361–370 of 728 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Morally, it is piracy IMO. If you applied the rule universally, the site would go out of business and then there would be no video to see.
I didn't look at the billboards when I was driving today. Did I just pirate my drive to work?
I used to pay for YouTube premium. I stopped doing that, uninstalled the apps, and now use it through the browser with adblockers. (Yes, on my phone and iPad.) It works so well I’ve gotten at least half a dozen neighbours to do the same. If you haven’t tried it, it’s a definitive step up in UX.
Not being able to play Youtube in the background on your phone is unfortunately one of the main appeals of Premium. There's a lot of good mixes, concerts, etc that I play for the audio while doing something else that I can't do without Premium unless I wanted to leave my phone unlocked (and pray I don't pocket click a link).
Ad blockers help with the constant nagging about "open in the app!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shorts are up to 3 minutes long now. At this point they are just vertical videos. I fully expect the supported length to keep increasing!
Vertical videos with much shitter UI. Inability to skip ahead or turn back may be understandable for <30 second videos, but not more.
I used to pay for YouTube premium. I stopped doing that, uninstalled the apps, and now use it through the browser with adblockers. (Yes, on my phone and iPad.) It works so well I’ve gotten at least half a dozen neighbours to do the same. If you haven’t tried it, it’s a definitive step up in UX.
I also stopped using the YouTube app in favor of the Brave browser on my desktop and my Android phone (no extensions needed). I can't remember the last time I saw an ad on YouTube!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shorts are up to 3 minutes long now. At this point they are just vertical videos. I fully expect the supported length to keep increasing!
Vertical videos with much shitter UI. Inability to skip ahead or turn back may be understandable for <30 second videos, but not more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We know. Believe me, we know. Because you guys will tell us, every single time YouTube is mentioned.
Excellent, now the collective "we" all know about it, and it never needs to be mentioned again[0]. [0] https://xkcd.com/1053/ >
I noticed this morning there was a new version of the YouTube app on my Apple TV. I can’t wait to find out how they screwed this one up. My personal long-term complaint is the length of video titles. Lots of people like to make really long video titles. So right now there is one on my screen titled “The Best Decisions Every Video Game Console Developer Made”. Now if you didn’t know, that is not the whole title. But t…
The YouTube app is easily the worst app on Apple TV. For example, if you pause the video by clicking the main action button brings up an overlay that takes up almost the whole screen, so you can no longer see the content in case you paused to freeze the frame. How do you start it again? By clicking the same button, right? No! By clicking up. For some reason up means back and down means to open some additional UI with…
I noticed this morning there was a new version of the YouTube app on my Apple TV. I can’t wait to find out how they screwed this one up. My personal long-term complaint is the length of video titles. Lots of people like to make really long video titles. So right now there is one on my screen titled “The Best Decisions Every Video Game Console Developer Made”. Now if you didn’t know, that is not the whole title. But t…
The YouTube app is easily the worst app on Apple TV. For example, if you pause the video by clicking the main action button brings up an overlay that takes up almost the whole screen, so you can no longer see the content in case you paused to freeze the frame. How do you start it again? By clicking the same button, right? No! By clicking up. For some reason up means back and down means to open some additional UI with…
The YouTube app is a walk in the park compared to the app for Hayu which is like torture sometimes it’s so buggy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What deal? What contract? I'm serious. Show me in the Youtube Terms of Service where it says that blocking ads is against the contract. I've looked. Carefully. There is no such language there .
I don't think you actually looked very closely, so it's weird you've doubled down on that lol Item 2 of "Permissions and Restrictions" says you aren't allowed to "circumvent, disable, fraudulently engage with, or otherwise interfere with any part of the Service (or attempt to do any of these things), including security-related features or features that (a) prevent or restrict the copying or other use of Content or (b…
Content on the Service The content on the Service includes videos, audio (for example music and other sounds), graphics, photos, text (such as comments and scripts), branding (including trade names, trademarks, service marks, or logos), interactive features, software, metrics, and other materials whether provided by you, YouTube or a third-party (collectively, "Content”).
Where is advertising defined as "Content"? (EDIT: For clarity, this paragraph is my own words; the previous paragraph was the quote from the ToS).
Further, there's the "Our Service" paragraph:
"The Service allows you to discover, watch and share videos and other content, provides a forum for people to connect, inform, and inspire others across the globe, and acts as a distribution platform for original content creators and advertisers large and small."
The service acts as a distribution platform for "original content creators and advertisers", two different categories. There's content (made by content creators) and there's what advertisers produce.
If Youtube wanted to define advertising as part of the Content (capital letter because in legal matters, definitions in the contract matter, and that's the term that they defined), they had plenty of opportunity to do so.
The statement by Google that blocking ads is a violation of their ToS is, of course, their opinion. But what ultimately would matter in a lawsuit is the contract. And nowhere in the contract do they state that advertising is part of the Content.
Their best argument in a lawsuit would be that adblocking is "circumventing" part of the Service, because they have defined being a distribution platform for advertisers as being part of their Service. But considering that the actual function of adblocking is simply not making HTTP requests, it would be hard for them to make that hold up in court against a skilled lawyer.
I've looked at it, and I came to the conclusion that the "advertising is part of the Content" argument does not hold up to the actual terms of service, and that the "adblocking is circumventing the Service" part does not hold up either: to say that something running on my browser, that makes no attempt to change their code and only skips certain HTTP requests, counts as "circumventing" features is a stretch. It's the best argument, so thank you for making it. But it's just not strong enough to hold up to the "If Youtube wanted to explain that adblocking was a violation of the ToS, they had plenty of opportunity to lay that out in detail in plain English (well, lawyerese) in the ToS itself" argument which any skilled lawyer would present in court.
So I'll grant that it's possible to read "adblocking is a violation of the ToS" in the terms, if you peer at the penumbras and emanations of the wording. But at no point did they take the opportunity to lay it out in clear language. And statements from a spokesman are, legally speaking, worthless; only the language of the contract matters in a court case.
P.S. I've upvoted you, since you've actually taken a real look at the Terms of Service, unlike the guy making that grocery store analogy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While we’re at it can we also fire the guy who made it that we now have to click the channel’s mini thumbnail to open it, EXCEPT, when the channel is live and clicking the thumbnail takes you to the live video where you have to click the thumbnail again.
Oh, are we talking about bad YouTube UX? How about the "feature" where the right and left arrows seek the video 5s forward and back, while the up and down arrows increase and decrease the volume? That is, unless the last UI element you've touched was the volume bar, in which case the side arrows will also change the volume, and you'll have to use the mouse to clear the focus away from that volume bar to be able to se…
That is a feature (of the browser). The volume bar is selected so it takes up the controls for left/right (this is what a horizontal slider does I suppose). You can also select the volume button and mute/unmute with spacebar (spacebar does the action of the UI element, like click a button). You can tab around the buttons under the video to select options, etc. all with a keyboard. If a control doesn't support an action, it'll be propagated up to the parent, which leads to the jarring feeling that controls are inconsistent (and also the effects, left-right just adjusts the volume, up-down also plays an animation).
It's the usual low quality Google product, but it does make sense why it is so.