- no Picture in Picture support in the iPad app. So I have to use a third party app. I think it supports PiP from Safari on the iPad.
- when iOS 14 came out and supported PiP on the phone, you could use PiP to view Youtube in Safari. Google went out of its way to disable it the next day.
- then people found a work around by viewing in desktop mode. A day later Google disabled that.
- So now I have to use a Shortcut to watch YouTube with PiP.
All of their apps are 'google flavored', they staunchly refuse to design iOS apps which behave like iOS apps.
As a result, I have the strong impression that Android must just be awful stuff that you couldn't pay me to use.
A false impression, I'm quite sure. If someone jumped through numerous hoops to make an Android app behave like a fake iOS app, I'm sure that would be at least as off-putting.
I don't know whether it's arrogance (Google thinks that Material is just the bees knees and everyone should use it) or a deliberate attempt to show off the wonderful world of Google Services on Android, but either way, it leaves a bad taste.
But it took Google 5 years to support split view for Gmail on iPad. There should be a minimum set of functionality you have to support to be eligible to be the default app that goes beyond what Apple requires.
Edit:
Yeah. I hated iTunes on Windows and Safari for Windows during its brief existence. It’s just as off putting seeing an Apple app on Windows that acts like a Mac app.
Don’t get me started about the old QuickTime for Windows back in the day.
Keep cancelling it, but they keep tricking me again.
Even if they never explicitly created a YouTube account.
In fact, if you login to Gmail part of the authentication flow redirects via youtube.com and back.
Probably most people are logged into Gmail or Google Docs, so they don't see the YouTube sign-up request.
Ad-free YouTube = ad blocker in a browser ... while that lasts :)
To preempt the question about content creators: I support the creators I want to support on patreon or by pledging on their website.
If you want people to view your ads then don’t serve content using a protocol that have user agents that run on my machine where I am in control of what they do, or at least if you do, don’t be surprised when I run user agents that do what I want them to do.
Google's alternative is to embed the ads directly into the video at presentation time (which also won’t work so long as I can fast forward).
You could care less who hosts it yet you care to type YouTube.com into your address bar to find the content you want.
In any case, if you think the company doesn't deserve your money, simply don't consume videos via their platform.
If you really mean it, simply stop using the service because the more you use it, the more they retain market share and get to serve more ads to other users. So effectively, you're contributing to their growth.
Live by your word and don't use YouTube if you detest Google that much.
There's no dignity in double standards.
- evading most taxes,
- offering 0 support to users,
- breaking the user experience to force users through their “app funnel,”
- shutting down independent developers without recourse,
- bullying any small fish in their path,
- conspiring to depress labour salaries, and
- shirking any societal or moral obligations,
...that’s just business.
But then when, having observed their psychopathic behaviour, I decide that I don’t want to be part of funding this evil entity, now I’m holding a double standard by accessing the content this monopoly has become the sole gatekeeper for.
Give me a break.
(Leaving untouched the fact that their business model revolves around collecting as much private information as possible.)
And Google still makes money off me because I can’t block their ads on Apple TV—I just don’t want to hand them money from my own accounts. They have become incredibly user-hostile once they felt secure in their monopoly position. That attitude completely turned me off.
Don't fall into the trap of ever trying to build for these guys. No money will ever arrive, only ever more obscure conditions for the money.
There are places where users will pay. Just make things for them instead.
> To preempt the question about content creators: I support the creators I want to support on patreon or by pledging on their website.
Every month, I happily fork over more money than my annual value to google. Only in one case is that money for paywalled material. The rest is purely to support content I enjoy. I would be equally willing to fund a platform that does not treat users and creators as cattle.
It’s true that many users have an inflated sense of entitlement. That has been created by the business model of offering “free” services in exchange for your data. Giving Google money now to get rid of the ads is rewarding them for building monopolies and then bilking their users.
Speaking for myself and not for the average user, I’m not about to fork over my data and my cash to the #1 beneficiary of the user entitlement that you’re describing.
Patreon never allowed porn but I wonder if there'll be a substitution effect with OnlyFans etc. We'll see. I just don't think catering to people like you is a good business. I'd stay out of it, honestly.
It has been encouraging, however, watching more and more creative people switch to a direct relationship with their fans and basically doubling their ad-based income when only a small fraction of their audience signs up.
If 1% of your audience pays you about the same as the revenue from the other 99% through ads, there might be alternative models that can work. Not massively scalable ones, mind, but ones that can still provide a sustainable living without turning the user and creator into the product.
I am holding out for those platforms. In the meantime, I directly sign up with the people I like, and I avoid feeding the beast, trivial as I am.
I get this for free using AdGuard Home[1] that blocks ads at the network level. It's great.