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

Vanced Discontinuation

telegra.ph

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 182 posts

Re: Vanced Discontinuation

#141

Post by shabier »

franga2000 wrote: post #139
roastedpeacock wrote: post #115

Not an attorney, but I suspect two mistakes the YouTube Vanced team did with the project is having "YouTube" in the name (Could be considered as a false association and trademark violation by Google or YouTube), and redistributing complete APKs that were modified YouTube APKs that would be under copyright. I have not looked into the inner works of this, but on device patching of APK DEX classes from a set of patches…

Yeah binary patching would basically solve this issue and wouldn't be any more of a hassle for the user than vanced already was. For a similar example, see the way most alternative Minecraft servers download and patch official binaries on first start (they started doing this due to getting a bunch of DMCA takedowns a few years ago). With a bit of effort, Vanced could even have the download page perform the patching a…

That's a good approach, I like it a lot. Do know a project that has already applied that flow?

Re: Vanced Discontinuation

#142

Post by stemc43 »

asimpletune wrote: post #135

It sounds like they're making it really clear that they've "killed" the project, probably so they can just start another one that doesn't have the same issues. I wouldn't be surprised if they just form a new LLC, and transfer the old code as IP between the two, tweaking the offending assets and calling it a day.

that would be amazing. i really hope to not have to use firefox mobile with ublock.

Re: Vanced Discontinuation

#143

Post by shabier »

3np wrote: post #120
kangalioo wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modified bytecode, not just bytecode (or else any APK hoster would be illegal)

As noted in OP, the takedown was related to reuse of trademark (logo, name), not redistribution of the modified binary.

The comment tread is arguing that it's hard to prove modified binary rather than the easier way; reuse of the trademark. Either way, both the modification and redistribution are illegal.

Re: Vanced Discontinuation

#144

Post by shabier »

WatchDog wrote: post #28
DonBarredora wrote: post #21

>The vanced team will "NEVER" make its source code public. Making the source code available on the internet can cause serious complications for us. What would those complicatiosn be?

Isn't vanced just a patched version of the official app? It's not mentioned in the article, but I imagine the copyright infringement, goes a lot further than simply infringing the trademarks and logos. Presumably, they don't want to release the source code, because it would make it blatantly obvious.

> Isn't vanced just a patched version of the official app?

I believe that it is. Although they don't have the source code, just the binary which they have modified in order to add features, see smali[0]. Other projects like the Google camera mod are using similar approaches to modify or port official apps

[0] https://stackoverflow.com/a/30837786

Re: Vanced Discontinuation

#145

Post by franga2000 »

shabier wrote: post #141
franga2000 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah binary patching would basically solve this issue and wouldn't be any more of a hassle for the user than vanced already was. For a similar example, see the way most alternative Minecraft servers download and patch official binaries on first start (they started doing this due to getting a bunch of DMCA takedowns a few years ago). With a bit of effort, Vanced could even have the download page perform the patching a…

That's a good approach, I like it a lot. Do know a project that has already applied that flow?

Not the online or browser-based signing, no, but LuckyPatcher lets you patch APKs locally (I think their specific implementation requires root, but that wouldn't be necessary if APKs were downloaded in-app). I was actually really surprised when I first found Vanced that it wasn't using something like LP and instead distributing pre-modded APKs.

Re: Vanced Discontinuation

#146

Post by shabier »

chakintosh wrote: post #131

They killed it themselves when they tried to profit off of what is basically piracy with some NFT bullshit. That was utterly moronic.

Agreed. I think a smarter approach would've been to release the patches and other changes separately, and had the official YT app be patched locally. This, however, could probably not work on non-root devices.

Re: Vanced Discontinuation

#147

Post by shabier »

franga2000 wrote: post #145
shabier wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good approach, I like it a lot. Do know a project that has already applied that flow?

Not the online or browser-based signing, no, but LuckyPatcher lets you patch APKs locally (I think their specific implementation requires root, but that wouldn't be necessary if APKs were downloaded in-app). I was actually really surprised when I first found Vanced that it wasn't using something like LP and instead distributing pre-modded APKs.

Good call, I didn't think of that. I believe that the non-root approach for LuckyPatcher is to create a separate, (limited) modified APK file rather than modifying an existing, installed app

Re: Vanced Discontinuation

#148

Post by namdnay »

spartanatreyu wrote: post #66
drusepth wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd never heard of Vanced before today. What features did they offer that YT Premium doesn't?

Dislikes are a pretty big feature. Also sponsorblock which is a must for some people. And picture-in-picture mode was great. I could watch the news while seeing how close an uber was to me without having to switch apps.

The sponsorblock seems pretty hypocritical: “I don’t want to give money to Google”… “Actually I don’t want to give money to creators either”

Re: Vanced Discontinuation

#149

Post by anyfactor »

roastedpeacock wrote: post #115

Not an attorney, but I suspect two mistakes the YouTube Vanced team did with the project is having "YouTube" in the name (Could be considered as a false association and trademark violation by Google or YouTube), and redistributing complete APKs that were modified YouTube APKs that would be under copyright. I have not looked into the inner works of this, but on device patching of APK DEX classes from a set of patches…

> "YouTube" in the name (Could be considered as a false association and trademark violation by Google or YouTube)

This is an important point. The "insert popular company name" for "insert industry" works great when you have just launched but this statement should be ditched as immediately as you get some traction.

I liked how, the Reddit client App "RIF" started. It was first "Reddit is fun", now it has become "RIF is fun".

No matter how benevolent you think the company you are referring to is, at the end everyone wants money, and the survival rate using this strategy is close to zero.

Without naming any names, I have seen certain startups claiming they are the Stackoverflow or Quora of "X" industry. The path Stackoverflow's ownership is taking, I bet they will start suing these companies for false representation sooner then we can imagine.

Re: Vanced Discontinuation

#150

Post by Majestic121 »

namdnay wrote: post #148
spartanatreyu wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dislikes are a pretty big feature. Also sponsorblock which is a must for some people. And picture-in-picture mode was great. I could watch the news while seeing how close an uber was to me without having to switch apps.

The sponsorblock seems pretty hypocritical: “I don’t want to give money to Google”… “Actually I don’t want to give money to creators either”

It does not seems hypocritical, because the original rationale is not "I don't want to give money to Google" but "I don't want to be subjected to ads"

Whether the ads profit to Google or creators is irrelevant.

Post reply on HN