- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
Watched Louis Rossman today, and he’s part of the team behind a new app for watching online video content - not just youtube, but nebula, peertube, twitch and more.
adblock already integrated, works amazingly with a quick test on my end - it’s an app in the Lemmy spirit
(it’s got a paid model similar to winrar, you don’t have to pay - but they do want you to - opensource and all)
You must log in or # to comment.
basically Newpipe but only source available, not really free software or open source, so they are restricting your freedoms.
Just keep using Newpipe instead.
It is open source but you can’t publish modified code (this is to ensure there will be no malicious forks like there was with newpipe)
plus you missed the entire point:
… app for watching online video content - not just youtube, but nebula, peertube, twitch and more.
It’s an app that allows you to watch the same creators across many platforms
FLOSS or die
The term “open source” generally refers to the definition by the Open Source Initiative.
Not allowing publishing of modified source code is in violation with the criteria of open source.
It’s not enough to make work around for YouTube. We need a new YouTube.
There are several "new YouTube"s. The problem is getting people to transition to them. And this is intended to do exactly that.
True, but with the ability to combine all competitors in a single feed a significant hurdle has been removed
What’s Piped?
Piped is alternative frontend, so still youtube
that’s literally the whole point of this?
the point of this is a new youtube is unlikely to take off because people can’t start using it without missing all their regular content.
this means you can keep all your regular content and add new sources, with the same creators, which means they can start to move to new platforms and take their followers. that’s how we’ll replace youtube.
ReVanced taps into my history with microg. When I watch stuff on desktop with Firefox and uBlock Origin, I want those videos to show as watched on my phone when I open ReVanced so I don’t get recommended the same stuff. That works.
GrayJay can’t do this. It’s not better. It’s a good idea, but it’s a side grade.
Grayjay can do this - there is a toggle in the settings for the YouTube addin to sync watch data with your Google account.
It’s a one-time sync though. If I want history from what I watched on my desktop today I have to resync.
As lemann pointed out there’s a setting for that in the YT add-on im the sources tab, not the app settings. Also myself and others have had loading issues with Revanced. It’ll start playing, suddenly start buffering and never stops. Grayjay works as it should and still has the settings I want from Revanced. Not to argue, just want to let others in my situation know Grayjay is the upgrade we need.
I had that issue and it was because I needed to update Revanced.
That’s what I saw in a reddit post way back but updating and reinstall never fixed it. I was using YT on browser for a while just because it was more reliable and didn’t have ads. UI sucked ass though. Ky biggest critique on Grayjay so far is the lack of vertical swipes to adjust volume/brightness.
I’m having the same problem with revanced right now. Buffering and pausing and often never recovering.
Make the jump to Grayjay, my friend. It’s worth it.
Thanks, I actually have it installed and I’ve been playing with it. It’s been playing smoothly.
The problem is that the authentication with my account is failing, so I can’t get my subscriptions and watch history. I’m still working on figuring it out
That’s the exact opposite of what most people want from an app like this.
It’s what I want from an app like this 🤷♂️
It is an interesting project, not sure where it goes. The title is deeply misleading though. The features of ReVanced make YouTube so much better, whereas this project doesn’t seem to be about making YouTube better so much as circumnavigating YouTube for the comment boxes and as your hub to creators. They seem to be doing different things.
What do they do differently?
please edit this post to remove the incorrect claim that this is open source, as it is clearly not.
I have found three comments from you, where you insert yourself as an expert on what Open Source is/not is. Although you do link to some sources, you do so without arguing your point. IMO this is not a constructive way of communication. Since I believe your perspective is purist but overall not too helpful, I will go through the trouble an actually argue the point:
Your problem is following sentence published by the OSI: “The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources.” Which FUTO does - they won’t allow you to put ads on top of their software and distribute it. But I hope that you would agree with me that GNU GPL is an Open Source License. However, they do have a copyleft which practically makes selling software impossible. If you use a library which uses the GPL, you have to make your sources available - which makes selling a compiled version a difficult task…
If we look at Wikipedia, we see following sentence: “Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for use or modification from its original design.”, Grayjay fulfils this. Wikipedia continues: “{…}. Depending on the license terms, others may then download, modify, and publish their version {…}”, you are allowed to download and modify Grayjay. They do not allow you to commercially distribute your modifications, which is a license term.
Lets look at a big OSS company. Red Hat writes: “An open source development model is the process used by an open source community project to develop open source software. The software is then released under an open source license, so anyone can view or modify the source code.” These criteria are fulfilled by the FUTO TEMPORARY LICENSE (Last updated 7 June 2023). Red Hat does not mention the right to redistribute anywhere I could find it.
To those who actually read up to this point: I hope you find this helpful to form your own opinion based on your own research.
You can argue that “open source” can mean other things that what the OSI defined it to mean, but the truth of the matter is that almost everyone thinks of the OSI or similar definition when they talk about “open source”. Insisting on using the term this way is deliberately misleading. Even your own links don’t support your argument.
A bit further down in the Wikipedia page is this:
Main article: Open-source software
Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for use for any (including commercial) purpose, or modification from its original design.
And if you go to the main article, it is apparent that the OSI definition is treated as the de fact definition of open source. I’m not going to quote everything, but here are examples of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definitions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Open-source_versus_source-availableAnd from Red Hat, literally the first sentence
Open source is a term that originally referred to open source software (OSS). Open source software is code that is designed to be publicly accessible—anyone can see, modify, and distribute the code as they see fit.
…
And if we follow that link:
In actuality, neither free software nor open source software denote anything about cost—both kinds of software can be legally sold or given away.
But the Red Hat page is a bad source anyway because it is written like a short intro and not a formal definition of the concept. Taking a random sentence from it and arguing that it doesn’t mention distribution makes no sense.
Here is a more comprehensive page from Red Hat, that clearly states that they evaluate whether a license is open source based on OSI and the FSF definitions.
It’s not open source. It’s source available.
Its open source, not free software.
I was excited about this but it’s mobile only?
With how locked down mobile is compared to desktop I think it’s a good thing to start with mobile
WDYM by locked down?
It sounds interesting, but… Android only? I don’t actually watch much video on my phone. It’s mostly on my desktop browser.
There are no ad blocking YouTube apps on iOS so I suspect Apple blocks them. The DMA will soon let us in the EU install whatever we like, but fuck Apple.
Is it better than NewPipe x SponsorBlock?
