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

ReVanced

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 248 posts

Re: ReVanced

#161

Post by alasano »

TheRealSteel wrote: post #106
nfriedly wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also restored the dislike button and added support for sponsorblock (which can automatically skip sponsor segments, as well as intros, outros, "like and subscribe" reminders, non-music sections of music videos, and other fluff.) The name comes from it being an "advanced" YouTube app, only without any "ad"s ;) Oh, and you could disable the comments section! All-in-all, it just made YouTube a much better experience.

Oh wow, I just assumed it was made by a guy called Vance.

I think my positive perception of self named software dates back to Irfanview.

I've been using it since 1998, never felt the need to change to anything else.

Re: ReVanced

#162

Post by sizesandsevens »

slenk wrote: post #69

It always suprises me how unwilling the tech community is to support creators on YouTube. You're not hurting YouTube by blocking ads, you're hurting the people who get ads from their videos. Just pay for Youtube Premium - its no different than Spotify or Apple music price-wise and people shell out for that without thinking every month.

Youtube Premium is not available in my country. I should not have to endure two unskipable ads at the beginning and middle of a two minute video because of that.

Re: ReVanced

#163

Post by mdoms »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #93
Aissen wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To make it clear, personal opinion: this is piracy. Use yt-dlp, NewPipe, SmartTubeNext, invidious, VLC, whatever. Or pay for Premium. But re-using a proprietary app and patching it is IMHO crossing the line.

If they're not distributing the patched application, I don't see why this is any worse than using an unauthorized YouTube client.

They were distributing it.

Re: ReVanced

#164

Post by izacus »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #65
izacus wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you know, paying a few bucks for the music via Premium subscription.

>Or you know, paying a few bucks for the music via Premium subscription. Or you know, not lecturing people off your high horse on giving their hard earned cash to your corporate overlords on top of their private data, and instead, letting them use the internet as they please. A few bucks here and a few bucks there adds up significantly for those not on Bay Area wages and getting hit by rampant inflation and energy pr…

That's some serious mental gymnastic you have going there just to avoid paying musicians a few bucks to listen to their music.

Don't worry, pirates have gone through these mental gymnastics to feel better about their entitlement since the time Napster appeared.

Still doesn't change the fact that the author of that post refuses to pay a shitty 12 bucks per months to get access to all the music he wants and pay both the infrastructure provider and the musician performing the tracks. They could easily pay for Spotify, Deezer, Tidal, iTunes or any of the other services if "YouTube is such an evil monster monopoly". But it's not about that is it?

I wonder if you're so lenient when someone refuses to pay for your own companys services and just wants them for free.

Re: ReVanced

#165

Post by Crash0v3rid3 »

Spivak wrote: post #82
Crash0v3rid3 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets be honest here. The majority of Vanced users used the app to circumvent ads.

Wait until you find out about TiVo, the "skip first" settings on podcast apps, or uBlock origin.

Not sure of the point of your comment...What I said holds true.

Re: ReVanced

#166

Post by dvngnt_ »

izacus wrote: post #62
ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New pipe will do that too. Or just watching the video in the phone browser.

Or you know, paying a few bucks for the music via Premium subscription.

paying still doesn't give you all the features Vance offers for free so no

Re: ReVanced

#167

Post by sofixa »

LinAGKar wrote: post #124
izacus wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you know, paying a few bucks for the music via Premium subscription.

It's not "a few bucks", it's like $12 a month, more than most streaming services, for the privilege of having it not pause the video when you lock the phone. Which it shouldn't be doing in the first place. Also this yet one more thing on top of the subscriptions you already have. Can't subscribe to all of them.

There are more features than that. You get music streaming ( usually in the $£$ 10 range), no ads and offline downloads. It's really not a bad deal, especially shared on the family plan.

Re: ReVanced

#168

Post by sofixa »

formerkrogeremp wrote: post #136
LinAGKar wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "a few bucks", it's like $12 a month, more than most streaming services, for the privilege of having it not pause the video when you lock the phone. Which it shouldn't be doing in the first place. Also this yet one more thing on top of the subscriptions you already have. Can't subscribe to all of them.

I'm not sure it's worth the $20 per month for a family plan of up to five either.

$4/person for music streaming, and all the video on the internet, without ads? What is a fair price for you?

Re: ReVanced

#170

Post by sofixa »

hohoemi8 wrote: post #3

What did Google expect? If they take this one down another will appear to take its place, and so on.

There are already alternatives out there (like New Pipe). Vanced was taken down because they tried to monetise it via an NFT which crossed a line.
Post reply on HN