Which is ENTIRELY on Google.
Which is ENTIRELY on Google.
I don’t believe google could place them on a full screen video on iOS.
The YouTube app overlays all kinds of things over full screen video. Link boxes while ads play, for example.
This was more about suitability for the screen format - multiple boxes with small text just didn’t work too well on mobile.
(More towards saurik) Maybe it’s very noble to want to hoard annotations on 100 views cat videos from 2009, but I’m sure the amount of significant losses that won’t be solved by simply adding a comment to the video is next to nothing.
If Apple allowed browser competition then Firefox and Chrome would likely support fullscreen mode (like they both do on Android) and Apple would effectively be pushed to add it to mobile Safari or lose market share.
On the other hand I wish Google would give me the option to bake in the annotations if they're going to remove them. I have a few instructional videos with corrections in the annotations. Those will be gone and the videos will end up being wrong.
and just not leave everything up to Google to decide in the future IMHO.
EDIT: reading farther down, I see the answer to the latter half: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18540470
For me the issue is time. Adding the annotation took 1-2 mins. Downloading the video on youtube (since I no longer have the source material), then loading that into some video editor, adding the annotations, rendering it, and re-uploading it would easily take 1hr per video. So IMO it's not really a good solution. I don't have the time.
Personally I think they should keep the annotations and keep the source video. When you change the annotations they can re-render the video on their end. Keep the 1-2 minute workflow
There is much more to the browser than rendering engine.
Don't reward their shitty dark patterns[0] by installing their app. They have a site that is perfectly amenable to being consumed in a web browser on your phone. They're _already done the work_ to make it work well on your phone, but then they kneecapped it and turned the hard work of all those engineers and designers into lead-gen for their app so they can get your location data.
m.yelp.com: This page will open in another application.
me: tHiS PAgE wiLl OPEn iN aNOtheR ApPliCaTIon.
[0] You can only see the first few pictures, you can only read the first fifty words of each review, and every attempt to go beyond that[1] is met with a redirect to the App Store app
[1] no, they don't make it clear that clicking that "read more" link is going to send you to another app.
we have PROTOCOL already. if i want it to open in yelp it should either start the link with yelp:// or food:// and my os should default to my default food app. if its https:// keep it in my damn browser. google should let me set link rewrite settings per site or type, if i say for example WANT https://youtube to be rewritten on the fly as youtube://filename
Because YouTube has entirely ethical and noninvasive reasons for needing access to contact data and unprompted file storage.
> Lightweight YouTube frontend that's supposed to be used without the proprietary YouTube-API or any of Google's (proprietary) play-services.
Contacts is probably for sharing videos and storage might be cache?