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

231–240 of 248 posts

Re: ReVanced

#231

Post by Mogzol »

lewispollard wrote: post #92
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apparently Vanced was a patched YouTube app This is the part I missed in the original conversations. If you redistribute a modified version of a company’s app, it’s going to be taken down. You can’t distribute another company’s work as your own. The difference here appears to be that it’s a patcher, so they’re not distributing the proprietary app. Theoretically more robust against takedowns, but it also significant…

Vanced didn't redistribute a modified version of the Youtube app, they distributed a "manager" app which downloaded the official app's APKs and applied the patches at runtime. (edit: actually, I'm not 100% sure of that, since I've always used a rooted version which does apply patches at runtime, but I'm unsure about non-rooted.) They were taken down for using a similar enough logo to Youtube that Google lawyered them…

> They were taken down for using a similar enough logo to Youtube that Google lawyered them into stopping that way, not for any kind of infringement in terms of software.

Is there a source for this? Seems like they could have just changed the logo if that was the case, no?

Re: ReVanced

#232

Post by 3np »

Mogzol wrote: post #231
lewispollard wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vanced didn't redistribute a modified version of the Youtube app, they distributed a "manager" app which downloaded the official app's APKs and applied the patches at runtime. (edit: actually, I'm not 100% sure of that, since I've always used a rooted version which does apply patches at runtime, but I'm unsure about non-rooted.) They were taken down for using a similar enough logo to Youtube that Google lawyered them…

> They were taken down for using a similar enough logo to Youtube that Google lawyered them into stopping that way, not for any kind of infringement in terms of software. Is there a source for this? Seems like they could have just changed the logo if that was the case, no?

It does seem that way but it is the official motivation from the creators.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30747352

Re: ReVanced

#233

Post by 3np »

The_Colonel wrote: post #212
Normille wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

..but, unfortunately doesn't have text-reflow. Yandex Browser has text-reflow and used to support uBlock Origin [and other extensions] too. Now it no longer supports installing uBO. So Android currently has two browsers, each of which is half useful!

Note that Yandex is a Russian company and as such carries significant risks.

You are not wrong but the same can be said for PRC and USA companies. Mentioning that every time the products and services of these three countries are mentioned is not interesting.

Re: ReVanced

#234

Post by 3np »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #217
d82nsjk9 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why?

(Re)Vanced is an app, dealing with googles backend. They can either change the youtube app, to break Vanced, but this can be mitigated by not upgrading the youtube app, until there are patches for the new version,... or they can change the backend, thus breaking all the older youtube clients, making everyone upgrade their clients "now", which is a pain in the ass for many people.

What I've seen is reducing quality available for older versions/protocols - so yeah, it will stay play but you won't get the highest bitrates without upgrading.

Re: ReVanced

#235

Post by mkdirp »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #51
Aissen wrote: post #5

Apparently Vanced was a patched YouTube app for Android, removing ads, adding a dark theme and YouTube Premium features (probably more ?). It was discontinued two weeks ago: https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/13/22975890/youtube-vanced-a...

> Apparently Vanced was a patched YouTube app This is the part I missed in the original conversations. If you redistribute a modified version of a company’s app, it’s going to be taken down. You can’t distribute another company’s work as your own. The difference here appears to be that it’s a patcher, so they’re not distributing the proprietary app. Theoretically more robust against takedowns, but it also significant…

> I expect the real outcome is going to be a game of whack-a-mole as random people try to patch and distribute the app under different names.

From their github org and an faq (I can't remember where I saw it), it seems they're planning on patching the YouTube app on your device, unlike what Vanced did.

And yes, it will be a game of whack-a-mole but since you can download individual versions of apps and only update when you want, I believe breakage will be quite limited.

Re: ReVanced

#236

Post by esjeon »

TBH, I'm very puzzled: is YouTube really that much worth your time and effort? Some might claim it's a kind of movement, or sorta free software, but, to me, it all looks like simply simple piracy, which is a highway to vendor lock-in.

Pirates act as if they are in control of their decisions, but, in reality, the company is still in control. Piracy is incorporated into the business model as an accepted risk, and the company will do their best to control the risk. You're at the mercy of the company, especially when the company in question is large and multi-national.

Also, anything you do "on the platform" will only empower the platform, furthering their abuse and exploit on users. The company will only care about the number of users and the total amount of revenue, and the number of pirates will always be too small to impact their metric. So, for the company, you're just a user who refuses to leave the platform despite of the misuse.

The only proper way to react to any sabotage against user is to leave the platform, even temporarily. Now some people will obviously come up with "lifestyle" issues, but one should realize that the lifestyle in question is something formed by the company and their products. It's variable by nature, and nothing constant, and, actually, can be changed with a surprisingly small amount of effort. (e.g. domain block)

Thus, if you really dream of better internet, you should not be making/using things like this. It's all a wasted effort, which will get easily buried at a snap of someone's finger, leaving no legacy that can be succeeded by others.

Re: ReVanced

#237

Post by 2Gkashmiri »

judge2020 wrote: post #85
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.

It's at least 'profiteering' off of the current state of YouTube, where anyone that uses an ad-blocking mechanism (desktop or mobile) is effectively being subsidized by the premium subscribers and mobile users without adblock.

profiteering is earning. what are the devs of vanced earning?

Re: ReVanced

#238

Post by judge2020 »

2Gkashmiri wrote: post #237
judge2020 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's at least 'profiteering' off of the current state of YouTube, where anyone that uses an ad-blocking mechanism (desktop or mobile) is effectively being subsidized by the premium subscribers and mobile users without adblock.

profiteering is earning. what are the devs of vanced earning?

I mean the users using any ad blocking mechanism, including (re)vanced or simply ublock origin. YouTube isn't free for Google to host.

Re: ReVanced

#239

Post by 2Gkashmiri »

judge2020 wrote: post #238
2Gkashmiri wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

profiteering is earning. what are the devs of vanced earning?

I mean the users using any ad blocking mechanism, including (re)vanced or simply ublock origin. YouTube isn't free for Google to host.

that is not same as profiteering. leeching maybe but "profiteering" is what brave does with replacing google ads with their own so that they show their ads and earn instead of google. that is not what anyone with ad block is doing..

nothing in life is free. everyone knows that. you and me know that. we use adblock regardless of that knowledge. how is this argument used against vanced now since we have accepted the necessity for ublock orign?

Re: ReVanced

#240

Post by formerkrogeremp »

sofixa wrote: post #168
formerkrogeremp wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I do pay that much for no ads and music streaming, but I'm not sure that giving Google more money in a monthly subscription on top of the money they generate from serving me ads is the best use of my funds. I pay that much because I hate YouTube ads. YMMV.
Post reply on HN