181–190 of 370 posts
Christian isn’t charging enough! This could easily be $10 or more. I still grumble every time I use the Reddit app. RIP Apollo.
I basically just stopped using Reddit after that whole fiasco. I had already been drifting away for years. The site has changed. It was time to move on.
Just wait until Google blocks Juno, just like they did to Microsoft on Windows Phone when they created their own client.
> So I dunno, if you can afford an expensive Apple Vision Pro, I’d really consider treating yourself to YouTube Premium! The reason I don't have premium (and one of the reasons I block ads) is that I don't want YouTube tracking my viewing habits, which I cannot prevent if I'm forced to log in to access premium. It has nothing to do with monetary cost. I'm always surprised when I see statements like this one that appe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think running the biggest video platform on the planet entirely for free is not realistic. Why are you so against Google charging a minimum fee for doing that while still giving you the opportunity to watch for free in exchange for being shown a few ads? Do you think they should be run as a charity?
> Why are you so against Google charging a minimum fee for doing that while still giving you the opportunity to watch for free in exchange for being shown a few ads? I'm against it because advertising is not the only business model that works at scale. Google effectively introduced itself as a middleman between content creators and consumers, which they continue to do whether you pay with your attention/data or cash.…
Christian isn’t charging enough! This could easily be $10 or more. I still grumble every time I use the Reddit app. RIP Apollo.
Seriously, what percentage of people who just spent at least $3,500 on the hardware would quibble over an extra $5 when it comes to as essential a native app as Youtube?
No, seriously. I would.
Here's the basic problem:
* I wouldn't mind spending $10 on something which I know I'm using.
* Most apps sit on my phone unused. Most are horrible. I have no idea before I buy whether it's good or horrible for me.
* I often don't mind spending a buck or two on something to see if I'll use it. $10 is right above that threshold.
* No apps do a decent free trial. I'm busy, so one of the 30-day things doesn't work for me. I'll install it, and when / if I get around to using it, the trial is already done. My life doesn't revolve around the app. Likewise, many apps will limit functionality to where the free trial is basically an advertisement, and I don't see if it's something I'd use.
I think what would work for me (n=1) is:
* The app is free for the first 40 hours of actual use. Or perhaps some annual quota.
* Continuing using it beyond that costs e.g. $20 for something simple like a video player and e.g. $100 for something complex like a video editor.
That aligns incentives right too.
For a video player, I don't think I'd use one without the option for an ad blocker. I'm not getting Youtube Premium no matter how cheap or expensive it is, since I don't think it'd be unethical for me to do so (it's a bit of a broken social contract by Google). That's another story (and I'm not trying to push my values on anyone else).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm amazed that someone who has been this badly burned by a corporation controlling their API access would even think about writing another app that uses third-party APIs, to be honest.
It seems that he found a (momentary?) gap in the Vision Pro app market and promptly seized the opportunity.
"oh, he's entirely reliant on the platforms!"
Meanwhile, his cap table is himself, he does quite well, and doesn't owe anything to anybody.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/largest-spca-fund...
So nice to see a YouTube client that makes sense on the platform it’s on. Compare to the official YT client for iPad, for example, which bizarrely uses the same tiny Material touch targets as on phones.
So nice to see a YouTube client that makes sense on the platform it’s on. Compare to the official YT client for iPad, for example, which bizarrely uses the same tiny Material touch targets as on phones.
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?