165
submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

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

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 215 points 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.

[-] rdri@lemmy.world 68 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Manuel Vonau • Senior Google Editor

(2251 Articles Published)

[-] ElPussyKangaroo@lemmy.world 47 points 1 year ago

Given that Revanced patches the YouTube app, Monsieur Vonau is most certainly wrong.

[-] Marruk@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Manuel Vonau

From his bio on that site (https://www.androidpolice.com/author/manuel-vonau/):

Manuel studied Media and Culture studies in Düsseldorf, finishing his university career with a master's thesis titled "The Aesthetics of Tech YouTube Channels: Production of Proximity and Authenticity." His background gives him a unique perspective on the ever-evolving world of technology and its implications on society. He isn't shy to dig into technical backgrounds and the nitty-gritty developer details, either.

So he's a marketing guy with possibly zero tech background beyond watching YouTube videos, who isn't afraid to discuss "nitty-gritty developer details" despite apparently not actually understanding them.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] LWD@lemm.ee 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 10 months ago)
[-] echodot@feddit.uk 11 points 1 year ago

I don't know any apps that work like that. I'm pretty sure even the YouTube is just an app

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] FrostKing@lemmy.world 19 points 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 19 points 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.

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 11 points 1 year ago

The recipe thing... OMG lol...

Peanut butter and jelly recipe:

My family had a farm and my mother loved to run around with the chickens. We would play kick the neighbors dog all summer while the crows chased my father around. Donkey season can be a wonderful time when the leaves just start to turn and the beavers come home for winter. Three times in my life have I encountered such joy, one was when I had my first hit-and-run, the second was when I learned how to make napalm, and finally the last joy was in writing such absolute nonsense that just wont ever end when all you wanted was a goodamn simple fucking list of ingredients and maybe a temperature to cook at. Well the seasons change and I still waffle on, maybe one day you'll get your recipe, but you won't find it here. Or will you? Turn to page 36 for recipe, turn to page 4 to continue down this path into madness with me.

Recipe: Peanut butter. Jelly. Bread.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] bstix@feddit.dk 143 points 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.

[-] nutsack@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't understand this toxic level of optimism found on this platform. if they do client integrity checks, nobody will be able to use an ad blocker. you will have to use an approved YouTube client. it will result in higher ad revenue to Google.

all of these folks who are using revanced will watch annoying ads repeating a thousand times over and the content of the ad will be stuck in their brains exactly as intended. the companies that pay for the ads don't care if you think you are immune to propaganda. they want you to watch.

what part of this is imaginary?

[-] bstix@feddit.dk 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

companies that pay for the ads don't care if you think you are immune to propaganda. they want you to watch.

They don't pay for ads just to waste my time. They buy ads to sell products.

Forced advertising does not work on the kind of people who already do everything they can not to watch ads.

if you think you are immune

I'm literally not watching my phone if YouTube or other stream goes into ad mode. I do not see the ad.

The imaginary part is that Google gets paid just as much for showing ads that don't work as they do for showing ads that do work.

Forced advertising is good for Google. It's not good for the users nor the companies who pay Google.

[-] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 1 year ago

That's not true. Do you think, say, coca cola cares if you click on ads? Not all ads are looking for clicks. Some just want to get impressions.

[-] bstix@feddit.dk 21 points 1 year ago

Yes it is true. They don't make an impression when I don't see it.

Call me old fashioned, but I have hands. I physically put my phone away because I do not want to watch the screen on my phone when the screen is showing an ad instead of showing what I wanted to see.

Companies are paying Google to show me ads that I don't see.

Coca Cola's brand recognition does not come from YouTube ads. It comes from signs in the real world, visual merchandising in stores and product placement in shows.

[-] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 year ago

Absolutely. There are petrol pumps that play fucking ads. What do I do? Enter car. That’s horrifying to me.

I haven’t had YouTube ads for a long time thanks to Firefox focus but if I did? I’d probably abandon the platform. Otherwise I’d just put my phone upside down for as long as the ad might be.

You’re entirely correct. I refuse to ads. I wish billboards were illegal here. Ads are a fuck.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 8 points 1 year ago

This is only true for large, legacy companies like Coca Cola though. This doesn't work for startups shilling shitty headphones, flashlights, VPNs, mobile games, etc because you're unlikely to randomly come across their product when walking around the grocery store for example.

[-] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The majority of ads are toxic on a medical need level for me. I’d sooner build an ai to prewatch and live record videos. Cutting out the cursed segment.’

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 18 points 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.

[-] Player2@sopuli.xyz 37 points 1 year ago

On the other hand, they are spending real money on development time to fight against an army of independents doing it for fun or personal satisfaction. That's throwing money into a hole they can never fill up

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] bstix@feddit.dk 18 points 1 year ago

Well, that part is working really well. I've been using YouTube less and less every time they've worsened the free service. I don't even bother with the revanced loopholes, I'll just don't use YouTube to find stuff. Most of the content is made for monetisation purposes anyway.

I'm not saying they shouldn't do it, or that I don't understand why. It's just a prime example of the internet going to shit.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] bitwaba@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

If you give thumbs ups and add comments, you're still providing user generated content that increases the value of the content you watched, so they're still getting something out of it. Your contributions could go on to drive someone else to watch the video which could end up seeing the ad you blocked.

It's a question of what that value is that you've provided to the service. It's the same question Reddit will be finding out the answers to over the next couple months.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] not_that_guy05@lemmy.world 67 points 1 year ago

No matter what, people will always find a way to mod the apps they really want to have free.

[-] Corngood@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 year ago

There's definitely a danger if attestation becomes widespread enough that they can require it.

Not a danger of being unable to mod the apps, but they will be able to restrict access to their servers to the official unmodified app, when it's running on specific trusted operating systems.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] AnarchoDakosaurus@toast.ooo 19 points 1 year ago

Yup. I remeber the girls at school listening to bootlegged YouTube videos from shitty rip off apps from the appstore lol. Before revanced, there was vanced, after revanced, a new Phoenix will emerge. The people will it.

[-] Butterpaderp@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

Electric boogaloo

[-] redcalcium@lemmy.institute 8 points 1 year ago

Reeeeeeeeeeevanced

[-] key@lemmy.keychat.org 11 points 1 year ago

I remeber the girls at school listening to bootlegged YouTube videos from shitty rip off apps from the appstore

That could have been yesterday or like 15 years ago

[-] AnarchoDakosaurus@toast.ooo 7 points 1 year ago

Haha fair enough. For what its worth they had iPhone 4's and Ipod touches. It was close to a decade ago then it was to yesterday.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Caligvla@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 1 year ago

Of course they would, the bastards. I'm assuming that would also affect newpipe and freetube too?

[-] takeda@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

At first I thought so too, but I believe those might still work as long as the attestation feature doesn't end up in browsers. Those applications likely can still pretend to be web user.

ReVanced is special because it patches original YouTube. So if the original YouTube would start doing this kind of verification, after being patched it would stop working. To fix it the whole playback code would have to be replaced, but at that point why not use NewPipe or GrayJay.

BTW: Google is doing that because it has monopoly in that market. They similarly have monoly with browser market. Still after uproar they backed off. We really should try to break it and apps that support multiple platforms (like mentioned NewPipe and GrayJay are probably the best way to dethrone them)

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] HouseWolf@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago

I'm making good use of yt-dlp while I still can

[-] PeachMan@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

The amount of copium I see in these comments is staggering. Google owns the Youtube app, they own the Youtube servers, they even own the damn operating system you're running it on, and they're one of the richest companies in history. Do you REALLY think they couldn't shut down ReVanced if they wanted to? Are you really that naive?

The moment they decide to put even a small amount of effort towards shutting down ReVanced or the others, they're as good as dead.

[-] bassomitron@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They've already tried to kill it like a year or two ago with their last major API changes. This is just another attempt at it.

Google may be wealthy, they may be in control. However, they're still limited by how the technology fundamentally works. You can only secure something so much before you inadvertently damage your own product's functionality by restricting its access too aggressively.

Another thing to remember, YouTube is used by literal billions of people across the entire planet from virtually every notable OS capable of doing so. Locking it down so that only one type of app and web browser can access it would cause them to lose millions of eyeballs and ears, i.e. hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue over time. It'd have the exact opposite effect of what they're trying to do (increase ad profits).

[-] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Technically they could, but the effort and checks required to do so would be massive and very disruptive to android in general. They tried something kinda like it with SafetyNet, and it's so trivial to bypass it's being phased out.
Turns out root detection is kinda easy to circumvent if you have, you know, root access.

[-] Contend6248@feddit.de 8 points 1 year ago

The effort is so small that they decide not to?

Yes you know your stuff

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] AlmightySnoo@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Can someone confirm whether YouTube ReVanced really uses WebView?

[-] takeda@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

I don't think it matters. ReVanced patches original YouTube so it will use whatever YouTube is using. Even if current YouTube app doesn't use WebView that's nothing stopping them from adding it in the future.

If I'm reading article right, Google supposedly "discontinued" the attestation technology in Chrome, because of the shit storm, but looks like they are thinking of adding it to Android and use it to verify the devices and applications are genuine. The YouTube server for example might refuse to serve the video if the application is not genuine.

[-] Corngood@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago

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

[-] alvvayson@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Indeed. And if they decide to brick or degrade all legacy apps, people will just transcode and torrent.

Information wants to be free, and millions of people have the skills to make it happen.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] NumerousGeorg@sopuli.xyz 5 points 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.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2023
165 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59227 readers
3057 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS