Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a solo developer, a guy.
'they' is a great pronoun for ambiguous cases of sex & plurality
It's a terrible pronoun since that usage is a retrofit of a word intended to be used as a plural.
Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro
211–220 of 370 posts
Re: Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it obscures the actual content when you're interacting with the controls (a problem that's particularly acute on smaller screens) What's the right trade-off here in your mind then? Leave the controls always-on/visible? On a small screen, it takes a lot of real estate (except in portrait mode), and small UI controls are a pain to use so you need to make them big enough. I struggle with this, I really don't know what…
> except in portrait mode Portrait mode is exactly what I have in my mind. You have plenty of places on the bottom of the video canvas. For YouTube at least, you only has full-screen mode when in landscape anyway.
Not anymore, you can force portrait fullscreen
In desktop for example: If you go into a vertical video with a regular "/watch?v=" URL, you can see vertical format video with regular controls
There was some way to get the same effect in android, but I can't recall right now
Re: Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro
#213A little off topic but absence of a first party app like YouTube is notable and will really hurt AVP - as intended of course.
Re: Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
He answers this on the website: "...There’s no API keys, or limits to how many times a day you can call it..."
Have you never had an issue while using an embedded video on a website ? Whether a message "it cannot be played, go to YouTube", or trying to select a high-resolution, or subtitles and failing ?
He addresses this:
> The one downside is that occasionally you’ll get a creator who disabled playback for YouTube embeds. This is rare, especially with videos made in the last few years, but for those Juno will auto-detect that and just load up the normal video website page rather than the fancy player.
Re: Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro
#215Earlier 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?
I thought the article did a good job addressing it. There were a lot of nice touches which make this app work well with the vision pro.
Re: Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
I didn't buy the hardware, but if I had, I would quibble over the extra $5. 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 t…
The app is only $5.
Best case scenario: you get an app you use all the time for almost nothing and are supporting an independent developer making cool stuff.
Worst case scenario: you never use the app but supported an independent developer with a tiny donation.
Re: Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
'they' is a great pronoun for ambiguous cases of sex & plurality
It's a terrible pronoun since that usage is a retrofit of a word intended to be used as a plural.
Retrofit? The singular they has been used in English literature as far back as the 13th century, not exactly recent
Re: Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro
#218Re: Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
'they' is a great pronoun for ambiguous cases of sex & plurality
It's a terrible pronoun since that usage is a retrofit of a word intended to be used as a plural.
Singular they dates back to the 14th century. Isn't 600 years long enough to stop quibbling over it?
Re: Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
'they' is a great pronoun for ambiguous cases of sex & plurality
It's a terrible pronoun since that usage is a retrofit of a word intended to be used as a plural.
I know an individual who used to think like that; do you want to know why they changed their mind?