Live data from Hacker News

Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro

christianselig.com

241–250 of 370 posts

Re: Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro

#241
post #122

Earlier 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…

> On a small screen, it takes a lot of real estate That's why the full-screen mode exists

thrdbndndn was only advocating for always-on controls in non-fullscreen mode.

One reason people might enter fullscreen mode is to avoid seeing distracting things on the screen. Controls might be distracting.

Re: Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro

#242
post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when not in fullscreen mode, I don't see why all the controls need to be confined to the video frame and disappear when not hovering YouTube Premium offers Premium Controls which is a sidebox with the controls like you are asking for.

what what what? I've been using Premium for years what is this feature exactly? I don't see it. Cheers.

If you tap on the settings/cog icon on a video, there’s an item for “additional settled”, which then has another item for playback controls or something.

Once you want to do anything else you have to exit everything and open it back up though, it’s not really efficient

Re: Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro

#243
post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I still selfhost a libreddit instance for search results but no more browsing

That sounds very useful, how much space does it utilize?

Re: Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro

#245
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 do you say that? I don't think the Youtube product managers really care enough about Vision Pro to prioritise making an app for it. That doesn't mean they strategically disgree with the product and actively wish to hamper it. Indepedently of Vision Pro, I think they just might not be that enthusastic about third party youtube apps.

They explicitly opted the YouTube iPad app out of working on vision pro

Re: Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro

#246

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.

The AppleTV YouTube app is so bad that I’m convinced nobody responsible for it owns a TV. It even forces its own built in screensavers to run instead of the OS one if the app is left paused. Who approves that?! What Steve Jobs said about Microsoft in the 90s applies to Google today: They have no taste.

> It even forces its own built in screensavers to run instead of the OS one if the app is left paused

Eh? YouTube is my most-used app on Apple TV by a country mile and I’ve never seen this, I get the tvOS screensavers. Is it because I have YouTube Premium maybe?

I agree though, it is a garbage app. Everything on a TV, from the built-in apps to Roku boxes to Apple TV use basically the same app (certainly the same layout) and it’s really quite bad.

Re: Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro

#247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't necessarily call it a new ecosystem. It's mostly the same walled garden that runs iOS/iPadOS.

[flagged]

Would you mind explaining your position a little more? Are you saying that walled gardens keep evil away, or are you saying that they can hurt the user?

Re: Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro

#248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which bizarrely uses the same tiny Material touch targets as on phones I personally think iPad YouTube app's touch is not too bad; but in general (not limited to YouTube), I think the UI design of web video players are all too fixated on the existing design. For example, when not in fullscreen mode, I don't see why all the controls need to be confined to the video frame and disappear when not hovering. While this d…

And extra controls appear when pausing. I get that most of the time when you pause it’s because you are not watching, but it completely obscures the use case where you want to look at a still frame. Worst though is YouTube shorts where you can’t rewind

Oh wow, is this because I have YouTube premium? I absolutely loathe this feature, because 99% of the time I am pausing, it is because I want to read what text is on the screen. It gets completely obscured by the controls, and even the text that is visible is difficult to read because it has a darkened background. Is there a way to turn this feature off?

Re: Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro

#249
post #237

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.

Don't get me started on the official YT app on ChromeOS... it's so bad (one example: the seek bar was barely usable with a touchscreen) that I eventually disabled it, using the website is much better.

Same, with the added benefit that in the browser I have lots of knobs and dials I can turn with uMatrix and other Dev tools. Oh and of course, sponsor block. Youtube should be insanely grateful for sponsor block, because if not for that tool I would have canceled my premium membership because I hate seeing ads. I will simply find something else to watch if I have to watch ads.

Re: Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro

#250
post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The question wasn't over $5. The question was over an extra $5, for a total of $10. $5 is basically the upper bound of where I'm willing to experiment.

The question is also very much about whether I am "supporting an independent developer with a tiny donation." A lot of stuff on app stores is spammy, scammy, and I explicitly don't want to support. Our dollars determine where our resources (as a society) go. I don't mind supporting good things, even with donations. I am currently fighting a company over The audience are HN readers -- entrepreneurs trying to make apps. The point isn't about me as what I ought to be doing (or about convincing others to be like me). The point is to honestly give customer insight, again, with an n=1. If enough people do that, there's a sample bias, but you do get better insight than nothing.

I'm probably going to stop doing that since "customers doing what we don't like" increasingly leads to downvotes. Either I'm communicating badly, people reading are increasingly bad at reading comprehension, or some combination there-of. These posts used to be valued a few years back.

However, as much as it didn't come across, the take-home message was intended to be that if you're running an honest business, you want to (and can) charge me more if you:

1) Clearly signal you're not evil. E.g. my data is treated with respect, you won't scam me, etc.

2) Give me enough information to be able to determine it's a product I want.

That's basic transparency, and a lot of startups lose my business because they screw it up.

Post reply on HN