Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro

christianselig.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 370 posts

Re: Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro

#331

Post by turquoisevar »

manquer wrote: post #171
jdoss wrote: 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.

Yeah, $2.99/mo would be a great value.

$13.99/mo is at streamer levels who spend millions on production on top of infrastructure cost and allow you to share (within same household).

$23/mo for family is just plain robbery.

Re: Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro

#332

Post by HHaan »

nindalf wrote: post #108
spiderice wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Short answer - usually individual app developers, even of Google’s size, need the platform (iOS) more than the platform needs them. This means Apple has historically driven hard bargains with even the most popular apps. Now Apple is launching a new platform (visionOS) the 3 most popular in their categories - YouTube, Netflix and Spotify decided that visionOS needs them more than they need visionOS. For now. It’s poss…

Tons of respect for Ben Thompson, but reason for not shipping visionOS apps (or allowing your iPad app to work on them) for these big co's is literally a matter of "Bang for your buck":

> Building a new app from scratch makes zero sense for the size of the install base. Only reason to ever do that would be to get some love back from Apple in the form of features and attention (which, for YouTube / Netflix / Spotify are hardly necessary) > Allowing YOUR iPad app to function on visionOS means that your customers will hold YOU responsible for its functioning. At the size of customer base of these companies, that's a bunch of risk for no reward > When your users use a browser that promises 'regular access to all websites' (built by Apple) to access your service, the responsibility for that experience lies with the browser builder, not you

There's 100% no negotiation over fees happening with individual developers, regardless of how big they are, regardless of what type of support for a platform they promise Apple, as that's exactly what has gotten Apple and Google in hot water with regulators worldwide.

Ben worded it well in the article:

"It’s certainly possible that I’m reading too much into these absences" < Yes

Re: Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro

#333

Post by jack_pp »

Mindwipe wrote: post #226
jack_pp wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the android youtube / music app is much better than any other audio / video app i have including spotify, netflix

Come on. The YouTube Music app blocks you from navigating to a different song at the same time as playing a track if it decides that the track is primarily aimed at under 18s (such as the theme from a retro cartoon). It's UI might charitably be described as a total catastrophe.

Well compare that to Spotify which can only show videos full screen in one orientation and needs to be force stopped constantly because podcasts block a lot.

Also, I never encountered the problem you complain about.

Re: Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro

#334

Post by graphe »

londons_explore wrote: post #182
graphe wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With that logic every app that is free on an iPhone pro max must be unfair.

If developers could price apps differently for the cheap Vs expensive iPhones, they would.

They do. Death stranding only works on the newest iphone. You're free to buy a non functional app but it happens as for ipad only.

Re: Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro

#336

Post by madeofpalk »

frei wrote: post #330
shmoogy wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Maybe it was a UX bug that hampers the experience to the point that where the website is a better experience, and they felt that a bad app would hurt the brand more than no app.

Or, maybe there wasn't but they didn't care enough to test so they disabled it 'just to be on the safe side'.

Re: Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro

#337

Post by thallavajhula »

I like Christian. I was a Apollo (Reddit client) user. I supported him during the whole Reddit vs Devs fiasco of 2023.

I'm not sure this is a good idea. YouTube (Google) intentionally didn't want to put up their app on the AppStore. They had their reasons. Ignoring their reasons and creating an app using their APIs and putting up an app in the AppStore against their will, just doesn't seem like a good move here.

Re: Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro

#338

Post by imiric »

summerlight wrote: post #321
imiric wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a false dichotomy. There are many monetizing alternatives besides advertising, or paying the platform to remove advertising they introduced in the first place.

You will be surprised to see how much money you need to pay in order to match the ads numbers. And running a global video platform needs very high CapEx/OpEx numbers compared to other web businesses. YT premium is very likely a much less profitable business, mostly meant for mitigating user complaints against ads + revenue diversification.

> You will be surprised to see how much money you need to pay in order to match the ads numbers.

I'm well aware of that. Advertising is clearly the most profitable online business model. It has a low barrier of entry for users, it scales with the amount of users, and is simple to implement. Companies can collect user data and use it in perpetuity to monetize it in infinite ways beyond just ad impressions. Data is gold.

My point is that it's all corrupt to the core. It's driven by generating wealth for companies over anything else, least of all the well-being of people. It actually relies on manipulating the human psyche, pioneered by the machiavellian mind of Edward Bernays nearly a century ago. It inserts itself as a leech between the goods producer and people, to not only connect producers with interested consumers as its proponents would like us to believe, but to create consumers out of people who wouldn't otherwise be interested. And then the internet came along, and made it more profitable than it's ever been. Oh, and it's also being exploited to spread propaganda, influence elections and topple democracies, but no matter, the charts must go up and to the right.

So, yeah, sorry for the rant, but my point is that there are plenty of ways that companies can monetize their business that doesn't involve advertising. It might not be as easy or profitable, but I have this silly opinion that the well-being of society should be higher priority than generating wealth for shareholders.

Re: Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro

#339

Post by pests »

SebFender wrote: post #204
pests wrote: 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.

Desktop only feature. Have to enable it. It puts a sidebox with a mini remote where suggested videos usually are.

It's under "Modify Playback with Premium Controls":

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6308116?hl=en

Re: Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro

#340

Post by pb7 »

imiric wrote: post #338
summerlight wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You will be surprised to see how much money you need to pay in order to match the ads numbers. And running a global video platform needs very high CapEx/OpEx numbers compared to other web businesses. YT premium is very likely a much less profitable business, mostly meant for mitigating user complaints against ads + revenue diversification.

> You will be surprised to see how much money you need to pay in order to match the ads numbers. I'm well aware of that. Advertising is clearly the most profitable online business model. It has a low barrier of entry for users, it scales with the amount of users, and is simple to implement. Companies can collect user data and use it in perpetuity to monetize it in infinite ways beyond just ad impressions. Data is gol…

Explain what role advertising plays in you not paying a subscription to have access to ad-free videos.

You are using a lot of words to justify the fact that you would prefer to steal from the same creators that you rely on for information and entertainment. You do not care about their well being but you’re standing on that soapbox nonetheless.

And please, don’t tell me that you support them in other ways because I don’t believe you. People that are too cheap to pay for a service that all parties have agreed to the terms of are too cheap to support in other ways too. No to mention there’s no practical way to compensate every creator whose videos you may have watched.

Post reply on HN