| ▲ | blfr a day ago |
| Yeah, if Google kills ReVanced, I may as well get an iPhone. What's the difference at this point. You can't even unlock the bootloader on most of the quality Android phones. However, the crusade against the word and concept of "sideloading" is really weird. Yeah, installing from the repo is normal, and all the windows-land "download an .exe/.msi to invoke an installer" ways that then may or may not update the app are unusual and apart from an ordered process of system management. The proper alternative to Google Play is F-Droid, not downloading/baking .apks. |
|
| ▲ | jacquesm a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| It's not side loading. It is just installing and running. I swear all this 'for your benefit' crap is going to relegate all of our computing hardware to the status of dumb terminal before long. Note how the term 'side loading' is already weighted against you doing it, it is supposed to make you feel you're doing something that is borderline illegal even if it is still possible and that you are bypassing safeguards that would stop you from doing this stupid thing if you only took the proper route. |
| |
| ▲ | m463 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Kind of like "jailbreaking" as a term. It makes it seem like you're a criminal escaping from confinement enforced by good and decent society. | | |
| ▲ | disruptiveink a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Agreed. I refuse to use the terms "rooting" and "jailbreaking" in professional environments, I always use terms like "admin access to the mobile device". Because that's what it is, despite the extremely successful campaign to paint people who want admin access on their mobile computers to be painted in the same light as pirates. | |
| ▲ | pohuing 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | To jailbreak you need to be imprisoned. Since your only crime was buying an iPhone it presents apple as the tyrant. I think the term fits | |
| ▲ | jacquesm a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes, good one that is another one. |
| |
| ▲ | wilsonnb3 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | It’s called that because you used to download the apks on a separate computer and then load them onto the phone, it has nothing to do with sounding illegal | | |
| ▲ | jacquesm a day ago | parent | next [-] | | No, that's not necessary. You can download them straight to your phone. The 'side' is clearly in reference to the fact that you bypass the app store. | | |
| ▲ | wilsonnb3 a day ago | parent [-] | | Yes, you can download APKs but I don’t remember that being common in the early days of Android. This was before it had a download manager or file manager and using your computer to manage your phone was the norm. The term predates Android anyways, goes back to the 90s I think. | | |
| |
| ▲ | ekianjo a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | You could always download apks directly from your phone... | | |
| ▲ | wilsonnb3 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Back in the day it wasn’t the norm though. We plugged our phones into our computers to manage media, jailbreak them, install apps downloaded from forums, etc. Hell, people used to use iTunes to manage the apps on their iPhone and organize their Home Screen. | | |
| ▲ | rootsudo a day ago | parent [-] | | No, you could always install APK's manually, and there were early package managers, you didn't need a computer at all or to jailbreak an android. Then with the windows mobile world, you could install manually, or use activesync which really sucked. Same with Palm. I don't recall Blackberry. | | |
| ▲ | wkat4242 a day ago | parent [-] | | > No, you could always install APK's manually, and there were early package managers In fact on the iPhone Cydia existed before the app store ever did. Apple had decided that web apps were the way to go. |
|
| |
| ▲ | dadoum a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I did not check but I think that the term may be older than Android, iirc on Symbian phones installing custom Java applets required a computer to place the package on the phone. | |
| ▲ | jimjimwii a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's how I've always done it. Why would anyone do it any other way? Genuine question. | | |
| ▲ | david_allison a day ago | parent [-] | | Some devices don't have browsers, some are locked-down and only support one app store, or sideloading via adb, sometimes the UX is better (SideQuest for the Meta Quest). | | |
| ▲ | ekianjo a day ago | parent [-] | | The large majority of Android devices have a browser by default. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | necovek a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| With phones becoming our main computing platform, I wonder why do we look at it any different from our personal computers? On my computer, I can choose to containerize applications I run with something like docker, flatpak or snaps; run them in a VM, under a separate user, in a chroot... or, not! I can get them from the Debian/Ubuntu/Fedora/... archive or... not! Or I might compile it from source and run it directly or... not! Based on source of the app I decide how much I trust it and thus decide on the encapsulation strategy for it (sometimes, none). Yes, I understand having full control of your system has some minor downsides (you can mess things up more easily), but you can usually do that anyway (just fill up your phone storage with photos and see how your phone behaves). |
| |
| ▲ | baranul a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > With phones becoming our main computing platform, I wonder why do we look at it any different from our personal computers? Especially after people paying so much money for the devices, it's ludicrous that they are not allowed to make their own decisions and install what they want. Ownership, user rights, and privacy have been kicked in the face. If you can not install whatever software that you want, then people should be signing only rental agreements. It is also more the reason to push Linux smartphones[1]. Android is not doing anything special, that people could not get or create for Linux phones. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-source_mobile_pho... | | |
| ▲ | jama211 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | I mean, personally I don’t feel like my user rights are being kicked in the face just because my smartphone is more locked down than I’d like. I’m all for more power to the user, but that seems a little strong. | | |
| ▲ | _factor 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Are you serious? While not as powerful as root access, your user rights are almost completely gone. You buy a $1,000 phone and $1,000 on a service plan which is not an insignificant amount of money for many, then take away every semblance of ownership. Right to repair? Warranty void.
Want to run language models Google doesn’t approve? Not anymore.
Want to run your favorite VPN? Too secure, unavailable.
Want to audit the security and scan the device you carry everywhere and stores your life’s data? Unapproved.
Want to compete with anything that dents Google’s profits? Papers please developer. Just because your nose is already caved in and you’re dazed from the repeated blows, doesn’t make it less of a face kick. It’s more of a curb stomp. | | |
| ▲ | jama211 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | I’m 100% serious, and I believe most people are with me. It’s a minor inconvenience at most for 99.9% of users.
I don’t actually think it’s a good thing, I just don’t personally feel as strongly or in the way you’re describing. I’m sorry if my lack of reaction to this offends you. | | |
| ▲ | _factor 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | A jail has 3 meals a day and a bed. Without knowing it, most people would be fine living out their days in jail until you show them the outside world. Its not a big deal until it expands and expands. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | fsflover 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > With phones becoming our main computing platform, I wonder why do we look at it any different from our personal computers? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19328085 |
|
|
| ▲ | blehn a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Not that Google needs any more cash, but ReVanced has to be the absolute worst defense for maintaining openness on Android. As in, you could have cited the thousands of legitimate apps that have nothing to do with circumventing a pretty reasonable subscription (compared to other media subscriptions out there) for Google's own app. |
| |
| ▲ | xethos a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The deal with Youtube was always presented as "You watch a couple ads, we show you a couple videos" Google has dramatically altered that deal, and now shows much longer, less-likely-to-be-skippable ads, with much higher frequency. Calling it "a prety reasonable subscription" is only reasonable if we forget that this wasn't the deal originally offered Furthermore, this is a massive corporation closing up a project that got it's start by selling itself to geeks as Open. It is Google's OS, and it is Google's app, but closing up the Open project to advantage their own app sure as hell feels like poor form | | |
| ▲ | devinprater 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Also I didn't pay for Shorts to be force-fed to me. | |
| ▲ | lucyjojo 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | then don't watch youtube... | | |
| ▲ | xethos 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | This would be fair if Google hadn't altered the deal only after creating the circular "People only upload to YouTube" / "All the viewers are on YouTube" YouTube would not be effectively the only game in town if Google hadn't underpriced their product to drive out competitors In short: If Google had played fair from the beginning, I would have the option to watch streaming semi-pro video elsewhere. |
|
| |
| ▲ | wpm a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Not paying for Premium is pretty cheesy but Revanced also fixes a number of hostile UX changes to YouTube no subscription let you escape normally. It also allows you to patch other apps to make them work the way you want. | | |
| ▲ | moradiyashar8 a day ago | parent [-] | | vless://d8dd94fd-540e-461d-b5d4-acebef02c22a@31.169.124.240:34045?security=reality&encryption=none&pbk=cDaDzPr3PlS3NM8lreHZbdo-Mhqz8vMBzMSkHXhGIUA&headerType=none&type=tcp&sni=visit-this-invitation-link-to-join-tg-enkelte-notif.ekt.me&sid=e8ab71d0#%F0%9F%87%B3%F0%9F%87%B1%40VPNv2ray_Fre
vless://6a8ee307-a1fb-4801-92e2-86253ecdd88d@5.181.21.152:24170?security=reality&encryption=none&pbk=rhEEZAZBX-seWl5f0JmyE19Iwxb5zTNH5yT-FhaS8Hw&headerType=none&fp=chrome&type=tcp&sni=yahoo.com&sid=200f99e321#%F0%9F%87%A9%F0%9F%87%AA%40VPNv2ray_Fre vless://b4b8aa1f-77d2-4851-a5a4-f78886f3e997@deu246.bypassall.org:443?security=reality&encryption=none&pbk=BhTJ3phnq-Z-10aFKSsj1lzhA8mULR4L6leE4-0WTAs&headerType=none&fp=chrome&type=tcp&flow=xtls-rprx-vision&sni=www.bing.com#%F0%9F%87%A9%F0%9F%87%AA%40VPNv2ray_Fre vless://aa077dd1-0a53-4313-8800-c9ac79a97003@sss71534.tas-bazi.com:443?mode=stream-one&path=%2Fsef&security=none&encryption=none&type=xhttp#%F0%9F%87%A9%F0%9F%87%AA%40VPNv2ray_Fre | | |
| |
| ▲ | account42 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I disagree that it's a bad defense. It demonstrates well how reduced openness will allow Google to abuse its monopoly even more. It shouldn't be any business of the maker of my phone to support the business model of the most popular video sharing website. |
|
|
| ▲ | fluidcruft a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Oh is ReVanced that YouTube-without-ads thing? I'm about to install it out of pure spite to reciprocate Google's hostility. |
| |
| ▲ | nodja a day ago | parent [-] | | It's much more than that. It's an app that patches apks and has a series of community patches for specific apps. For youtube it's the usual ad blocking and sponsorblock, etc. but it can apply patches for all apps, one of the universal patches is changing the package name, this allows you to install 2 of the same app. I use this on youtube and tiktok so I have both accounts logged in at the same time, each logged in to a separate app. | | |
| ▲ | fluidcruft a day ago | parent | next [-] | | FYI if you only need two instances of an app, you can use the built-in Work Profile. I wish Android supported more profiles (for even better compartmentalization, like it would be nice to have a similar isolated profile for banking and such). But as-is Work Profile was a pretty great discovery on Android (for me) a year or so ago and a feature I think more people should play with. There's an app called Shelter that builds off the Work profile plumbing to add support for even more profiles. I forget why I switched to using Work profile directly... I think I just wanted to see how the built-in stuff worked. There's other stuff about the Work Profile that I don't remember Shelter providing (with Work Profile you end up with copies of the app with briefcase icon to tell them apart and separate intent handlers, I remember liking that but I don't remember if Shelter supported that sort of thing) https://f-droid.org/packages/net.typeblog.shelter/ | |
| ▲ | horseradish7k a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | when lucky patcher did this, google flagged it as malware with play protect to the point where they had to make a separate installer to randomize the package name |
|
|
|
| ▲ | gdulli a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Apple? I'd never give my money to the organization that's responsible for bringing us to this place. |
| |
| ▲ | nextos a day ago | parent | next [-] | | And Microsoft. Microsoft basically killed Nokia from the inside. Symbian was fairly open in terms of installing applications from wherever you wanted. And Maemo/MeeGo were basically normal Linux distributions. Right now, SailfishOS is a worthy successor. It runs on a fairly decent number of devices and is quite ready for daily usage. Following the Nokia tradition, offline maps are outstanding. There's also a proprietary Android emulation layer that works really well for most applications, in case that is needed. SailfishOS and Jolla could challenge the duopoly if a critical mass of developers migrated to the system. Right now, there's a fairly small technical userbase that has nonetheless produced lots of great indie applications. I can't believe I had Linux in my pocket with the N770 in late 2005 and, right now, mainstream options are so locked down. | | |
| ▲ | bitwize a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Sailfish is not, and never will be, available in the USA. The reason why is because US carriers do device whitelisting: if the handset is not approved by the carrier, it cannot connect. And they're not going to approve anything but iOS and Android. | | |
| ▲ | nextos a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Plenty of SFOS users run the OS on Sony devices, where it has official support, I don't see a major problem. T-Mobile seems to have no problem with them. There are of course caveats, but with a larger userbase things would get ironed out. Still, in the Sailfish forum there are American users that employ their devices as daily drivers. | |
| ▲ | mindslight a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Keep on hacking at basebands. In the US, changing a device's IMEI is only illegal when done with intent to obtain unauthorized service. Using a phone of your choice on your side of the radio wave demarc falls squarely under Carterphone. (Never mind clunkier but more straightforward solutions like a libre device/OS using wifi from a mifi) | | |
| ▲ | bitwize a day ago | parent [-] | | Ah, but once the baseband is hacked, the FCC may declare it out of compliance with its regulations and thus, illegal to transmit! | | |
| ▲ | mindslight a day ago | parent [-] | | Sure, but that seems much harder to notice/enforce than blanket blocks. And while you could always get singled out for enforcement, that won't necessarily stop group momentum. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | cmxch a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Then let the US in. | |
| ▲ | FirmwareBurner a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | >Microsoft basically killed Nokia from the inside. Nokia was dead man walking since the first iPhone dropped and Nokia employees of that time will tell you the same as they also wrote here before. Even before Microsoft took over, Nokia's corporate structure, culture and management was too slow, bureaucratic and cumbersome to modern SW development, to be able to turn the giant ship around and catch up with what Apple and Google have already launched, let alone overtake them. It was game over for them already, Microsoft or no Microsoft. | | |
| ▲ | nextos a day ago | parent [-] | | I disagree. The N770-N9 saga could have competed with the iPhone. Some of these devices came to the market earlier. But the company treated it as a side project due to internal politics. They didn't want to bother Symbian. A classic innovator's dilemma problem. Then Microsoft (Elop) came in, killed the N9, and shifted to Windows. | | |
| ▲ | FirmwareBurner a day ago | parent [-] | | >I disagree. The N770-N9 saga could have competed with the iPhone. Says you, not the market. You are free to disagree, but history proves you wrong. If N770-N9 were such good devices for the gen-pop, they would have beaten iPhone sales to the moon and show Apple that they were wrong, but they weren't. The average user is not your tech savvy HN user who likes to tinker with mobile FOSS Linux devices, and iPhone's success proved this. >[...] due to internal politics. That's exactly what I said. Having better tech is useless if your corporate management, product execution and marketing is shit. That's why Apple and Google won, and Nokia, Motorola, and et-al lost on the free market. | | |
| ▲ | nextos a day ago | parent [-] | | I agree with your point about politics. But marketwise, the N9 sold very well despite the project received no support, and also got glowing reviews [1]. The N900 still enjoys cult status. Posts about this device pop up in HN every now and then. Maemo/MeeGo could have >10% marketshare in some EU countries, just like desktop Linux does right now. The N9 was a very elegant device, ready for the masses, and good enough to become a third mobile platform. The N9 was incredibly elegant and easy to use. The hardware was well crafted, and the card-based UI was outstanding. All applications were well integrated. For example, any messaging application would add its protocol to your contact list, instead of having everything fragmented in apps. Offline maps were second to none. It took a decade for iOS and Android to catch up. It shipped with native support for a variety of VoIP protocols, including Google Talk (Jingle) and Skype. The OLED screen was stunning on the dark mode UI. Mozilla provided a great mobile Firefox port, and there was a native terminal just in case you wanted to ssh to machines or do something from your phone. Tethering or even using Linux running on your phone from a bigger screen worked really well, in 2011. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2011/10/22/2506376/nokia-n9-review | | |
| ▲ | FirmwareBurner a day ago | parent [-] | | >The N9 was incredibly elegant and easy to use. Who cares, is nobody bought it? You need sales to make money because you need money to pay wages and shareholders. Otherwise you're preaching to the choir. The graveyard of history if full of great products and great ideas that didn't catch on for various reasons related to sales, timing, marketing and execution. It doesn't matter if the N9 was good or not in the minds of the tech savvy HN crowd, what matters is that the iPhone beat them on the free market. "The market can stay irrational longer than you can remain solvent" and Steve Jobs understood this better than anyone. | | |
| ▲ | nextos a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > Who cares, is nobody bought it? The N9 was sold out in Scandinavia, and it was outselling Lumia (Windows) in Q4 '11. That's fairly good for something that had no marketing and it had already been labeled as a dead platform. Around 2 million N9 devices were sold. That's on the same order of magnitude as any Google Pixel generation. What could have happened if the device had been phased out is something we can only hypothesize about, but I don't think it's fair to claim it was a fringe device nobody cared about. | | |
| ▲ | FirmwareBurner a day ago | parent [-] | | >The N9 was sold out in Scandinavia If only Scandinavia was as relevant as the US, UK, Asia and rest of the EU for a product to stay in development and in production to remain internationally relevant and competitive to the iPhone. >Around 2 million N9 devices were sold. My LLM research says 1-1,5 Million MeeGo powered Nokia N9 devices were sold by 2011, versus 93 Million iPhones and 237 Million Android devices out of which Samsung had 94 million, similar to Apple at the time. The N9's 1,5 Million wasn't even close, it was orders of magnitude less than Apple or Samsung. So the writing was on the wall by then. How can you even think that they had a chance to be competitive after the numbers of 2011? Based on those numbers they were right to pull the plug back then at the time, the finances spoke for themselves, there was no way for Nokia to turn the ship around in their favor. The line was just going down and even more down. | | |
| ▲ | necovek a day ago | parent [-] | | This is the phone that came out and faced an announcement that development is stopping on the platform a few months before release — that's actually amazing sales considering the circumstances! HP Pre 3 was a similar situation where it was pulled after it was shipped to retailers and operators, but before it went officially on sale — they still sold well even with unsupported system. There were many rugpulls like these, and while they technically make these products flops, they were also not given a fair chance either. |
|
| |
| ▲ | necovek a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | N9 development was stopped by the management despite the success in the market: all Nokia phones started moving to Windows as the "strategic" platform due to a new CEO who joined from Microsoft. Yes, previous management messed up before that point too (they did not ship N700 with GSM chip and marketed it as "internet tablet" so as not to jeopardize their Symbian phone sales, only adding it to N800 and beyond, and then Apple turned their iPod Touch into iPhone and stole their lunch), but they finally figured out a great phone, and then... pivoted. | |
| ▲ | StopDisinfo910 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Who cares, is nobody bought it? Your point was that Nokia had nothing that could compete with the iPhone. You have now been shown this to be patently untrue and that Nokia was killed by an incompetent board bringing in a MS transfuge. Stop trying to move the goal post. You are just wrong. That’s ok, you will survive. Everybody who lived through it could have told you by the way. The first iPhone was a pretty poor device and it wasn’t before the 3 that things started to improve. There was plenty of space to compete. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | GeekyBear a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Apple? I'd never give my money to the organization that's responsible for bringing us to this place. Apple didn't invent walled gardens, and walled gardens are not illegal unless you do what the EU did and change the law. What is going to bite Google on the ass here is selling users an "open" platform and then using anticompetitive tactics to yank those supposed freedoms away. Look at Microsoft's Xbox platform. It was created, advertised and sold to the public as a walled garden with no legal repercussions at all, because walled gardens are not illegal. On the other hand, Microsoft created Windows as an open platform and sold it to the public as such. When Microsoft tried to use anticompetitive tactics to maintain control of the platform they sold as "open", they were found guilty of antitrust in jurisdictions around the world. Google made the choice to sell Android as open. "Sideloading" apps was the only way to install apps at all for the first couple of years. The decision to sell Android as "open" only to yank those freedoms away will have legal consequences again here. | | |
| ▲ | bonoboTP a day ago | parent [-] | | Nobody in this chain claimed that's illegal (or not). It can be hostile, dystopian etc without ever being illegal. | | |
| ▲ | GeekyBear a day ago | parent [-] | | If you don't want to buy into a walled garden, you have the choice not to do so. The problem here is that the people who announced the "open" platform option were lying to everyone in order to gain market share. | | |
| ▲ | bonoboTP a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > If you don't want to buy into a walled garden, you have the choice not to do so. You can still lament the wider societal scale impacts of increasing controls. If both Google and Apple become walled gardens, then what exactly is left? And people need smartphones to get through daily life, interact with banks and government offices. And I bet Windows is going to head down the same path. ID-verified-by-default, only government and corporate-approved apps installable, AI surveillance running in the background analyzing your every click (for your safety) etc. You see, we need that to catch the bad guys. | | |
| ▲ | GeekyBear a day ago | parent [-] | | You can certainly lament anything you like and refuse to buy into walled gardens, but it's not Apple's fault that Google lied to you about their platform being "open". |
| |
| ▲ | wkat4242 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | You can't really if there's only two viable vendors and they're both walled | | |
| ▲ | GeekyBear a day ago | parent [-] | | The problem here is that Google lied about Android being open. The solution is to force Google to keep the promise that they made to consumers, which is the job of the courts. I would expect them to lose yet another antitrust case over this if they don't back down. Does Google want to have Android and Chrome stripped from their control? | | |
| ▲ | wkat4242 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Does Google want to have Android and Chrome stripped from their control? That would be amazing but it's not going to happen. And the EU will back their sideloading validation because they want to spy on all of us anyway. This will be done with a backdoor in each chat app, meaning they want to be able to block unsanctioned apps. | | |
| ▲ | GeekyBear 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | Stripping Chrome from Google's control is already one of the suggested remedies in one of the antitrust cases Google has recently lost in the US. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | itake a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | How are they responsible? | | |
| ▲ | MetaWhirledPeas a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Not only did Apple popularize app stores, they made it impossible to get software on their devices any other way, from day one. Google was the relatively "open" option. But that was the old Google. This is the new Google, apparently. I'm actually pro-app store as long as it's helping apps to be malware-free. But I'm 100% against shutting out side-loading. Side-loading was never common let alone a common vector for malware, at least not that I've ever heard. But what it is, apparently (or we would not see these Google shenanigans), is a long-term threat to Google's own app store. Some idiot executive decided this. | | |
| ▲ | rstat1 a day ago | parent [-] | | >>I'm actually pro-app store as long as it's helping apps to be malware-free Except that it isn't. Epic v Apple proved this on the Apple side. The fact that (according to Google) only 50% of Android malware comes from sideloading should also make you question where the other 50% is coming from. (Hint: a lot of it is from the Play Store) | | |
| ▲ | Aloisius a day ago | parent [-] | | 50%? Source? The only similar claim I can find is they said is you're 50x more likely to encounter malware from internet-sideloaded sources than from the Play Store, but that's rather different. | | |
| ▲ | rstat1 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ok I absolutely misread that as 50%...either way, a not-insignificant portion of Android malware still comes from the Play Store, which was the point I was trying to make. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | kleiba a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I cannot speak for the grandparent, so here's my best guess what was meant: namely the introduction of a centally managed "app store" as the central/only way to install new software on your device, thereby taking control away from users?! Was the iPhone the first device to come with that concept? | | |
| ▲ | blibble a day ago | parent | next [-] | | carriers had similar stores for j2me apps on the original iphone the only "apps" you could have were websites, as apple hated the carrier approach | | |
| ▲ | justsid a day ago | parent [-] | | The “sweet solution” has long been debunked by the people who worked on the early iPhone OS software. The iPhone was always supposed to have apps, it just wasn’t ready yet. Heck, half the OS wasn’t ready either at launch or the MacWorld presentation. |
| |
| ▲ | guyomes a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | On video game consoles, the concept of taking control away from users seems common. There was some Linux kit for the Playstation 2 for example [1]. On more recent console, the process is not facilitated, to say the least [2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_for_PlayStation_2 [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrew_(video_games) | |
| ▲ | CharlesW a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Was the iPhone the first device to come with that concept? Far from it. Before Apple, carriers and handset makers 100% controlled what you could install. "App stores" like Verizon's Get It Now, BREW, and Nokia’s operator portals existed, but they were fragmented, clunky, often exploitative, and comparatively laughable in scope and scale. Apple did what seemed impossible at the time, which was to persuade/cajole/force carriers and handset makers to give up their roles as gatekeepers. They created a single global marketplace with mostly-predictable rules and simple discovery, which finally allowed indie developers to reach users directly just as easily as global behemoths. | | |
| ▲ | GeekyBear a day ago | parent [-] | | Remember when Verizon was sued for forcing device makers to disable Bluetooth file transfers if they wanted their device to be allowed to connect to Verizon's network? Verizon wanted you to have to pay a fee every time you used their software to transfer an image from your phone to your computer, or vice versa. |
|
| |
| ▲ | gdulli a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Even less freedom of sideloading. They normalized it. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | EchoReflection 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Apple and Google are just two heads of the same surveillance-state hydra: https://web.archive.org/web/20201108102009/https://www.bloom... |
|
| ▲ | poulpy123 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Android phones still have a huge price advantage on iphone: the least expensive iphone is 800€, the least expensive Google pixel is 550€ (which is much higher that 2 years ago), and the least expensive Samsung is 300€. |
|
| ▲ | wand3r a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > You can't even unlock the bootloader on most of the quality Android phones. Can you not do this on Samsung phones? I was considering buying a used s22 ultra as an iPhone user to explore more freedom and pirate apps, etc. Is andoid really this locked down now? I have heard that quite a bit, but can't you sideload or install any apps you want on Android? Why do you need to unlock the bootloader? |
| |
| ▲ | orbital-decay a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Not anymore, since OneUI 8. And before that, by unlocking the bootloader you were tripping Samsung's e-fuse, permanently marking the hardware as unlocked. That's why nobody ever bothered making custom firmware builds for Samsung devices. Sideloading doesn't require rooting the device. | | | |
| ▲ | queenkjuul a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Unlocking the bootloader is step 1 in rooting the device (usually) and is absolutely required to install an alternate OS (like grapheneOS) And yeah majority of phones simply won't let you do that anymore |
|
|
| ▲ | wolfi1 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| f-droid would also require google approved devs |
|
| ▲ | pharrington a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why is it weird? You install software on your computer. You install software from your app repository. You install software with your package manager. You install software on your server. You install software on the computers you administrate. "Sideload" was always the weird, Orwellian term. (editted to add repository and package manager points) |
| |
| ▲ | AJ007 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | This is what bothers me about the whole "App Store" stuff with the EU. This entire fight about Apple being required to allow third party "App Stores" -- how about simply the user can load whatever software they want to on the device which they are the owner of? The amount of legalism that's been brought in by both sides, Apple/Google and the regulators, layered in lies (we need to approve the software, register the developers, to protect the user from software), is divorced from the reality of the hardware-software relationship. This has led us down a path where everyone is debating the topics that Google, Apple, and revolving door regulators choose rather than the underlying reality. There is a simple solution to all of this: Google and Apple should no longer be allowed to operate any sort of "App Store" or software distribution channel. | | |
| ▲ | jjav a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > This entire fight about Apple being required to allow third party "App Stores" -- how about simply the user can load whatever software they want to on the device which they are the owner of? The Atari 2600 was an immensely popular home computer for a decade(ish), but it didn't exactly spark the personal computer revolution. Why? Because it used the iphone software distribution model. You could only buy licensed software (in the form of cartridges) even though technically it was of course a programmable computer. So it was as open as an iphone. All the actual progress happened on Apple ][, C64, the Radio Shack computers and later the IBM clones. Because, obviously, anyone could write and sell any software they wanted so the market growth went exponential. A lesson to society, there. | | |
| ▲ | vunderba a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > You could only buy licensed software (in the form of cartridges) even though technically it was of course a programmable computer. In fact just the opposite. Activision was one of the first third-party game manufacturers and Atari tried to sue them into the ground for it. It's widely believed that the massive glut of 3rd party games (with effectively zero quality control) for the 2600 partially contributed to the video game crash of 83 [1]. It's also one of the reasons Nintendo learned from this mistake and enforced everything from limitations around the total number of games a company could produce per year, to the seal of approval, etc. on their Nintendo Entertainment System. Also having grown up with the Atari 2600 - I don't know anybody who would have described it as home computer. It was a video game console first and foremost. Are you possibly thinking of the Atari ST line? [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_crash_of_1983 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_8-bit_computers | |
| ▲ | netsharc a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The original iPhone didn't launch with an app store, and they weren't even planning to have one, only to allow big providers like AT&T to write software for it. Jailbreakers and reverse-engineers figured out the API and how to compile apps for the iPhone, and then they figured out they could rent-seek 30% and created a new department in their company that provides them billions of income stream. | |
| ▲ | queenkjuul a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't think that's true. Third parties produced unlicensed 2600 carts in droves. It was Nintendo that enacted strict licensing requirements. The 2600 just sucked as a computer. | | |
| |
| ▲ | wkat4242 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > This is what bothers me about the whole "App Store" stuff with the EU. This entire fight about Apple being required to allow third party "App Stores" -- how about simply the user can load whatever software they want to on the device which they are the owner of? This is because the EU is not a citizens advocacy platform. They're an economic platform mainly built to smooth the cost of doing business in Europe for multinationals. They don't have our best interests at heart. They care more about a big neoliberal common market. The European project started well but mid 90s it got hijacked by hard neoliberal interests, especially the commission. | |
| ▲ | kcplate a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > There is a simple solution to all of this: Google and Apple should no longer be allowed to operate any sort of "App Store" or software distribution channel. “Simple” solutions can produce unintended outcomes. You want to take a device that is targeted for “everyone” and not just tech savvy people and provide no control or standard to what can be loaded on it? The very idea of it is horrifying to me. You have apparently never sat down on an elderly persons PC in the early ‘00s and tried to sort out all manner of shopping toolbars, coupon widgets, and crapware that has caused their pc to slow to a crawl. It’s literally bad enough with the poor performing apps in app stores but it could be so much worse without it No thanks. | | |
| ▲ | necovek a day ago | parent | next [-] | | That's easily solved, ain't it: check the "tech savvy" box, and all "safeguards" are off? Yet instead, we are getting increasingly fewer phones with unlockable bootloaders and root access available. What gives? I've also checked out my mom's phone a year or so back: she had so many crappy apps from official store that it was barely usable. Stores do not really help. | | |
| ▲ | kcplate a day ago | parent [-] | | What possible motivation would Google or Apple have to appease such a small percentage of their user base? I’m “tech savvy” and I would never click that box. Frankly I can’t think of something more risky than installing some random piece of software on a device that I need and use everyday. | | |
| ▲ | necovek 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | If that's the case, what is a practical difference between you having access to your device or not? You could be installing random crap from the store, or not from the store. Or you could not be installing random apps from either. I don't feel any more protected by device restrictions. Yes, containerization helps, but I like having root on my device (eg. I backup different .sqlite files from different apps through ssh to my phone). My phone has FDE, and is probably not at all less "safe" than yours. | | |
| ▲ | kcplate 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | There are a number of mobile phones out there that are fully open. If you need root, go buy one. You seem to have a specific need that I am quite sure that 99.999% of the mobile phone using world do not have and never will have. If I am apple, I recognize that making a phone that makes the .001% happy probably will frustrate the 99.999%. They are quite happy to give that market of maybe 150k users to someone else to keep their 1.5B users content. | | |
| ▲ | mathiaspoint 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Outside of really niche stuff like the Pinephone there aren't. Because of things like this Android is increasingly incompatible with that use model and these days it's pretty safe to assume "phone" == "corporate administration you have no control over." | | |
| ▲ | kcplate 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | All that tells me is that there is little to no market for these wide open devices and the existing user base is not sweating the use of manufacturer app stores. No one outside of a tiny group of techy tinkerer types really cares. | | |
| ▲ | necovek 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Google Pixel phones for a while have been the phone of choice as they allowed easy root and bootloader access. Not sure if that's still the case, though, as they've been pivoting. Other manufacturers offer it as well — these options continues to exist, and while it's certainly not a high percentage of the market, some of these phones sell because of openness. Niche manufacturers usually focus on "stronger" openness (Librem, PinePhone, Fairphone...) — but they provide subpar hardware compared to mainstream top-end. Eg. most recent release in Volla Quintus (https://volla.online/en/volla-phone-quintus/) uses SoC that is half the speed of Google's Tensor G4 in both single- and multi-threading benchmarks: https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-mediatek_dimensity... So I generally go with phones which can get their bootloader unlocked and which can be rooted, to ensure I have full control of them. I did, in the past, use Ubuntu Phones (Meizu MX4, Nexus 4), HP/Palm Pre Plus and 3 (webOS with full root access), Nokia N9, Motorola A1200 etc — all as my daily drivers. I did get PinePhone, but that thing is sloooow. Since, I've switched to plain Android phones which allow you full control. | |
| ▲ | mathiaspoint 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The idea of a smartphone you control is a little absurd, the whole point of a smartphone is to sell access to you to other people, that's where all the money is. There are plenty of devices you have full control over but they're not called phones for that reason. | | |
| ▲ | necovek 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Uhm, I see that you are playing the devil's advocate here, but I'd note that phones being bought today cost more than laptops sometimes — if that's not where the money is, could we at least get them much cheaper? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | joquarky a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I remember the turning point in one early relationship was when I uninstalled Bonsai Buddy from a friend's computer and caused a meltdown. | | | |
| ▲ | jjav a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > You want to take a device that is targeted for “everyone” and not just tech savvy people and provide no control or standard to what can be loaded on it? The very idea of it is horrifying to me. Were you horrified by the Apple ][? | | |
| ▲ | bartread a day ago | parent | next [-] | | This is no argument at all. When the Apple II was released microcomputers were still very much in the realms of enthusiasts, and were beginning to make inroads into education. The Apple II was never used by “everyone” and nobody expected it to be, even towards the end of its quite long life. No question, it was a stepping stone to where we are today but you can’t compare an enthusiast/early adopter product from nearly 50 years ago to contemporary Android and iOS devices that are intended for “everyone”, in the way you’re attempting with your comment. | |
| ▲ | kcplate a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Nope, but I didn’t have whole countries and millions of bad actors actively trying to steal information and act maliciously on that device either. |
| |
| ▲ | jjani a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Having to caveat it with "in the early '00s" already invalidates your thesis; it means we've managed to largely fix this issue on PC without resorting to giving away device ownership. | | |
| ▲ | bartread a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I don’t think it invalidates the argument at all. I think it’s more a reflection that people mostly use other devices, like phones and tablets, for tasks they might have used a PC for 20 years ago - at least outside an office environment. That’s not to say the PC experience hasn’t improved - certainly Windows is at least more secure - but that it’s not the only factor, and I don’t think it’s the biggest factor either. One data point for you: the last company I worked for, when I joined in 2017, already >50% of external users were accessing our service via mobile devices. | | |
| ▲ | pharrington a day ago | parent [-] | | The formfactor is the biggest, possibly only, factor. The handheld formfactor works way better for most people than a huge (or even small) stationary brick, or even a laptop. |
| |
| ▲ | kcplate a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | You think that companies adopting different technologies to discourage installing software that might be malicious because it hasn’t been reviewed as safe invalidates my argument? Ok, then. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | blfr a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's weird because "sideloading" accurately captures that you're doing something ad hoc outside of the main channel. You install software with your package manager, from the app repository, and you sideload it with `curl | bash` or manually moving an .exe/.msi/.apk. This is a fine distinction. And it will happen and should happen because there are always gaps. Without a way to fill them, you're left with a subpar experience. And while many people are fine with it on their iPhones, I can't really imagine not having ReVanced apps, Molly, or a dozen other little fixes. | | |
| ▲ | gr4vityWall a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > "sideloading" accurately captures that you're doing something ad hoc outside of the main channel. Who gets to decide what the main channel is? For a lot of people here, F-Droid is their main way of installing programs on phones. | |
| ▲ | superkuh a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's not a fine distinction. It's orwellian propaganda. Installation is the normal thing that is the status quo. Having a locked down corporation controlled system that only lets you install things they approve should be called some new word. But the only thing coming to mind personally is "dumb" or "willeventuallybackfireonyoustallation". |
| |
| ▲ | Fire-Dragon-DoL a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | On windows, you mostly download apps from websites and sideload them. And windows is by far the most common OS | |
| ▲ | isaacremuant a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Politician and corporations want you to not have ownership or control over your devices. Either for money or control, but they absolutely would love for things like Linux to not be possible or illegal so they can force you to watch ads and pay their next version of enshitified shit, not consume the wrong kind of news and absolutely not assemble in political opposition to their corruption. If you don't see the patterns of absolutely pathetic authoritianism, which most people cheered on during covid policies times, you're not going be very effective at opposing this crap. |
|
|
| ▲ | MiddleEndian a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >The proper alternative to Google Play is F-Droid, not downloading/baking .apks. Disagree entirely. Google Play refused to download some app on my phone because it thought the specs weren't good enough for whatever reason even though it worked fine on my previous weaker phone. I found the APK, I downloaded it, and just installed it. Why would I want to first download some other middle-man to deal with any of this shit? Ideally there would be no "store" at all on my phone. Editing to add this from the front page of HN right now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45082595 (F-Droid site certificate expired) |
| |
| ▲ | Telaneo a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I'd probably still want a common repo to get software from, for the same reason we use package managers and repos on Linux. Not to mention that the app store experience is more friendly to the newbies out there. But the 'just download an apk/exe/.app and run it' should still exist as a lowest common denominator. Not to mention that the existence of that possibility will hopefully keep stores in check and not become overtly hostile, since if they do, users can just say 'fuck it' and download their software piecemeal. | | |
| ▲ | MiddleEndian a day ago | parent [-] | | In my experience on Linux, I like having a repo for terminal programs, but anything with a GUI I'd rather just install and manage myself. | | |
| ▲ | Telaneo a day ago | parent [-] | | Flathub's proven to be a really nice repo of GUI apps for me at least, so I don't see much of a reason to draw that line. |
|
| |
| ▲ | joquarky a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I wish that standard software development practices included encouraging the implementation of an "I know what I'm doing, stop coddling me" option. |
|
|
| ▲ | JohnTHaller a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There's the fact that on iPhone you have to use Safari's rendering engine and every 'browser' just sits atop it. |
| |
| ▲ | joquarky a day ago | parent [-] | | They're intentionally fumbling on progressive web apps for the same reason. |
|
|
| ▲ | thrance a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Same here, being able to enjoy YouTube without ads is the only thing really blocking me from switching to ios. Silver lining is, maybe if using YouTube is made painful again it'll help me cure my last remaining internet addiction. |
| |
| ▲ | Jordan-117 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I used to think jailbreaking was the only way to do this, and mourned my adblocker tweaks when Apple made jailbreaking practically impossible. But turns out sideloading on iOS is a pretty easy alternative: just install AltStore via your computer, sign in with your Apple ID, and then import and install the YTLitePlus .ipa from their GitHub[1]. This gets you a YouTube clone with adblocking, SponsorBlock, custom UI controls, and all sorts of other quality-of-life features. You can even sign into and sync with your existing YouTube account. The only downside is that free Apple accounts must renew their certificate in AltStore (while connected to their computer's home network) once a week, or else it'll all be deactivated and you'll have to reinstall AltStore and YTLitePlus from scratch. But you can pay $99 for a year-long developer account, set a recurring reminder to renew, or worst case YTLitePlus makes it easy to export your settings so you can quickly restore it after reinstalling. [1] https://github.com/YTLitePlus/YTLitePlus | | |
| ▲ | horseradish7k a day ago | parent [-] | | youtube premium for a year is probably cheaper than an apple developer account though |
| |
| ▲ | Saline9515 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Orion browser (from Kagi) and Brave block natively youtube adds on iphone. | | |
| ▲ | thrance a day ago | parent [-] | | The YouTube app still feels a bit nicer to use than the web mobile client. And with Revanced you can even play vids in the background + a few nice features like sponsorblock and removing shorts. | | |
| ▲ | Fire-Dragon-DoL a day ago | parent [-] | | You can play background videos with brave too. Listened to a bunch of podcasts at the gym |
|
| |
| ▲ | redwall_hp a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I watch YouTube without ads on iOS. Any decent Safari ad blocker stops YouTube's ads. Google seems to make YouTube an intentionally subpar experience in a browser compared to a mobile app, but it works. | |
| ▲ | 65 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | You can install iOS Safari ad blockers. AdGuard for example | | |
| ▲ | blfr a day ago | parent [-] | | ReVanced is so much more than an adblocker though. Yes, it blocks ads but it also skips sponsored segments and other chaff with a SponsorBlock integration. Then it fixes all the little UI annoyances across apps, for example letting you filter out low-view videos and live streams from your TikTok feed. It turns mass market apps into something that an HN user would make for themselves. | | |
| ▲ | krull10 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I’m all for keeping user freedom to install whatever they want, and wish it was easy to do so on my iPhone. I will point out though that if you pay for YouTube premium it has now incorporated the ability to skip in-video sponsored ads. I use this all the time now on my Apple TV via the YouTube app. It is actually pretty hypocritical they’re adding such tech to their apps while fighting so hard against people that want to block the ads they serve… | |
| ▲ | Fargren a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | You can get this experience in Android (without sideloading) using Firefox with the correct plugins. I don't have an iPhone so I don't know if the same is true there. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | nosioptar a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Oddly enough, Google Pixels are easy to unlock the bootloader, provided you didnt get the verizon version. Dont get me wrong, im not accusing Pixels of being "quality". In my experience, they're not quite as good as a free phone from a MetroPCS store. |
| |
| ▲ | wyclif a day ago | parent [-] | | I was with you on "easy to unlock", but the "not quite as good as a free phone from a MetroPCS store" is just a laughable, probably troll take. | | |
| ▲ | nosioptar a day ago | parent [-] | | It's not a troll take. My old shit Alcatel still works. Every pixel I've had has needed repairs. As for calling me a troll, fuck right off, asshole. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | ajsnigrutin a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > However, the crusade against the word and concept of "sideloading" is really weird. Yeah, installing from the repo is normal, and all the windows-land "download an .exe/.msi to invoke an installer" ways that then may or may not update the app are unusual and apart from an ordered process of system management. Wait, let me take out my word 97 CDs to read the "sideloading instructions" booklet. Oh wait, what was considered a normal install Same on mobile phone in symbian era. It's not "sideloading", it's a "normal install". |
| |
| ▲ | leeoniya a day ago | parent [-] | | > Wait, let me take out my word 97 CDs oh, those things you literally load from the side? :P /s |
|
|
| ▲ | 93po a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| revanced is killed on iOS too unfortunately and has been for a long while |
| |
| ▲ | noisy_boy a day ago | parent [-] | | Atleast you get some decent hardware if you have to give up the freedom anyway. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | akarki15 a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Or you can pay youtube premium? Its not free to host these videos... Free lunch is over yo. |
| |
| ▲ | drnick1 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I am not paying for Youtube. Besides the cost, the last thing I want is Google to track what I view through logins and payment details (real name, address, etc.) | | |
| ▲ | akarki15 a day ago | parent [-] | | lmao the hypocrisy. you want to use a service and not pay for it- there's a word for it. its called "stealing". | | |
| ▲ | drnick1 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Google can suck it. I won't pay or turn my ad-blocker off. I look forward to the day enough people do this and Youtube loses enough money to be shut down by Google. Creators will then go back to the good, old fashioned model of hosting their own websites and videos. The Internet was meant to be a decentralized network, not to be controlled by a handful of corporations. I hope GMail dies too. All of the problems we have today in cyberspace (including the "sideloading of apps" issue) only exist because of excessive corporate control. | | |
| ▲ | swat535 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > Google can suck it. I won't pay or turn my ad-blocker off I'm not sure what you want.. You want access to their service, they offer a premium. You don't want to pay, at the same time you are not will to boycott them for moral reasons, so you instead you attempt to circumvent it by using ad blockers.. | | |
| ▲ | wkat4242 a day ago | parent [-] | | It's because they have killed all the alternatives. So you have no choice. Though personally I watch very little YouTube. I have no patience for long vids and even if you pay for premium it's unwatchable without sponsorblock. If i need to start blocking I might as well go the whole way. And no I don't feel bad for Google. This is not some old shop owner trying to make ends meet. It's an evil mega corporation trying to control and monitor our every impulse and enriching their already wealthy shareholders. Nobody will eat a spud less over this. |
| |
| ▲ | akarki15 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Creators will then go back to the good, old fashioned model of hosting their own websites and videos LMAO. Nope they won't. They'll go to tiktok or some other platform where you'll surprise pikachu face have to watch ads. Ads powers internet. Someone has to pay server cost at the end of the day- either pay with your dollar or your attention. There's no other option. | | |
| ▲ | drnick1 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't watch any ads (they are all blocked). I don't pay for any subscription of any kind. I am happy to run my ad-blockers and to sail the high seas. I don't feel bad for trillion-dollar corporations and wealthy influencers. If Youtube dies because enough people do this, so be it. |
|
| |
| ▲ | oskarw85 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Don't choke on that big G | | |
| ▲ | akarki15 a day ago | parent [-] | | Ah I see we are resorting to no-argument argument strategy I see.. |
| |
| ▲ | account42 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'd rather people use a different video host. | |
| ▲ | ekianjo a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | They can enforce it as a paywall then. | | |
| ▲ | drnick1 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | They could, but will likely face a mass exodus to (hopefully) a more decentralized system. Not so long ago people had their own websites and hosted their own content on their own PCs or a local "cloud" provider. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 6329263929 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Why would anybody give this criminal enterprise their money? | | |
| ▲ | surajrmal a day ago | parent [-] | | Why do you use YouTube if you do not find it ethical? | | |
| ▲ | SauciestGNU a day ago | parent [-] | | The content is there, why should I deny myself access to information if I find the entity gatekeeping it abhorrent? Should I also deny myself access to NIH data because of my feelings toward the US government? | | |
| ▲ | akarki15 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Its not "gatekeeping". Its called paying for a service. NIH is funded by US taxpayers. Youtube isn't- they need to pay for the servers; it isn't free, you know. You wanna pay someone else, feel free- vimeo, and a zillion other platforms exist - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_online_video_platforms | |
| ▲ | swat535 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Many creators offer patron or other services, I think you would be hard press to find any creator who only publishes their content on YouTube. You can subscribe to their services elsewhere. | |
| ▲ | spwa4 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think the idea is that you would have issues if someone decided to "fix" the gatekeeping of your wallet ... |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | eybbus a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I wouldn't mind paying for lunch but they want me to pay for dinner and lunch. Just allowed me to pay only for ad free and not include youtube music. I know youtube lite is a thing but its only available to limited countries. | |
| ▲ | laserlight a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Correction: free drugs are over. | |
| ▲ | rs186 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | ReVanced does more than ad blocking, e.g. SponsorBlock and others. And as the parent already said, "I may as well get an iPhone". | | |
| ▲ | akarki15 a day ago | parent [-] | | Well go ahead- g/android isn't stopping anyone from moving to iPhone... I myself use iphone cause I like the hardware quality (over android). I pay for youtube premium cause I like the service (over apple music for example)... You can bellow as much as you want that you are losing a "free service" but nothin is free buddy at the end of the day. You get what you paid and youtube premium is one of the few services I find worth paying... Not worth it, you say? Feel free to bounce to a zillion other video platforms - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_online_video_platforms . | | |
| ▲ | rs186 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't think anyone is debating the morality of blocking the ads. People here care about the ability to even attempt to block ads. |
|
| |
| ▲ | trallnag a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Thanks for paying for my lunch | | |
| ▲ | akarki15 a day ago | parent [-] | | Im guessing you also don't pay for your utilities and tap into your neighbour's wifi/power/water etc? The hypocrisy... |
|
|
