Google could kill YouTube Vanced for good::The company is exploring an integrity API that could lock down WebViews with DRM

  • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wow, this article is just like 100% wrong. I’m surprised no one has mentioned this yet.

    To get why this could be a problem for YouTube Vanced’s successors, we need to understand how they work. Rather than modding the YouTube app itself, Vanced apps are essentially tweaked and modded browsers that display videos via a WebView that shows YouTube, adding extra features to the experience like adblock and other YouTube Premium perks. If YouTube was able to check which apps or devices are trying to access its servers before displaying content, this would be an easy route to stop Vanced successors from working.

    The YouTube-app, and Revanced in turn, does not utilize a WebView to display video. They are most certainly not ‘modded browsers’.

    Seriously, who wrote this shit? An AI? It’s baffling.

    • FrostKing@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m surprised no one had mentioned this yet

      It’s because there’s an annoying trend of everyone reading the headline and not the article. Drives me bonkers

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Headline: “THING IS HAPPENING”

        Body: “Here’s 1000 words unrelated to the headline. Here’s some ads. Here’s interviews with three people saying nothing of interest. Here’s the thing you clicked under the headline for and it adds a bit of nuance to the headline along with a bunch of waffling and uncertainty. Here’s a pointless anecdote. More ads! Here’s a recipe for chicken wings and a bunch of pictures of celebrities. Oops! Article ended a full screen ago. Nothing down here but clickbait and more ads.”

        Gee, I wonder why people just take the headline at face value.

      • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        To play video, the YouTube app does API calls directly to the YouTube API instead of loading any web code, then gets a reference to the media to play back and plays it back in a native media playback SDK.

        Revanced does their stuff the way they do by manipulating the bytecode that the YouTube app consists of, to add/remove things.

  • bstix@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s a waste of time. People who bother installing Vanced are not likely to click a single god damn ad even if it’s forced on them.

    So yes, Google can choose to bother some people and get higher statistics on ad views, but the companies paying for the ad will not see one single fucking sale more. This lowers the value of the ad.

    They’re chasing imaginary revenue.

    The value of exposure isn’t real either. The phone might play it but I don’t fucking watch something that I don’t want to watch. I’ve been online since before online ads were a thing and not once have I bought anything from any online ads.

    Just let me opt out of that circus for fuck sake.

    • EmergMemeHologram@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not all ads are cost per click, many are priced by impression, and that traffic to Vance’s costs money.

      So they would make more money blocking Vance, but the impressions from Vance’s users are likely the seething “I’ll never buy from you for making me watch this ad” type.

    • phillaholic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you aren’t paying them for Premium, or viewing their ads, you’re literally costing them money. They’d rather stop you from even consuming the bandwidth.

      • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Does it really cost them? If we take it to the extreme and say everyone collectively decided to stop costing them money by watching their content for free, what would that do to the value of their platform?

        • phillaholic@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, Bandwidth, servers, storage are all expensive. If everyone stopped paying or seeing ads they’d kill the product and you’d have nothing. There is no viable replacement for YouTube. Most channels would cease to exist. Only the larger ones would be able to afford to figure out how to keep going. The ladder would be pulled up for any small or new creator looking to break in.

          • Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            It would suck but things would go on. I’m sure other places like tiktok would salivate at the idea of a YouTube exodus. Also there’s other platforms that would gladly have, at least, subsections of YouTube. Plenty of other places to post your gaming videos.

  • Corngood@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Surely as long as there’s a way to access YouTube on devices without attestation, this won’t kill anything.

  • NumG@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t understand why YouTube doesn’t use the stupid blob video format (I don’t know the technical details, maybe it’s about drm protection) already. It almost makes it impossible to view a video in something other than the player it came with and I don’t like that.