024/06/announcing-juno-2/#lastly-answering-googleyoutubes-issues-with-juno https://christianselig.com/2024/06/announcing-juno-2/#lastly...
asveikau 2y ago
Seems like a criticism of apple too. Why does this developer need permission from Apple to change some css?
- ProfessorLayton 2y ago
  Putting ethical concerns aside (I'm definitely not on Big Tech's side on this), it just makes business sense to not piss off one of your biggest app developers in favor of someone making an unofficial client. We absolutely need more regulation for these big platforms, but until then it's difficult to blame Apple for acting rationally business-wise.
- nozzlegear 2y ago
  Why do I need permission from my city council to build a bakery in a residential neighborhood? I shouldn't need it, it's all red tape like Apple's policies.
  - asveikau 2y ago
    This is such whataboutism. You might as well have asked why the state doesn't allow you to kill people. Why is there any rule at all ever? Clearly apple has a divine right to prevent you from changing CSS and it has equal legitimacy to the state.
    - nozzlegear 2y ago
      My analogy is poor but we're arguing for the same thing. Apple's App Store policies are arbitrary red tape¹ and we should be able to choose different stores. ¹ like zoning laws :p
      - tough 2y ago
        Can't wait next election year to vote for my Apple representatives
        2y ago
DannyBee 2y ago
"More justification for anti trust action against Google." Antitrust is the RICO of HN, as far as i can tell. "They have absolutely no right to encroach on that, and they know it." Based on what, exactly? Other than your assertion, can you actually cite any cases/law that says this? Most caselaw i'm aware of says the exact opposite - they can in fact control it, legally. At a very base level, it's a derivative work - they have the literal right to decide which derivative works they approve of and don't. Caselaw has been clear on this since the days of duke nukem levels. Heck, even time-shifting (IE not even changing the content or presentation) only survives under fair use - it is otherwise a copyright violation. Courts really haven't accepted presentation or content changes except when being done for parody or satire reasons, and are very careful not to destroy the derivative work and public performance rights. Courts are in fact, much more accepting of very transformative use than this kind of use. You may not like this - I don't actually like it, mind you, but that's different from "are they within their rights". I assume next you will discover you also can't just take signals going through the air around you (satellite TV, cellular, etc) and just do whatever you want with them either.
- kmeisthax 2y ago
  If third-party clients are derivative works then Google should have to negotiate a license with royalties for every search result they provide.
  - DannyBee 2y ago
    Third party clients that exist solely to display a certain site in a slightly different way are definitely derivative works of that site. That's not really an "if" question. I'm not aware of any disagreement by any court on this front, but feel free to cite cases if you've got them. This was even settled back in the days of iframing/etc. As for the rest, it turns out this particular argument has also already played out many times and reached what appears to be a fixed point - there is actually lots of caselaw on the snippets they use and how far they can/can't go, and for what purposes, before they would have to license them. This is also, to be quite honest, not a great legal argument. It helps a lot to realize the law is not logical, it just is. Particularly when it comes to copyright, which is a very weird bundle of rights applied in sometimes very specific and odd ways to different mediums. Things like copyright and how it applies end up very much the sum of the n thousand cases that apply it. While sometimes you get principles out of appeals courts or the supreme court, it's relatively rare in the scheme of things (IE happens once every 10000 cases or whatever), and it's even more rare that you get generally applicable principles that you can easily apply to a new situation. This is very different than lots of other areas of law. Some of this is an artifact of the fact that current copyright law was still mostly built for literary works and music, and concepts don't always have an easy/obvious translation to other kinds of works (so it took hundreds of cases for courts to reach a fixed point)
angoragoats 2y ago
The bigger problem here is Apple and the App Store. Google is run by user-hostile goons, but if there was a way to sideload apps on iOS/iPadOS/VisionOS/EIEIOS there’d still be a way for power users to use the app. Case in point: I use FreeTube on all my computers, which works just fine regardless of what Apple or Google would prefer.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  Google isn't great by any means, but at least Android OS (maintained by Google) lets you sideload apps all you want. So my TV running Android lets me sideload SmartTube so I can watch YouTube without ads. The root problem here isn't Google, it's Apple. Of course Google wants you to view their horrible ads, and isn't going to make it extremely easy to avoid this (which is why SmartTube isn't available on the Play Store and must be sideloaded), but they're not the ones with the super-locked-down platform. If you want some kind of freedom, stop buying Apple junk.
  - angoragoats 2y ago
    You're saying mostly the same thing I'm saying :) In my opinion _both_ platforms are awful, for different reasons. Google spies on everything you do, and Apple has a smaller amount of spying but a very high-walled garden. I've made the choice to hold my nose and continue to use an Apple device for my mobile phone, but I purposely do as little as I can on it and opt to use a general purpose computer as much as possible, where I can run whatever software I want. I have an iPad, but it's collecting dust in the corner, because anything I could do on it can be done better on my Thinkpad running linux or on my Macbook.

mholt 2y ago

Christian, you really don't get a break do you :( Thanks for the great apps you have made.

sonofhans 2y ago

This is the same developer whose Apollo app got screwed by Reddit. They seem to have a talent for finding simple ways to improve things in new contexts. Unfortunately, their improvements are typically of benefit to _actual users_, and the services in question would rather treat users as grist for the mill. It’s unjust, and I believe it’s short-sighted.

minimaxir 2y ago
A similar sequence of events happened to Jase Morrissey, who developed Alien Blue for Reddit in 2010, although in that case Reddit was more gracious and acquired the app in before killing it in favor of their own: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Blue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Blue He then made Jasmine, a YouTube client which was an order of magnitude better than the official YouTube app...which was then killed for the same reasons as Juno.
- 3abiton 2y ago
  I am sensing a pattern.
  - ddtaylor 2y ago
    The history of Apple store abuse goes back far as well. For their own gain and others.
  - m463 2y ago
    The pattern is that companies make APIs so they can control things. (never at the start) Web scraping types of apps are more democratic.
- _boffin_ 2y ago
  Funny enough, still have alienblue on my phone and still use. The app still works and everything.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
Tech's really shifted from the days where an idea like Juno would get your app acquired, and possibly get you hired under their wing to help improve the base product. That's when you can really tell the hacker mentality left big tech.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

rmbyrro 2y ago

A 15 year old bully reaches out to the other 15 year old bully and decide to take the lunch of a 4 year old kid.

hbn 2y ago
I mean I don't think Apple wanted to do this, it was a great value add for Vision Pro. I'm pretty sure Apple has directly promoted Juno, I thought I remember seeing it in an Apple live event? Apollo certainly was - Craig Federighi mentioned it by name shortly before Reddit killed it.
- rmbyrro 2y ago
  Let's not pretend Apple hasn't become a bully. I respect Jobs, his brilliance and legacy. But Apple has never been farther away from what he stood for when he started it.

rekttrader 2y ago

Put the code on GitHub and make it open. It’s a shame, and yet you can ensure it a I’ll get used

drpossum 2y ago
Maybe not github and someplace that doesn't remove repos at corps' whims. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41711709 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41711709 https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/software/youtube-dl-removed-from-github-after-riaa-dmca-notice/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/software/youtube-dl-re... https://reclaimthenet.org/crunchyroll-downloaded-github-copyright https://reclaimthenet.org/crunchyroll-downloaded-github-copy... https://techdator.net/github-removed-mediabox-hd-for-streaming-copyrighted-content/ https://techdator.net/github-removed-mediabox-hd-for-streami... and so on
- fouc 2y ago
  github is fine to start with imo, that's what forks are for (proper forks).

forrestthewoods 2y ago

This is one of many reasons why we need alternative app stores.

johnnyanmac 2y ago
The floodgates is slowly stating to crack, fortunately. But it'll still be some years before the US wisens up to what the EU has been doing for the past few years.

dewey 2y ago

Christian, if you are reading this...maybe a nice HN app as the next fun project?

davidcollantes 2y ago
Hack (https://apps.apple.com/us/app/hack-for-yc-hacker-news-reader/id1464477788 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/hack-for-yc-hacker-news-reader...) is absolutely amazing, but competition is always a good thing. Alternatively, creating a good Fediverse (aka Mastodon) client would also be great!
- jascination 2y ago
  I use Harmonic on android for HN and can highly recommend it
- keyle 2y ago
  The website is perfectly functional on mobile though. And fast. And the data is the latest.
  - bigfatkitten 2y ago
    Who could've imagined that you don't need 150MB of JavaScript to create an easily usable mobile UI?
  - skeaker 2y ago
    Vote buttons are too small. "Perfectly functional" for mobile app to me means input methods that can be reached consistently with little effort, like swiping to vote.
    - bigfatkitten 2y ago
      At least the buttons scale with the text size, and so to an limited extent this is within your control.
- piyuv 2y ago

skybrian 2y ago

What does this app do?

kmeisthax 2y ago
Put YouTube's website in a slightly-modified web view. There currently is no YouTube app for visionOS. If you want to watch YouTube you have to open a web browser with all the restrictions and incompatibilities Apple does to the web. Juno makes that mildly more convenient.

megaunicorn123 2y ago

First Reddit now YouTube. Christian is a talented developer, but his efforts are wasted building applications for closed social media.

citizenpaul 2y ago

I find it funny that at the time of this comment this Submission and this one. >Don't build your castle in other people's kingdoms (2021) Are both on the top 10 of the frontpage of HN. Also thx for apollo but it wouldn't have mattered if it stayed active since reddit has plummeted in usefulness since the time of its removal anyway. I don't see reddits direction changing ever at this point.

jjeaff 2y ago
I haven't read that article yet. But it has become extremely hard not to build in someone else's kingdom. Just ask Facebook or Uber or various other unicorns.
- like_any_other 2y ago
  And now our own phones are "someone else's kingdom". The corporate noose gets tighter by the day.
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    They've already pulled the lever, the neck just hasn't snapped yet.

jjcm 2y ago

This will continue to happen as long as the incentives of the platform are misaligned with the incentives of the user. For ad-supported sites, the customer is the advertiser, not the viewer. The site will optimize the experience for the customer. 3rd party apps simply don't provide a way to control ad delivery, so there's an incentive for the platform to shut them down. It's why I've been pushing for/working on a paid social sharing site, since at that point the customer is the user. It means the incentives are aligned, and 3rd party apps are a boon not an anathema.

haunter 2y ago

Yattee will always work because it's using Invidious or Piped as a backend that you can even self-host https://apps.apple.com/us/app/yattee/id1595136629 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/yattee/id1595136629 https://github.com/yattee/yattee https://github.com/yattee/yattee https://old.reddit.com/r/Yattee/comments/13d3lj7/how_to_set_up_and_use_yattee_to_watch_youtube/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Yattee/comments/13d3lj7/how_to_set_...

piyuv 2y ago
Invidious is in a precarious position right now: https://github.com/iv-org/invidious/issues/4734#issuecomment-2365205990 https://github.com/iv-org/invidious/issues/4734#issuecomment...
- squarefoot 2y ago
  Yep. The Kodi/LibreElec client stopped working some days ago. FreeTube (and NewPipe on mobile) still rock, but for how long?
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    I don't get it: this seems to be an issue where YouTube is blocking 3rd-party client access from datacenter IPs. Why would you want to do that in the first place? Wouldn't you normally run a YouTube client from home (or wherever you happen to be at the moment, which for most people isn't a datacenter)? FWIW, SmartTube works just fine for me. Of course, I'm running it on my TV at home, not in a datacenter...
    - squarefoot 2y ago
      The YouTube client forces users to identify themselves by creating personalized API keys.

vfclists 2y ago

Is this for Apple's VR thingy? I take it this is for Apple's app store and Apple removed it. I thought Youtube removed it from Play store or something, so Apple is the bad guy here.

latexr 2y ago
It’s made pretty clear by the post that YouTube is to blame. Considering the poor developer adoption of the Vision Pro, I very much doubt Apple is happy about losing a popular app.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  No one forced Apple to remove it. Google just asked and Apple happily complied. By all accounts, the app didn't break any laws or even any TOS.
  - latexr 2y ago
    > happily Citation needed. Look, I’m not defending Apple here, I have my fair share of gripes with them (especially under Tim Cook), but let’s not assume to know what went into this decision. If YouTube is throwing copyright law and other shit at you, even if you think they’re wrong it’s probably not worth it (in terms of cost and broken relationships) to fight it. For all we know they could’ve threatened to removed the official app on iOS, which will undoubtedly have more users. Armchair criticism is easy.
- talldayo 2y ago
  Apple really dug their own grave with the "zero sideloading" policy here, huh?
  - latexr 2y ago
    That is a bad policy, yes. It’s also orthogonal to the matter.
    - 2y ago

car 2y ago

The risks of a derivative business.

talldayo 2y ago
Derivative of Apple, or Google? Given the circumstances of App Store removal only, I don't know if it's very clear.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

mococa 2y ago

Probably the same will happen to Reeder. Fuck you YouTube to make a worse UI & UX.

bentocorp 2y ago

I'm surprised that this app was actually allowed and approved in the first place. Apple has an App Store rule against allowing apps or wrappers using an API or third party content without the express permission of the content owner. Juno was likely given a pass by Apple due to the dearth of native Vision Pro video players. For instance, both YouTube and Netflix didn't have native apps available. Perhaps Apple was a bit more lenient on Juno initially as it provided their own platform with some credibility at a critical launch stage.

dagmx 2y ago
You don’t need explicit specific permission. You just can’t backdoor an API. A public facing API is enough, and why so many Reddit apps used to exist.
- bentocorp 2y ago
  The guideline is: 5.2.2 Third-Party Sites/Services: If your app uses, accesses, monetizes access to, or displays content from a third-party service, ensure that you are specifically permitted to do so under the service’s terms of use. Authorization must be provided upon request. So, reading from the above, if Apple thinks you are doing the dodgy then they may request specific authorization proof from you which shows that the third party is ok with what you are doing. If you can't provide it, then they will likely not approve your app submission.
  - dagmx 2y ago
    Yes, if the site doesn’t have a public API, then you might have to prove specific authorization. But if a site does, like YouTube allows for embeds, then it falls under the “services terms of use”

quercus 2y ago

Time for Selig to build some original ideas instead of yet another wrapper around a popular service.

RIMR 2y ago

I love my MacBook, but this kind of App Store nonsense is exactly why you won't find me using any other Apple products. At least with MacOS I can install whatever software I want without Apple's approval, and I can write Mac OS programs and Apple doesn't get to decide if my users are allowed to run them on their machines. But iOS, iPadOS, watchOS, and visionOS are awful wall-garden hellscapes that force me to use Apple's store, or pound sand. This is a great example where a developer created a useful app in good faith, following all of the rules laid out by YouTube and Apple, and because Google didn't like it (despite it not breaking any rules or laws), the project has been killed with no recourse for the developer or the users. There's no alternative option to acquire this app, it's Apple's way, or the highway. Let me write the software I want to write, and use the software I want to use, and get the hell out of my way.

jherskovic 2y ago

Oh, man, Christian, are you going to do Discord next? Because it’d fit the pattern to a T. (This is a joke) I was a huge fan of Apollo and genuinely appreciate your UX design and aesthetic chops. Please make something 100% your own next time! You have the name recognition and development experience to pull it off. I can’t wait to see what you do next. Just… please not another client for someone else’s service.

NL807 2y ago

This highlights the reason why side-loading should be a right for users on the device they bought. Users get to control what gets installed on the device.

Terretta 2y ago

This less an iOS App Store dispute so much as a YouTube dispute. Selig's post makes it clear there was a process, started by YouTube, that took time, and the disagreement wasn't resolved between them. I'm going to quote here so what happened is part of the commenting narrative: For those not aware, a few months ago after reaching out to me, YouTube contacted the App Store stating that Juno does not adhere to YouTube guidelines and modifies the website in a way they don’t approve of, and alludes to their trademarks and iconography. I don’t agree ... Juno is just a web view ... that modifies CSS to make the website and video player look more “visionOS” like... Juno also doesn’t block ads in any capacity... I stated as much to YouTube, they wouldn’t really clarify or budge any, and as a result of both parties not being able to come to a conclusion I received an email a few minutes ago from Apple that Juno has been removed from the App Store. It's worth noting that the YouTubes of the world get self-hosters to take things down too.

talldayo 2y ago
This is an App Store dispute. My Android phone, with Google's own Play Services installed, does absolutely nothing to prevent me from sideloading third-party binaries that offer YouTube playback (I use NewPipe). Without sideloading, Apple's primary App Store becomes a juicy target for anyone that wants to enforce broad-stroke censorship. All you need is the legal authority (fuck moral superiority!) and Apple will enforce the censorship for you. It's easy: https://www.pcmag.com/news/apple-complies-with-russian-censorship-pulls-more-vpns-from-russia-app https://www.pcmag.com/news/apple-complies-with-russian-censo... If a sideloading mechanism existed on iOS, Google would have no authority to demand third-parties to stop. It is only because Apple is afraid of the legal repercussions that their users are deprived of third-party clients. The sole first-party mechanism for distributing apps was threatened into silence. A shame too, since AdBlock and free background playback is just soooo nice. But who am I to complain, I'm not the one buying phones that cuck my freedom as a user. The solution is for me to know, and for you to rationalize as a defense of Apple's business practices until the cognitive dissonance drives you insane. Hope you like Google's first-party YouTube app!

daryl_martis 2y ago

release the code then

MikeRichardson 2y ago

Why not implement Juno as a userscript? https://apps.apple.com/us/app/userscripts/id1463298887 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/userscripts/id1463298887 is supposedly compatible with Apple Vision.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

tpoacher 2y ago

I don't know iOS enough, but, is there no other way to provide this other than the app store? (e.g. like you can enable "untrusted" apk installs in Android?) i.e., while there's surely fat less visibility outside of the app store, is it not even possible to install such an app offerred in a different way? (especially given the wording that it is, in effect, a browser extension) along similar notes, is there a market for an alternative browser that is just extensible enough that you could effectively program useful apps on it and bypass such walled garden BS ... and does chrome/firefox not already provide that?

talldayo 2y ago
> is there no other way to provide this other than the app store? You can provide an .IPA file for the app, but users won't be able to use it like a normal app and have to pay $99/year for the privilege to sideload properly. There isn't an alternative in the same way Android provides, unfortunately - hopefully legislation can force Apple's hand there. > along similar notes, is there a market for an alternative browser that is just extensible enough that you could effectively program useful apps on it and bypass such walled garden BS Hahaha... maybe, but only if you're a European iPhone owner: https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/25/24050478/apple-ios-17-4-browser-engines-eu https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/25/24050478/apple-ios-17-4-b...