Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NewPipe – ad-free, open-source Android YouTube client

newpipe.schabi.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 614 posts

Re: NewPipe – ad-free, open-source Android YouTube client

#301

Post by valvar »

izacus wrote: post #41
zeta0134 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, I do pay for subscriptions for a few YouTubers. Wintergatan in particular is excellent. Of course, many creatives are using Patreon and other external revenue sources and frankly that's wise, given YouTube's track record with unusual copyright strikes and other platform nonsense. Even if I were to pay for Youtube Red, this application has a feature that I cannot get with the official app: a lack of depend…

Those "bunch of extra features" are paid features for the service though. For which you're not paying.

And which they are unable to use even if they were to pay for them, as they depend on Google Play Services.

Re: NewPipe – ad-free, open-source Android YouTube client

#303

Post by colordrops »

umvi wrote: post #278
dennisy wrote: post #259

There are people whose living is made from YouTube and it’s advertising component. Whilst I would personally prefer videos with no ads, is this not stealing? I would be very interested to hear this groups view on why this is morally ok. Also what alternatives there should be to an ad revenue model for YouTube type sites.

> Whilst I would personally prefer videos with no ads, is this not stealing? The usual response you'll get is "is it stealing if I go to the bathroom during a TV ad break?" or "that's why content creators have in-video paid sponsorship blurbs" I personally think those are flimsy justifications though. I think it's stealing to bypass ads when the company hosting the service has a clear avenue for paid ad-free viewing.…

If there's a publicly exposed service with no authentication or security in place, it is not the fault of an individual for using it. It's clearly not illegal, and neither is it unethical. If YouTube wants to protect their service from unauthorized use, they are perfectly capable of doing so.

Re: NewPipe – ad-free, open-source Android YouTube client

#304

Post by mastazi »

product50 wrote: post #263
slim wrote: post #160

I hope the developers are here. I'm so grateful for this app and especially the support : Everytime YouTube obfuscates their API to take them down, they quickly publish an updated app that works. please donate : https://newpipe.schabi.org/donate/

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 ha…

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

Re: NewPipe – ad-free, open-source Android YouTube client

#305

Post by colordrops »

product50 wrote: post #263
slim wrote: post #160

I hope the developers are here. I'm so grateful for this app and especially the support : Everytime YouTube obfuscates their API to take them down, they quickly publish an updated app that works. please donate : https://newpipe.schabi.org/donate/

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 ha…

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.

Re: NewPipe – ad-free, open-source Android YouTube client

#308

Post by mtrycz2 »

slim wrote: post #160

I hope the developers are here. I'm so grateful for this app and especially the support : Everytime YouTube obfuscates their API to take them down, they quickly publish an updated app that works. please donate : https://newpipe.schabi.org/donate/

No Bitcoin Cash? BTC fees are really rampant, I'd rather that the full amount go to the donation.

Re: NewPipe – ad-free, open-source Android YouTube client

#309

Post by judge2020 »

dheifidjeh wrote: post #296
dennisy wrote: post #259

There are people whose living is made from YouTube and it’s advertising component. Whilst I would personally prefer videos with no ads, is this not stealing? I would be very interested to hear this groups view on why this is morally ok. Also what alternatives there should be to an ad revenue model for YouTube type sites.

Its not stealing because stealing is taking something from someone. When you view video online you are copying video not moving it. What about ad blocking? Well you aren't actually blocking ads. You're electing not to request ads. I'm simply not interested in ads. It would be wrong for YouTube to sell my views to advertisers since I would just ignore the ads anyways. So basically they are actually the bad guy and I'm…

The argument is that there is a clear Quid Pro Quo here: you can use Google's expansive infrastructure[1]/bandwidth to obtain video content if you watch their ads or pay for Premium. Although Google hasn't banned people for blocking them, they have every right not to serve videos to you if you don't want to watch the ads.

1: https://peering.google.com/#/infrastructure

Re: NewPipe – ad-free, open-source Android YouTube client

#310

Post by umvi »

colordrops wrote: post #303
umvi wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whilst I would personally prefer videos with no ads, is this not stealing? The usual response you'll get is "is it stealing if I go to the bathroom during a TV ad break?" or "that's why content creators have in-video paid sponsorship blurbs" I personally think those are flimsy justifications though. I think it's stealing to bypass ads when the company hosting the service has a clear avenue for paid ad-free viewing.…

If there's a publicly exposed service with no authentication or security in place, it is not the fault of an individual for using it. It's clearly not illegal, and neither is it unethical. If YouTube wants to protect their service from unauthorized use, they are perfectly capable of doing so.

One time when I lived in Rome, I was near Ostia and I saw a public water fountain. The funny thing though was that someone had attached a water hose to the water output and then ran the hose into their house. Free water!

"If there's a publicly exposed service with no authentication or security in place, it is not the fault of an individual for using it. It's clearly not illegal, and neither is it unethical. If [the city of Rome] wants to protect their [water service] from unauthorized use, they are perfectly capable of doing so."

I disagree that it is not unethical. I would hope most people recognize that abusing a free service to avoid a paid service is unethical.

Post reply on HN