321–330 of 614 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. I wish it could cast to my TV but otherwise it's great.
Can't you just cast the entire screen?
It was a big pain for me. Made the app unusable.
[flagged]
> Are YouTube employees raiding HN or something? From the HN Guidelines[0]: > Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data. (Disclaimer: I'm not a YouTube/Google employee, just someone who cares a lot about preserving the quality of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 c…
Your analogy is flawed in that there are likely laws protecting used of the water of that fountain. Not so with an open service on the internet. Further more, it's not an ocean sized fountain run by a monopolistic corporation and one of the only places to get water, with simple technology to restrict who can get water if the corporation so decided.
All analogies are flawed. I would hope the difference between something being ethical and unethical is more than just a law.
Again... abusing a free service to avoid a paid service is (usually) unethical and dishonest, regardless of legality. Doesn't matter if you are plumbing your house with public water intended for tourists, filling your backpack with all the honey packets from all the Chick-Fil-A's so you never have to buy honey again, or buying hundreds of thousands of dollars of $1 coins from the government with credit cards so you can profit off of taxpayers. It's abuse of a free service, and it's unethical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Um. Consider the Official YouTube app, with a paid YouTube Premium subscription. >(and you can choose whether to download them as audio files) Videos with still images (many songs) shouldn't be much data at all over the audio alone.
What can Google's app do what NewPipe can't?
It seems like NewPipe can't even add an option to enable ads because third-party ads are against F-Droid policy.
[flagged]
> Are YouTube employees raiding HN or something? From the HN Guidelines[0]: > Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data. (Disclaimer: I'm not a YouTube/Google employee, just someone who cares a lot about preserving the quality of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your analogy is flawed in that there are likely laws protecting used of the water of that fountain. Not so with an open service on the internet. Further more, it's not an ocean sized fountain run by a monopolistic corporation and one of the only places to get water, with simple technology to restrict who can get water if the corporation so decided.
> Your analogy is flawed in that there are likely laws protecting used of the water of that fountain. Not so with an open service on the internet. All analogies are flawed. I would hope the difference between something being ethical and unethical is more than just a law. Again... abusing a free service to avoid a paid service is (usually) unethical and dishonest, regardless of legality. Doesn't matter if you are plum…
Also, why don't they just protect their endpoints with authentication? It would be simple. They choose not to. There is not an easy way to protect public water or Chick-fil-A honey packets, so ethics is the main mechanism. Not so with internet services. There are countless well tested mechanisms for this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This argument is as old as time, and the counterpoint is simply "it's revenue they were not getting regardless". Those of us who don't want to see ads ever, for any reason aren't stealing or harming anyone, we simply don't want to see ads -- saying "well don't use the service" is not all of a sudden getting the creators back any revenue, and no, if there's interesting stuff on YouTube, I'm going to use it, and do so…
While I support the sentiment, you know that's not how all advertising works? CPM ads mean the publisher makes money because you saw the ad, regardless of whether you clicked on it (CPC). Even if you never click an ad or buy anything from an ad, you are still helping the publisher make money.
The hypothetical being discussed is "it's better to not use the service at all than to use it and block an ad". In this scenario, which impression would have been shown that now is not? Either way, no money is made by the content creator.
The only way that person would make money is the third scenario which it seems you're talking about, whereby I use the service and watch an ad (and yes, for some of us, that will never happen).