Google could kill YouTube Vanced for good::The company is exploring an integrity API that could lock down WebViews with DRM
No matter what, people will always find a way to mod the apps they really want to have free.
Google could kill YouTube Vanced for good
Submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world [bot] to technology@lemmy.world
https://www.androidpolice.com/google-kill-youtube-vanced-for-good/
Comments
not_that_guy05@lemmy.world 1 year ago
soggy_kitty@sopuli.xyz 1 year ago
I wouldn’t be so sure. If you hang around for 10 years I would love to have a conversation after that length of time and see if you agree with yourself here
db2@sopuli.xyz 1 year ago
This is just the mini version of what they tried to do in Chrome. Since you don’t have to use the built in webview it’s meaningless.
deweydecibel@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Apps can easily be redesigned with some kind of webview integration, and some apps already do have random things that bring up webview, and thia would kill them on a rooted device.
The inherent issue here is they’re arguing this will help prevent fraud, but they’re not looking for fraud. They’re looking for an altered device and assuming fraud.
db2@sopuli.xyz 1 year ago
I nuked a food app recently because instead of opening so I could give them money in exchange for food they decided to police my phone for PCAPdroid by way of refusing to run beyond showing a message stating that I can’t have PCAPdroid installed and closing after a 5 second timeout.
Fuck you, Papa Murphy’s. What’s your app doing that you’re afraid I’ll be able to see? You’re blacklisted for life now.
db2@sopuli.xyz 1 year ago
What I meant though was you aren’t necessarily stuck using Google’s webview, though they make it non-trivial to jailbreak from theirs.
Caligvla@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
Of course they would, the bastards. I’m assuming that would also affect newpipe and freetube too?
takeda@lemmy.world 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.
HKayn@dormi.zone 1 year ago
Consumers have created this future by flocking to YouTube and nothing else.
PeachMan@lemmy.world 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 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.
You have 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, 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 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.
Contend6248@feddit.de 1 year ago
The effort is so small that they decide not to?
Yes you know your stuff
gian@lemmy.grys.it 1 year ago
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.
Possible. Now what it is missing is the part that should convince the ReVanced user to accept the new situation (they must bear the Ads) instead of stopping to use the service. Remember, Google if fighting against people that are already taking active actions against them, not the Average Joe user.
And in all this, Google cannot risk to put too many hops in the path of the Average Joe users as there is the risk that the common user consider that, all in all, the service no more worth the headache to use it.
HouseWolf@lemm.ee 1 year ago
I’m making good use of yt-dlp while I still can
AlmightySnoo@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Can someone confirm whether YouTube ReVanced really uses WebView?
db2@sopuli.xyz 1 year ago
It’s the official app apk with some mods. So probably not.
AlmightySnoo@lemmy.world 1 year ago
In that case the premise of the entire article is wrong then.
takeda@lemmy.world 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.
muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world 1 year ago
If they are testing application genuinity im more concerned they might break all the google services hacks etc used by graphene os.
NumerousGeorg@sopuli.xyz 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.
onlinepersona@programming.dev 1 year ago
Android WebView Media Integrity API
Is the WebView based on Chromium? If they add this WebView, how far off would it be from being added to Chromium?
bstix@feddit.dk 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 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.
what part of this is imaginary?
bstix@feddit.dk 1 year ago
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.
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.
webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 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.’
EmergMemeHologram@startrek.website 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 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 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
bstix@feddit.dk 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.
bitwaba@lemmy.world 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.
CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 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?