I don't understand why a new app if this could just be an additional feature in the current app. Doesn't this lead to fragmentation and confusion?
They seem to like to make new stuff, rather then upgrade their existing stuff. Then every second year they just go through their stack and deprecate 30% of it.
[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and...
At least 6 apps.
Youtube, Youtube Creator Studio, Youtube Kids, Youtube Music, Youtube Gaming, Youtube Go
YouTube Creator Studio of course is a different app for managing your channel - which is great - I think it's a fantastic separation of concerns. One app for consuming, another for moderation/management.
But then yes, you've got:
* YouTube (proper) * YouTube Kids * YouTube Music * YouTube Gaming * YouTube GO
and I believe more are coming.
Don't forget the cleanest, best-performing one: the classic "Basic HTML" interface. Which manages to be much faster for most operations than Inbox or the AJAXified normal version despited having to reload the whole page.
JavaScript is great for improving the user experience, but it's often vastly overused and just makes me scream for simpler times such as the classic web app.
JavaScript for dynamic forms and validation, and any responsive design functionality it gives me through the use of Bootstrap/SemanticUI... that's it.
Similarly, a kids app is very useful given how many kids are growing up using cheap tablets to stream videos, and I know from watching my nephews that the way they use YouTube is very different from how I use it.
Its a ground-up rewrite of the app with a very different experience focus and for a different audience. It wouldn't make much sense as a feature of the existing app.
>It wouldn't make much sense as a feature of the existing app.
Why?
Because the UX focus is different, the assumed technical infrastructure context is different, and, well, basically everything except the backend service consumed is different. Youtube Go is more distinct in role from the core Youtube app than the other break out apps (which mostly are distinguished by content focus on UX tweaks around the focal content) like Youtube Kids, Youtube Music, and Youtube Gaming.
A ground-up rewrite wouldn't surprise me at all for such a change.
From the screenshots, it looks to be trivial functionality that could be baked into the existing app. Besides the ability to download and play files is not something I consider to be a "HUGE" architectural change.
I don't think it's a technical issue at all, but a "people pay for this feature wherever YouTube Red is available" issue.
Neither do I, but the change here isn't "adding a button or two".
None of these changes seem to be fundamental to me. They seem like trivial changes you expect in an incremental version update.
Do you know what those are or did you just assume that because its Google and so "there must be reason"?
> I can only assume given your comments you've never worked on problems like this.
You may assume it. The alternative explanation is I don't think its all that hard because its not all that hard.
> There's so many benefits you can get from writing an app specifically for low-end Android devices with poor data connectivity.
IMO, all that should be part of the base app. If your app can't handle different workloads (especially as basic as intermittent network connectivity for a video streaming application), its pretty much a huge design fail there.
Also I don't get where the "undoubtedly", "fundamental change", "going to be easier to X" comes from. What is your basis for those statements?
But I’m also a little disappointed it’s a separate app, and country specific from what I can determine. It would be great to see this rolled into the current app without restriction.