Live data from Hacker News

Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro

christianselig.com

171–180 of 370 posts

Re: Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro

#171
post #34

I echo the author's praise of YouTube Premium. When it first came out I was like there is no way I would ever pay for such service. Being an early YouTube user, pre Google buyout, I still was in love with the platform that gave me content from real people. Fast forward to 2020 the US election cycle broke me. I could not stand the amount of political ads that were being shoved down my throat. My kids were perma home d…

it is $13.99 / month in the US now. $150/year is a lot of money - for a product you can choose not to pay and still mostly use.

Re: Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro

#173
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you had read the article you would find that this app doesn't really need YouTube API access. It's just an iframe. It's 1998 tech.

In that case, isn’t it a race to the bottom with just someone else doing something similar? What makes this special?

It's the first one so it's currently the best one. If someone else makes a worse app, why would you use it? I don't get what's confusing here.

Re: Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro

#174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not as smooth as Apple.

I don’t know if that’s still true. The Music app is still sluggish, Notes has poor UX, almost every built-in app has a better third-party replacement. It has been downhill since iOS 7.

What's so poor about Apple Notes? It's my most used app. Just curious.

Re: Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro

#176
post #144

Is there already a word for this fetish of putting your fate in the hands of big companies not shutting you down from their APIs?

Fetishes are sexually derrived or worship of an idol. Are you calling them losers for not scraping?

Masochists, more like.

Re: Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro

#177
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a feeling is going to be a speedrun of the reddit saga. Google obviously doesn't want a smooth youtube experience on vision pro.

Why is that? Obviously they don’t want a third party app to be that experience, but they make native apps for everything else. Also, Christian can’t help himself but attach his apps to large companies that can cut him off overnight. Haha.

[deleted]

Re: Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro

#178

Is there already a word for this fetish of putting your fate in the hands of big companies not shutting you down from their APIs?

Why do you think this is a flawed decision to do so ? In my opinion this is a conscious choice by Selig both times and a good one.

There are business models where venture funding is unsuitable as there will never be hockey stick growth or unit economics or competitive moats etc, traditionally companies usually small operate here, they are not startups, just SMB doing non flashy stuff.

Similarly also many business models unsuitable talented product teams to risk on , that are perfect for a highly talented freelancer such as Christian Selig - like third party API dependent ideas.

He is amongst the best indie developers in the Apple ecosystem and doesn't have to worry about competition quality too much in these ideas.

These are four main ways that I know of, to be a professional talented product developer -

1. Become a founder, raise funding, chase growth and do things you don't really like anymore

2. Freelance and do boring consulting work, trying to keep customer happy

3. Work in a big bureaucratic tech company and be frustrated constantly with everything from politics to red tape.

4. Pour your heart and soul into a early stage startup and watch it either outgrow you or crash and burn.

He instead gets to build products at a massive scale without having any overhead of an organization, and also making decent amount of money (upwards of few million/year with Apollo), what more can a developer aspire for ?

Re: Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro

#180
post #63
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you had read the article you would find that this app doesn't really need YouTube API access. It's just an iframe. It's 1998 tech.

The iframe embed API is API access, and YouTube can remove, paywall, or rate limit it any time they want. How old the underlying technology is is completely irrelevant to that.

YouTube disabling embedding would be fucking insane.
Post reply on HN