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

Vanced has been discontinued

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 422 posts

Re: Vanced has been discontinued

#241

Post by Drew_ »

heavyset_go wrote: post #134
sen wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd be happy to support youtube if they actually supported their community and content creators YouTube Premium does support creators, 55% of your subscription gets split among the creators you watch. The more you watch a specific creator, the more they get from your subscription. I've seen some creators say they get more from Premium users than from ad-watching users.

Google keeping 45% of subscription revenue is even worse than the 15% to 30% of app subscription revenue they keep. For reference, Bandcamp pays creators 85% to 90% of the revenue they generate.

YouTube Premium offers a number of features on top of ad-free viewing including access to an entire music streaming service. It's actually a marvel that only 45% covers this.

Re: Vanced has been discontinued

#242

Post by jsnell »

sreevisakh wrote: post #167
oh_sigh wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does one differentiate between a service being greedy, and a service simply not operating as charity?

The difference is in the bait and switch tactic they employ. They started by offering the service for free and without ads till there were no good competitors. And then they switched to showing obscene amount of ads. Most users and a good bunch of creators are unhappy about the way they ruin the viewing experience. If YouTube declared their true intentions at the beginning, we wouldn't be yearning for competent alter…

YouTube has been running ads from the start and specifically video ads for 15 years. They've been paying creators via revenue share of those ads for 14 years. Something like 95% of the growth of that site has happened after the switch to video ads. The argument that it was a bait and switch seems pretty hard to justify.

Re: Vanced has been discontinued

#243

Post by Underphil »

dspillett wrote: post #179
eins1234 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, how did I just find out about Sponsorblock? That makes this news even sadder. :(

I draw the line before sponserblock. At that point you are taking money directly from the content creators, not YT or other platforms. I held out on blocking ads for some time, until it became impractical to avoid drive-by attacks other ways and the amount of stalking involved got _really_ creepy. If sponsor segments irritate me enough that I'd consider sponsorblock then I choose between paying for the content direct…

How is that taking money from the creators? They still get paid, and I don't have to watch a presentation about some garbage I'll never buy.

Re: Vanced has been discontinued

#244

Post by ajford »

girvo wrote: post #190
metadat wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Tbh I just pay for YT premium. I hate ads that much and always said I’d pay to avoid them. Money where my mouth is.

If they offered a light version that was JUST ad-free YT, I'd subscribe in a heartbeat.

I already pay for two other music services and have no interest another one so the $20/mo is too steep for my blood (for the family plan).

YT apparently trialed a YT Premium Lite in Europe [0], which is at a price-point I'd be willing to pay (7 EUR). That's on par with what I'd pay for other streaming services, and that's probably 50% of my streaming source, especially with the amount of learning content on there. I'd probably be willing to pay up to $10 USD/mo for just ad-free YT.

But the other ~$10USD/mo for an unwanted service doesn't appeal to me.

[0]: https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/2/22605455/youtube-premium-l...

Re: Vanced has been discontinued

#245

Post by notriddle »

rvbissell wrote: post #230
chii wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The diff patches would be considered derivative, since you cannot make it without knowing the original.

If I sold a transparency with nothing but a twirly mustache on it, sized & positioned so that it perfectly placed the mustache on the original Mona Lisa if placed within the frame, would that be a derivative work? (Assume for this question that the Mona Lisa was currently protected by U.S. copyright.)

This is almost exactly RiffTrax.

Re: Vanced has been discontinued

#246

Post by xvector »

kazinator wrote: post #219
MathCodeLove wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get this argument against proprietary software. People building software should be able to expect payment for their work and effort. Food is required for a healthy society but would anyone here advocate for farmers to give away all of their produce for free? Text-tiles are necessary for society but would you advocate that clothing be provided by the creators free of charge? The only thing different about soft…

> People building software should be able to expect payment for their work and effort. But, but, ... Vanced is free-as-in-beer software that prevents Google getting ad revenue for their product/service.

Google is not losing any appreciable amount of money to Vanced.

Re: Vanced has been discontinued

#247

Post by coconut08 »

charcircuit wrote: post #174
mardifoufs wrote: post #22

Surprised it took so long to be honest. It was so good and unlike with other youtube alternative clients, you basically had almost 1:1 feature parity over the official app. Plus you had the option to disable almost all the recent UI changes easily and a sponsorblock integration. It was much much more of a threat to Google than newpipe or less "normie" friendly alt clients, and it was getting too popular for it's own…

Breaking Vanced would also break YouTube (read: be unable to show ads) for people whose YouTube app is outdated.

how strict is youtube about maintaining backwards compatibility with outdated apps/versions of android? do they ever break compatibility?

Re: Vanced has been discontinued

#248

Post by coconut08 »

stavros wrote: post #109
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was under the impression that Vanced was a cracked version of the official app. If that was the case then they deserve to be sued.

Well, they only deserve to be sued in your ethical system. To me, adding features that I can't even get if I pay isn't unethical, it's commendable.

replace youtube app with photoshop and you quickly realize that obviously it is illegal to modify and distribute. just because it is free to use doesn't mean intellectual property laws and licenses don't apply to it. you can argue that you think that intellectual property laws are stupid, but it doesn't make it any less illegal.
Post reply on HN