5 ms·

Ironically, YouTube is now forced to support a browser that has terrible standards support, entirely of their own making: Cobalt[1]. YouTube on TVs is actually

Ironically, YouTube is now forced to support a browser that has terrible standards support, entirely of their own making: Cobalt[1]. YouTube on TVs is actually a web app that loads into a stripped down, custom webview. The YouTube team doesn't have the resources to implement many web APIs, so they implemented just what they needed. The problem is that they can't reliably update Cobalt versions on TVs, they can't ask users to update, and they can't just break older TVs in the wild. So the YouTube on TV frontend (not YouTube TV the service) has to only use APIs they shipped like 10 years ago. And because it takes so long for an old Cobalt version to go out of support, they don't invest in implementing new features because they wouldn't be usable anytime soon. 10 years ago I was in a meeting with them where they said they couldn't implement something because they wouldn't be able to use it for 5 years... They still haven't implemented it. [1]: https://developers.google.com/youtube/cobalt https://developers.google.com/youtube/cobalt

davidkwast 1y ago
But the use case is just to serve videos right? I know that new things will not come. But YouTube is almost the same in these 10 years I think.
- spankalee 1y ago
  Even simple web apps can benefit from web platform improvements. JS, HTML, and CSS have all gotten significantly better in recent years. But YouTube is also a very complex app. Yes it "just" exists to play videos, but the app is so much more than a video player. Browsing, searching, comments, chat, playlists, YT Live, subscriptions, profiles, ratings... there's a lot there.
  - troupo 1y ago
    And which of those things that people could build already in mid-90s require some nebulous unspecified "new broswer features"? Perhaps they could start with just cutting down their bloated 100x-duplicated 4MB CSS file?
    - userbinator 1y ago
      <video> tag is probably the biggest change, but I still remember YT used SWF/FLV before then (and likely could still do today). However, it's clear that the devs are mainly composed of trendchasing sheeple who have drunk the Goog-Aid and are addicted to newness and reinventing wheels to make them square... because they have to justify their existence.
      - Tommy430 1y ago
        YT2009 and WarpStream (Protoweb) prove the old YouTube can still work today. The new one is just a cat and mouse game of diminishing returns.
mapontosevenths 1y ago
> 10 years ago I was in a meeting with them where they said they couldn't implement something because they wouldn't be able to use it for 5 years... They still haven't implemented it. I call that trailer park logic: They say: "Why go to college? That will take four years and I need a job now!" Then four years later, while still in a dead end job: "Why go to college? That will take four years and I need a job now!"
- Filligree 1y ago
  It's a trap, but that doesn't mean it's escapable if you do need a job now.
  - observationist 1y ago
    It's the type of trap that only works if you agree to allow it to work. You might call it Sunk Opportunity Cost Assumption, mostly fits.
    - littlecosmic 1y ago
      The trap will work if you are near destitute.
      - observationist 1y ago
        Right, that's the point though - at some point, getting out of that circumstance is the best available move, meaning walking away - dropping everything and just walking away, somewhere different, is going to be better than staying where you're at and continuing to struggle. Bankruptcy, homelessness in big cities, addictions, abusive relationships, there are all sorts of contexts where people get stuck, and they feel compelled to stay and struggle and try to battle through whatever those challenges are. They feel like they have a duty to battle out the hardest, most impossible struggles where nobody reasonable in the entire world would expect them to have to overcome. Sometimes the best available move is physically escaping, just getting up and walking away and continuing until you find anything better than where you were at. For some weird reason, that move feels like giving up to people, until they actually do it and it works. This move is sometimes appropriate for jobs, relationships, addictions, violent circumstances, toxic social groups, politics, and so on. If you've got next to nothing, then you have almost nothing to lose, and that can be a profound amount of freedom if it's seized. It's not always the right move, but sometimes the only winning move is not to play. Go find a better game.
silvestrov 1y ago
When a video is loaded on a Cobalt browser, why can't they redirect to something like youtube.com/cobalt/player/123456 This way they could keep an old html/css/js implementation running alongside the upgraded one.
- jtokoph 1y ago
  I thought the whole thing was a different app at youtube.com/tv
- lozenge 1y ago
  They do. But the Cobalt version is still used on new TVs and to view new videos with new features, so it can't just be a time capsule.
- 1718627440 1y ago
  Then everybody would just try to use that instead of the now common frontend.
troupo 1y ago
> And because it takes so long for an old Cobalt version to go out of support, they don't invest in implementing new features What new features? The only "new features" Youtube implements is shoving shorts down your throat and taking five seconds to show video times on thumbnails despite the fact that the data is already there. There's nothing Youtube requires from "new features" that can't be implemented in a browser tech from 15 years ago. Also, Youtube the site doesn't have to deal with Cobalt-the-TV-app just like it doesn't have to deal with YouTube-the-mobile-app
- spankalee 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - troupo 1y ago
    See how you can't even explain what features Youtube wants to implement that they are so hamstrung by Cobalt. Or why they are hamstrung by Cobalt at all, since it's by definition a TV app that is not expected to implement all the features of a desktop or a mobile app [1] Instead, you just go for a personal attack. So, who's insufferable here? [1] BTW I literally work on one such app, and the number of features we cannot implement on such a constrained platform as a TV is now probably in the hundreds. Doesn't affect the site, or the desktop app, or the mobile apps. Edit. BTW, if you think that ditching Cobalt (whose features Google literally directly controls) in favor of browsers running on TVs or gaming consoles will somehow give you great modern browsers with standards support, you know even less than nothing (if it's at all possible). E.g. we still don't use CSS variables because browsers on a significant portion of TVs that are still in use don't support them.
    - spankalee 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - tomhow 1y ago
        You can't comment like this on HN, no matter who or what you're replying to. Please take a moment to read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them if you want to keep participating here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
quux 1y ago
And thanks to these old endpoints that can’t be changed yt-dlp is able to function
- userbinator 1y ago
  I'd be a bit more careful with making statements like that here. "The walls have ears."
  - CursedSilicon 1y ago
    It's not like Youtube's engineers can't just. Download yt-dlp and see how it works It's not proprietary
    - quux 1y ago
      The yt-dlp devs also talk about this openly, in GitHub issues and elsewhere. I think there have been multiple front page stories about how yt-dlp works here on HN over the last few years.
justinator 1y ago
>The YouTube team doesn't have the resources to implement many web APIs Annual revenue is a few dozen billions. So what's the problem, here?
- TrainedMonkey 1y ago
  > So what's the problem, here? Minimizing developer pain is not a business objective.
- 1718627440 1y ago
  The irony, when you consider who pushes that "many web APIs"...
userbinator 1y ago
Make no mistake, "standards" really mean "what Google wants" these days. YouTube was perfectly usable 15 years ago, on the machines and software of the time. I'll stop at the imminent conclusion that having Cobalt is a good thing for various reasons.
socalgal2 1y ago
why can't they just serve different sites based on identifying the browser/app, and if it's old you get less features?
- estimator7292 1y ago
  That's exactly what they do. The hard part is making it work with fewer features
  - troupo 1y ago
    And those fewer features are? It's a site that shows a bunch of text, a few images, and then loads and plays video. What features does it need on a TV that it's so hard to implement? Edit: I know which ones, and they have very little to do with Cobalt, but with the fact that even high end TVs are often worse than a Raspberry Pi, and can stick around for a decade. But this is nothing ditching Cobalt would fix. E.g. you can't run 4k video on some models that can technically show it because there's not enough CPU and RAM to run the browser, the video, the decoder, and the DRM at the same time, the video stutters
jank199x 1y ago
Are there alternate YouTube frontends (or apps) that emulate Cobalt? Looks like stable API like that is a perfect candidate for usage in an open source app that replaces the official one.

davidkwast 1y ago

But the use case is just to serve videos right? I know that new things will not come. But YouTube is almost the same in these 10 years I think.

spankalee 1y ago
Even simple web apps can benefit from web platform improvements. JS, HTML, and CSS have all gotten significantly better in recent years. But YouTube is also a very complex app. Yes it "just" exists to play videos, but the app is so much more than a video player. Browsing, searching, comments, chat, playlists, YT Live, subscriptions, profiles, ratings... there's a lot there.
- troupo 1y ago
  And which of those things that people could build already in mid-90s require some nebulous unspecified "new broswer features"? Perhaps they could start with just cutting down their bloated 100x-duplicated 4MB CSS file?
  - userbinator 1y ago
    <video> tag is probably the biggest change, but I still remember YT used SWF/FLV before then (and likely could still do today). However, it's clear that the devs are mainly composed of trendchasing sheeple who have drunk the Goog-Aid and are addicted to newness and reinventing wheels to make them square... because they have to justify their existence.
    - Tommy430 1y ago
      YT2009 and WarpStream (Protoweb) prove the old YouTube can still work today. The new one is just a cat and mouse game of diminishing returns.

mapontosevenths 1y ago

> 10 years ago I was in a meeting with them where they said they couldn't implement something because they wouldn't be able to use it for 5 years... They still haven't implemented it. I call that trailer park logic: They say: "Why go to college? That will take four years and I need a job now!" Then four years later, while still in a dead end job: "Why go to college? That will take four years and I need a job now!"

Filligree 1y ago
It's a trap, but that doesn't mean it's escapable if you do need a job now.
- observationist 1y ago
  It's the type of trap that only works if you agree to allow it to work. You might call it Sunk Opportunity Cost Assumption, mostly fits.
  - littlecosmic 1y ago
    The trap will work if you are near destitute.
    - observationist 1y ago
      Right, that's the point though - at some point, getting out of that circumstance is the best available move, meaning walking away - dropping everything and just walking away, somewhere different, is going to be better than staying where you're at and continuing to struggle. Bankruptcy, homelessness in big cities, addictions, abusive relationships, there are all sorts of contexts where people get stuck, and they feel compelled to stay and struggle and try to battle through whatever those challenges are. They feel like they have a duty to battle out the hardest, most impossible struggles where nobody reasonable in the entire world would expect them to have to overcome. Sometimes the best available move is physically escaping, just getting up and walking away and continuing until you find anything better than where you were at. For some weird reason, that move feels like giving up to people, until they actually do it and it works. This move is sometimes appropriate for jobs, relationships, addictions, violent circumstances, toxic social groups, politics, and so on. If you've got next to nothing, then you have almost nothing to lose, and that can be a profound amount of freedom if it's seized. It's not always the right move, but sometimes the only winning move is not to play. Go find a better game.

silvestrov 1y ago

When a video is loaded on a Cobalt browser, why can't they redirect to something like youtube.com/cobalt/player/123456 This way they could keep an old html/css/js implementation running alongside the upgraded one.

jtokoph 1y ago
I thought the whole thing was a different app at youtube.com/tv
lozenge 1y ago
They do. But the Cobalt version is still used on new TVs and to view new videos with new features, so it can't just be a time capsule.
1718627440 1y ago
Then everybody would just try to use that instead of the now common frontend.

troupo 1y ago

> And because it takes so long for an old Cobalt version to go out of support, they don't invest in implementing new features What new features? The only "new features" Youtube implements is shoving shorts down your throat and taking five seconds to show video times on thumbnails despite the fact that the data is already there. There's nothing Youtube requires from "new features" that can't be implemented in a browser tech from 15 years ago. Also, Youtube the site doesn't have to deal with Cobalt-the-TV-app just like it doesn't have to deal with YouTube-the-mobile-app

spankalee 1y ago
[flagged]
- troupo 1y ago
  See how you can't even explain what features Youtube wants to implement that they are so hamstrung by Cobalt. Or why they are hamstrung by Cobalt at all, since it's by definition a TV app that is not expected to implement all the features of a desktop or a mobile app [1] Instead, you just go for a personal attack. So, who's insufferable here? [1] BTW I literally work on one such app, and the number of features we cannot implement on such a constrained platform as a TV is now probably in the hundreds. Doesn't affect the site, or the desktop app, or the mobile apps. Edit. BTW, if you think that ditching Cobalt (whose features Google literally directly controls) in favor of browsers running on TVs or gaming consoles will somehow give you great modern browsers with standards support, you know even less than nothing (if it's at all possible). E.g. we still don't use CSS variables because browsers on a significant portion of TVs that are still in use don't support them.
  - spankalee 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - tomhow 1y ago
      You can't comment like this on HN, no matter who or what you're replying to. Please take a moment to read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them if you want to keep participating here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

quux 1y ago

And thanks to these old endpoints that can’t be changed yt-dlp is able to function

userbinator 1y ago
I'd be a bit more careful with making statements like that here. "The walls have ears."
- CursedSilicon 1y ago
  It's not like Youtube's engineers can't just. Download yt-dlp and see how it works It's not proprietary
  - quux 1y ago
    The yt-dlp devs also talk about this openly, in GitHub issues and elsewhere. I think there have been multiple front page stories about how yt-dlp works here on HN over the last few years.

justinator 1y ago

>The YouTube team doesn't have the resources to implement many web APIs Annual revenue is a few dozen billions. So what's the problem, here?

TrainedMonkey 1y ago
> So what's the problem, here? Minimizing developer pain is not a business objective.
1718627440 1y ago
The irony, when you consider who pushes that "many web APIs"...

userbinator 1y ago

Make no mistake, "standards" really mean "what Google wants" these days. YouTube was perfectly usable 15 years ago, on the machines and software of the time. I'll stop at the imminent conclusion that having Cobalt is a good thing for various reasons.

socalgal2 1y ago

why can't they just serve different sites based on identifying the browser/app, and if it's old you get less features?

estimator7292 1y ago
That's exactly what they do. The hard part is making it work with fewer features
- troupo 1y ago
  And those fewer features are? It's a site that shows a bunch of text, a few images, and then loads and plays video. What features does it need on a TV that it's so hard to implement? Edit: I know which ones, and they have very little to do with Cobalt, but with the fact that even high end TVs are often worse than a Raspberry Pi, and can stick around for a decade. But this is nothing ditching Cobalt would fix. E.g. you can't run 4k video on some models that can technically show it because there's not enough CPU and RAM to run the browser, the video, the decoder, and the DRM at the same time, the video stutters

jank199x 1y ago

Are there alternate YouTube frontends (or apps) that emulate Cobalt? Looks like stable API like that is a perfect candidate for usage in an open source app that replaces the official one.