- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
We should be fighting the laws that enable them to do this shit instead of whining about how Apple is adhering to them being allowed to protect their IP from people circumventing their bullshit forced ads.
Apple, for all their faults elsewhere, is only complying to what YouTube has a legal right to do. Don’t like it? Go after the law. Not those that have to abide it.
The problem isn’t Apple. It’s the laws that allow YouTube to do the heinous bullshit they do.
Man. Lemmy really needs a stickied post in every community that defines nuance and how to properly use it in everyday situations.
YT shooting themselves in the foot here. Someone makes a third party client that keeps ads and doesnt allow for downloading, and generally (probably) makes the YT experience not absolute shit and they have to get rid of it, ensuring people just keep using the ones that don’t.
I am typing this on Voyager, but would love to have a Lemmy client developed by Christian.
I had forgotten the name of his Vision Pro app, so I was very confused. Is it 1998 and they’re banning my dial-up internet/email service?
Juno: Because email was meant to be free!
Dang, I used to have so many Juno disks. What a flashback.
This is why side loading is important. Fuck apple and google
“Sideloading” isn’t a thing. That’s a term to shame and discredit people and apps installed outside of the official stores. Just like people got shamed by “jaywalking” for merely crossing the street. Both of those things were, are, and always should be the norm.
That’s a term to shame and discredit people and apps installed outside of the official stores.
…where ever did you get that idea from?
Because it isn’t real. You aren’t “sideloading”. You’re simply installing apps. You’re not doing anything different, other than using a source that the big company does not like.
It needs a definition because it is a thing that happens though.
You need to differentiate between installing from the app store and installing from other sources, you might not like the choice of word, but we need a word to define it.
Yes but sideloading makes it sound like something dangerous to people that don’t know any better. This is by design.
sideloading makes it sound like something dangerous
…according to whom? Who came up with this? If they called it “dangerloading” I’d be all on your side.
For tech illiterate people, it sounds bad.
I guess we were all sideloading apps on Win 7 and other prev gens
Now that there’s a Microsoft/Windows app store, any app not sourced there is sideloaded.
It has a definition already, which is the same it always has been. And no, you don’t need to differentiate this. We’ve always installed applications from outside sources. Hell, until recently there weren’t even official app stores and shit. Locked down operating systems where you only get what the tech giant wants you to get is a very recent development in order to take control away from the user.
The reality is that there is a difference now, and it needs to be clarified. How would you, talking to another regular human being communicate to install an app that isn’t in the official app store succinctly? If you just tell someone to ‘install the app’ then you are doing a bad job communicating. Economy of language means that new words are going to form to distill common concepts.
Package managers have existed for a long time, so the concept of app stores isn’t new and is actually generally the accepted solution by the open source community. It’s typically regarded as the safest way to install software as it comes with auditing and active management.
Side loading does a great job at communicating what is being done, and it helps consolidate the various ways you actually install applications into a nice generic term.
A store being locked down doesn’t really have much to do with the concept of side loading anyway, since a locked down device doesn’t support it in the first place.
That didn’t answer my question.
Sideloading just means you’re installing apps from outside the first party app store. Im not sure where youre getting the shame and discrediting from.
It did, you just did not accept the answer. Installing apps is just installing apps, regardless of its source. That’s it. Sideloading, just like jaywalking, makes it sound like you are doing something dangerous, something forbidden, something you should not do. The whole locking down of operating systems is to take control away from the user.
Sideloading is a term that’s been around for decades, it’s not some made up word by tech giants to make people scared of installing apps.
The term originates from a designation for transferring data between physical devices and was slowly adopted (because language is fluid) to its current definition (by people on forums like xda).
This isn’t some conspiracy and Google and apple don’t need to use coded language to prevent you from side loading, apple for example just outwardly and bluntly forbids it.
It did, you just did not accept the answer.
No. It didn’t. You just repeated the same statement with no explanation or justification.
Installing apps is just installing apps, regardless of its source.
You’re mad that a term exists that specifies their source?
Sideloading, just like jaywalking, makes it sound like you are doing something dangerous, something forbidden, something you should not do.
…how? Honestly this sounds like something you made up in your head. I don’t understand why you refuse to answer the question.
The whole locking down of operating systems is to take control away from the user.
I don’t understand what that has to do with this conversation.
Maybe look for someone else, because I really don’t have the time nor motivation for delusional internet arguments with willfully obtuse people.
this sort of thing is exactly why mozilla, firefox, and - more specifically - a non-profit internet is essential to it’s survival. two for profit ad-driven companies being the gatekeepers of the internet is horrible.
I was extremely surprised that Apple let Christian publish this originally, they have blocked alternative YouTube clients for years. At the time I thought that Apple is doing this to spite Google who didn’t release native app for VisionOS. Christian had a good relationship with Apple and could deliver something high quality so there’s that too. Curious that they changed their mind but it’s safe to assume Apple and Google had to work it out.
Sent from
ApolloVoyagerPoor Christian. First Reddit now YouTube
He’s a great developer but he needs to find a way not to be so reliant on giant tech companies to make his apps viable.
All technology development stands on the shoulders of giants. It’s unethical for modern giants to refuse to continue the tradition.
the app in question was
- on Apple App Store
- for Vision Pro
so your alternatives might not be the best fit here.
Haha, ooooooooops.
(But hey, I guess Android users can get some mileage out of it.)
I hope this frees up time to invest more time in a passion project for himself. I want nothing but contentment for that guy.
Read this as contemptment 3 or 4 times and was very confused.
