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

Could they? I suppose they could concatenate ads into the video files directly, sort of like an old TV "stream"...

...except I have a decades-old VCR that can skip those too, so the technology today could probably deal with that pretty easily.

"ad-bypassing" is essentially choosing not to consume content; while most if not all DRM and other protections are for preventing people from consuming content, preventing them from not consuming content is nearly impossible unless you essentially have control over their minds.

There is a setting to automatically switch to the Picture-in-Picture player when one switches to other apps or presses the back button.

So i've never had those issues, because videos simply never stopped playing!

Or you can pay the creator directly.

You can also upload IPA files to your iPhone using older versions of iTunes that supports sideloading saved (but purchased) IPA files. Apple now offers downloads for these older versions of iTunes, see here: https://support.apple.com/downloads/itunes

Apple also makes iTunes 12.6.x available for download, but it's hidden on this page: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208079 - this is the last Windows version with IPA management, but there are also other ways to sideload IPA files without needing XCode and a developer signing certificate, e.g. https://codeburst.io/latest-itunes-12-7-removed-the-apps-opt...

The question is - how are we supposed to save and archive those IPA files today?

> If I want to support a content creator, I do so by donating to them directly, not by allowing a massive and (in my personal opinion) evil company to profit both of my and their backs. Not to mention that both seeing ads and using the official YouTube app is quite unpleasant.

There is a big problem in your model. But before that let me address the reason why the current model is better. You are right that the intermediary company is profiting out of your and content creator's backs. That is true. But that is not the complete picture. The company is also paying for hosting the content. In essence, the money that advertisers pay is split in the following way:

1. Content Creator

2. Content hosting

3. Company gets the remaining chunk

Now here is why the current model is better: you can watch all videos on Youtube for free. Discovery is an essential part of how Content Creators are discovered. Now if you put all these Content Creators behind a paywall how are you going to decide if the Creator is worth supporting or not? And even if the Content is good, is s/he going to stick around for long? How many can you support? 10? 100? 1000? There is a limit isn't it? And what happens if the Content Creator stops releasing more content? Eventually subscribers will unsubscribe (stop payments). Then what happens to the Content? Will it remain hosted? Who is going to pay for the cost of hosting content that no one is watching? You won't be able to pay more than X$ amount because you feel that is what the Content Creator is worth to you. An advertiser is different. An advertiser is driven by motive of making profits. If s/he finds that advertising with a particular Content Creator is lucrative s/he spends way more than X$ that you contribute. In essence, the advertiser values the Content Creator more than you will ever be able to. Because you are consuming content from the creator - that is where your link with the creator ends. The ad agencies are making profits from the creator. That is the big difference! You are not motivated to pay more and more to the creator right? Advertisers are! And that will only continue to increase the more quality content the Creator puts out. And even if the Creator decides to take a break, advertisers will still continue to pay for a spot in his/her content as long as people are watching it (which they have discovered because Youtube is free). Would you pay for a Creator if s/he takes a break for 6 months to a year?

Advertising right now monetizes even 10 year old videos. However irrelevant that video might be for today's scenario you still have people watching extremely old videos and advertisements running on it with the Creator getting passive income. So even though a Content Creator might get a lesser chunk of the overall payment in the short term s/he would recover everything and a lot more over the longer term. But if s/he starts taking payment for Content then it will only continue until s/he is posting content. Once that is stopped people will leave the creator in droves. Then that content becomes a deadweight! The platform will never allow content to just sit around stale with no one paying for it. The platform will have no choice but to remove it.