That's kind of the point, they have to monetise somehow. All those hosting servers and data centres aren't free you know. No one seems to complain here about Apple charging for their services.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Pulls Popular Third-Party YouTube App 'ProTube' From the App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yep
His entire app was based around Youtube APIs he hasn't got a leg to stand on. He's probably lucky they aren't suing him anyway.
They can and they've done it before. No idea if it will be the case here though.
First of all, I feel it’s important to state that I’m a big Apple fan and can’t really stand Google/Alphabet most of the time. You’re right about them being an ad agency above all else. But that’s their business model. I tend to avoid using most of their products.
Alphabet’s YouTube and the content creators on YouTube make money from ad revenue. It pays for the servers and keeps everything running and allows them to push out 4K60 video and other innovations that are mind boggling to someone from even five years ago. YouTube has the right to control access to their content however they see fit. Furthermore, they make additional revenue off of selling YouTube Red which offers these additional benefits. Can you really not see how Alphabet is losing money here?
This isn’t a question of whether or not they can do this. They have the right as they own YouTube and control all access to it. What’s in question here is whether they should do it. It is your opinion that they should not. But it’s not up to you, and if you don’t like it, then don’t use their service. If enough people stop using their service, then they will not be profitable and react accordingly. But if their service is valuable enough to people—despite all the limitations they artificially impose—AND they still don’t go elsewhere, then they’ve obviously created something of value and can charge and control access to it however they wish. That’s how capitalism works. It’s why Apple charges so much more for a Mac. Should Apple be forced to sell Macs for the same price as a flimsy PC? No. So YouTube—which let’s face it, is THE video site on the web—can charge a premium if people want special features because they’re a premium service.
Furthermore, if Apple really wanted to push the issue, they probably could. They have enormous sway with Google as most of Google’s revenue comes from iOS search results and being the default browser. Apple could implement APIs in such a way that if you want to play back video on iOS, then it all has to be routed through the same system and you can’t pick and choose a certain feature being disabled such as PIP. In fact, I think it creates a confusing user experience as it’s an inconsistent design pattern when videos playing back inside of apps only sometimes go into PIP when you close them.
I didn't mean it's only usuable for that, but their music offering that is a subscription model collides with all the free music on YT, so they don't want their own free platform to compete with their paid-for offering.
I didn't mean to say it's only meaningful for music, I use YT a lot myself, but that's pretty much why they fight any way to get all that free music on the phone with traditional and convenient listening behavior.
YT couldn't care less how you listen to ASMR or if you PiP'd Let's Plays or tutorials as long as you watch the ads, but both of those as standard iOS features and hence cannot be locked behind a paywall according to Apple's terms, that's why they don't offer it in the first place.
Not that I'd be stocked to get cucked by YT even more with content-specific features, just stating what their logic is and how they COULD find a middle way.
Either way, I'll be rocking ProTube till the very last day.
Glassed Silver:ios
It's pretty amazing how many people don't seem to understand that Google can do literally anything with Youtube and how it is used. They can deny you or me service COMPLETELY just because they feel like it, they don't even need a reason. I am not saying they should or that it's a good idea, but geez, get a grip.
Dangit. I just yesterday needed to wipe my phone as part of the T-Mobile unlocking process and I lost ProTube because of it. For some reason (space probably) neither PhoneView nor iMazing back up the actual apps on your phone and the most recent iTunes backup I can find is ProTube 2.2.1 from 2015. I don't even think there's a way to re-install it, does anyone here know differently?
That’s fair. I’m probably just angry my favorite ad-free client is biting the dust after purchasing it.
[doublepost=1504548075][/doublepost]
I think this will be moot soon anyway. Soon, Google will arbitrarily change some small setting breaking the API & the app, methinks.
Likely. I'm sure that as we speak they're working hard on breaking compatibility.
But I still want to know what app he's talking about. Bought apps are bought afaik.
It's not showing up in my purchased apps.
Clearly a strategic move right before new iDevices come out.
Also, a potential incentive for Google not to break API compatibility for this app just yet would be to prevent some sales of the new iDevices in a couple weeks of those unwilling to watch ads or pay up. But that would be evil.
This, along with the AMP project, is simply an assault on ad blocking. Google wants your eyeballs and doesn't care what you actually get in return. RED content is meh.
They "allow" most features and ad blocking on desktop browsers because they've realized that battle effectively can't be won as long as the desktop platforms are open.
Interesting that while most apps evolve for the better, the YouTube app went down from decent to worthless.
Even their website downgraded to stupid-level by removing Full Screen.
Also, a video app that can't play in the background is a piece of junk. Apple should remove the YouTube app from their AppStore. I use a ton of other alternatives that are much better.
[doublepost=1504554090][/doublepost]
Even their website downgraded to stupid-level by removing Full Screen.
Also, a video app that can't play in the background is a piece of junk. Apple should remove the YouTube app from their AppStore. I use a ton of other alternatives that are much better.
[doublepost=1504554090][/doublepost]
I thought Google's business was data-mining... It seems they want to be our landlords too.
Mmmm... If you bought the app, shouldn't it still appear in iCloud for you to reinstall? It may not be on the AppStore anymore, but because we have iCloud, we should still be able to access the app; or get your money back!
No, they are not. And this is typically US behaviour. In Europe the app would have remained in store. Why? The App is property of the dev and doesn't violate any law. To access web content you may choose any browser you like. Including a browser that supports or incoporates ad blockers. This app is no different to browsers. It's not Apples duty to enforce ToS of any website (which are irrelevant to Apple). Taking opportunities from this dev like that is abuse of their market position and should be subject to a few million dollar fine + compensation to the dev.
tl;dr: Youtube needs to enforce a login if it wants users to buy their sh**y service/app. Guess why they don't do that...
How is everyone siding with the developer? He's repackaged another company's product and sold it for a profit, and then is "getting screwed" when the original company asks him to stop?! That's insanity.
YouTube doesn't allow background listening because of it's agreements with music studios. If background listening was allowed, music would not be allowed on YouTube at all, making it a far worse community. When you pay for YouTube Red, or Spotify, or Apple Music, you are paying the artists for the right to listen to their music. By using an app like ProTube, you're taking money away from artists, not from Google. The subscription fee for unlimited music costs less than one album on iTunes. It's really an incredible deal.
[doublepost=1504558598][/doublepost]
You are incorrect. You're saying that if I created an app that allowed you to access Bank of America accounts and remove money from people's accounts, that wouldn't be illegal? Of course it would. Because I'd be using an app to illegally manipulate another company's services. That's exactly what's happening here.
YouTube's agreements with music studios specifically do not allow them to have music play in the background for free. They have to charge for it, the same way Spotify and Apple Music do. It's not up to Google, and they are contractually obligated to enforce these rules on copyrighted content. It IS a legal issue, no matter what country you're in.
YouTube doesn't allow background listening because of it's agreements with music studios. If background listening was allowed, music would not be allowed on YouTube at all, making it a far worse community. When you pay for YouTube Red, or Spotify, or Apple Music, you are paying the artists for the right to listen to their music. By using an app like ProTube, you're taking money away from artists, not from Google. The subscription fee for unlimited music costs less than one album on iTunes. It's really an incredible deal.
[doublepost=1504558598][/doublepost]
You are incorrect. You're saying that if I created an app that allowed you to access Bank of America accounts and remove money from people's accounts, that wouldn't be illegal? Of course it would. Because I'd be using an app to illegally manipulate another company's services. That's exactly what's happening here.
YouTube's agreements with music studios specifically do not allow them to have music play in the background for free. They have to charge for it, the same way Spotify and Apple Music do. It's not up to Google, and they are contractually obligated to enforce these rules on copyrighted content. It IS a legal issue, no matter what country you're in.
If the API is public -which it is- you can pull the content with whichever client you like to use. A bank account is not a public API. It's a private account. You need a login. The bank doesn't expose account information on a public API. Major difference.
Youtube agreements with the labels are irrelevant to the end user. If google needs to enforce usage of their app (e.g. to comply with labels requirements) they need to close the API and require logins. Simple as that...
EDIT: I'm not saying that streaming content using ProTube or using ad-blockers is fair to the artists/uploaders. My statement is solely regarding how Apple handles this. And this is something solely between Apple and the dev, while Apple now acts on behalf of google to enforce their ToS which practically is between the user and google...
Last edited:
I'd just like to say that beyond everything already said, Google's YouTube app is full of other design failings. The video player has no on-screen volume control necessitating the need to use the physical buttons which is awkward on the iPad when it's resting on its Smart Cover.
There's no fine scrubbing by dragging your finger down like in Apple's standard iOS video controller and the playback bar is at the bottom of the screen instead of the top like all other iOS video players. Why reinvent the wheel when Apple provide a perfectly usable and extendable video controller?
The interface to the comments section is also awkward and horrid to use. The comment box obscures the video so you can't rewind to check something while typing.
They've also skinned most of the UI to look like Android which seems rather churlish as well as making the app look incongruous on iOS.
Finally, the app is a shambles on the iPad. It's been tweaked a bit recently but not too long ago it had a proper iPad interface which they dumped and turned the app into a giant iPhone app (just like most Android apps on tablets...)
The official YouTube app is terrible, I cannot abide a company like Google who clearly have the resources to make the app amazing but deliberately choose not to.
There's no fine scrubbing by dragging your finger down like in Apple's standard iOS video controller and the playback bar is at the bottom of the screen instead of the top like all other iOS video players. Why reinvent the wheel when Apple provide a perfectly usable and extendable video controller?
The interface to the comments section is also awkward and horrid to use. The comment box obscures the video so you can't rewind to check something while typing.
They've also skinned most of the UI to look like Android which seems rather churlish as well as making the app look incongruous on iOS.
Finally, the app is a shambles on the iPad. It's been tweaked a bit recently but not too long ago it had a proper iPad interface which they dumped and turned the app into a giant iPhone app (just like most Android apps on tablets...)
The official YouTube app is terrible, I cannot abide a company like Google who clearly have the resources to make the app amazing but deliberately choose not to.