

YouTube.app - zachwill
http://zachwill.com/youtube/

======
untog
TL;DR: I don't like the idea of having to pay for watching video, and am using
the example of a small child to engender sympathy.

The simple fact of the matter is that running YouTube costs money, and there's
nothing wrong with making users pay for that in the form of ads. You don't
want your sister to have to deal with that? Totally understandable. Maybe
there should be some kind of kid-friendly video network that only shows
appropriate videos (and appropriate comments)? I imagine a lot of parents
would pay a monthly fee for access to that, and bypass advertising entirely.

As I often think when I read posts like this on Hacker News: you've just
identified a market _and_ a window of opportunity. Stop complaining and get
working.

~~~
Xyzodiac
Seriously, Youtube is a business and has to generate revenue somehow. The air
of entitlement stinks.

~~~
iamwil
It's not a sense of entitlement he's expressing. It's being an advocate of
users.

Ads are by definition someone asking the world, "who wants what we can
provide?" The value is often for the person asking, rather than the person
listening. Most of the time, ads rarely match up the two parties well, and as
a result, the company tries its damn hardest to put askers everywhere
listeners are listening. The result making for a sub-par user experience.

Often times in a company's search for revenue, it forgets about the end-user,
and justify unpleasant user experiences with "Well, we gotta make money
somehow." One can say, "well, if you don't like it, then leave." When users
have a first chance to do so, they will, and then who will you advertise to?

The exception are ads in search, where the person asking (advertiser) is
really well matched with the person listening (searcher). Google used
restraint when it came to ads. It could have completely blasted the end user
with flashy banner ads which were typical when it first started. However, it
looked out for basic user value and user experience first. It is possible to
serve ads, and have a good user experience.

The OP never was against paying for a simplified YouTube. It's not against
YouTube making money. But it is against losing sight of the basic value of
watching videos. It's like if you once wrote control tower software, and added
bells and whistles to the point where you're not able to land planes anymore.

Once again, it's advocate for the basic value for the end user. Sometimes,
when adding all the new-fangled stuff, we might lose sight of the basic value.
That's what he's getting at.

~~~
angryasian
wow let's be more self entitled. it's actually the channel owners that decide
to put ads on their channels. so people spend hours, days maybe months
creating content and ask users to watch a small ad in return. If the end user
then subscription and pay to watch should be a successful model but it's been
proven that it doesn't work

~~~
iamwil
Once again, OP and myself aren't against channel owners putting up ads to make
money. We aren't against ad supported video services. However, we are ruining
user-experiences and basic value add while searching for an ad-based revenue
stream. As google has demonstrated with search, there are cases where you can
make money from ads and still have a good user experience. How does advocating
this philosophy imply that I want more than I rightfully and fairly should
get?

When you don't read to understand the main point, and instead allow yourself
to react to a knee-jerk reaction of your own sensibilities, you miss out from
really hearing others.

~~~
angryasian
it sounds like you have figured out a way to display ads to monetize video
that still offers a good user experience better than whats available now. You
sir have a billion dollar idea, why aren't you implementing it.

~~~
iamwil
Now you're trolling.

------
notatoad
YouTube is not a charity dedicated to children's entertainment. They are a
division of a publicly traded company with a legal responsibility to make
money. If they want to add G+ sharing and ads in order to remain a viable
business, that is their prerogative.

Maybe somebody else will make the app you want, with nothing but an endless
selection of free content. Maybe everybody will love it. And then, it'll go
broke or get acquired and we'll have to see a repeat of all the "don't be a
free user" rants that show up on hacker news every time a beloved company wih
no business model either dies or tries to start supporting itself.

~~~
officemonkey
Customers are not responsible for keeping companies in business.

They're also allowed to gripe about businesses who fail to accomodate their
needs, especially when companies use the "first one is free" model to gain
users and then suckify their product to make money (a process I dub
"zyngafication".)

OP seeks a model which already exists. The PBSkids.app is extremely kid
friendly, albeit with limited content. My Netflix queue is also loaded up with
kid-friendly content with zero ads.

Actually, an ad-free kidzone would be a good move for youtube: parents love
trusted brands, and brand loyalty starts young (want proof? What toothpaste
was in your bathroom when you were a child? What laundry soap? What brand of
cola? I'll bet that one of those three brands are in your house right now.)

~~~
notatoad
Sure, customers are allowed to gripe, I'm not trying to tell the OP he isn't
allowed to gripe, just that his gripes are not very realistic.

~~~
notatoad
Furthermore, your PBS example doesn't count: PBS is not a company, they're a
non-profit that survives off donations and government funding. If you like
their app, you should really consider making a donation.

~~~
officemonkey
PBS is a corporation. Just because a corporation is non-profit does not mean
it doesn't count. See also: Wikipedia.

Regarding donations: I didn't say content should be free. My second example
was Netflix after all. I said that having ad-free on-line children's
programming is possible technically and economically.

------
DanBC
I'm surprised that people have zeroed in on the tiny mention of ads in the
blog post. It's mostly a minor point, and isn't really about not wanting to
pay.

Let's make the quote generic:

> And now, presumably, $COMPANY will come out with its own version of a
> $SERVICE app for $PLATFORM focused on sharing to $SOCIALPLATFORM, and
> advertising, and all the unnecessary crap that my sister doesn’t really
> want. She’s going to have to transition from something easy, and useful, and
> fun, to something that’s most likely subpar and not as good as an older
> version.

This is a valid complaint, and it happens to a lot of stuff from a lot of
different providers.

But, if we're talking about adverts: I'd consider subscribing and removing
ads, but that's not an option that Youtube offers. Because I like the content
I watch, and wish to support the creators, I watch the ads. And often they're
lousy. There's no option to tell Youtube to stop showing me this ad that I
have zero interest in. (I AM NEVER EVER GOING TO BUY ANYTHING FROM FUCKING
JACAMO) I might even buy something from an advert if it was relevant to me.
I'm one of the most ad-tolerant people I know, and if Youtube is getting it
wrong for me then they're failing hard.

Also, Youtube keep showing me ads that probably are non-compliant with
advertising codes in the UK. That's a problem.

~~~
brigade
Even if it was mainly about ads I do enjoy the mentality that responds to
people saying "these ads are rather annoying" with "too bad, suck it up and
check your entitlement"

------
donniezazen
_focused on sharing to Google+, and advertising, and all the unnecessary crap_

Too much presumptuousness. Android Youtube app with Google+, advertising and
unnecessary crap is very well designed. Live video streams etc. are quite
useful.

~~~
thrownaway2424
Bingo. The YouTube app on iOS is a pale shadow of the one on Android. Often my
3-year-old daughter has to come running for my help because the iOS YouTube
has inexplicably decided to not do anything. Often this takes the form of
multiple nonsensical pop-up alerts about access to the video being denied or
other nonsense.

If you want to know what YouTube by Google will look like on the iPad, you
need only pick up a Nexus 7 and look at it.

~~~
patrickaljord
Came here to say just that, also their mobile website is quite amazing too.
Best mobile experience I've had so far. Didn't notice any ads.

------
lucian1900
Light grey on white? _Really_?!

~~~
pydave
Agreed. I wonder if webmasters can get stats on how often readers use
Readability or the like to actually consume their content...

To the author: <http://contrastrebellion.com>

~~~
hadem
You realize Hacker News is one of their examples of websites with poor
contrast?

~~~
veeti
So? Hacker News is probably one of the worst designed websites I have ever
used both from an usability and aesthetic perspective. It has nothing to do
with the fact that this blog post is nearly unreadable.

------
cwhitaker01
Ytube.app (<http://ytubeapp.com/>) is currently in the works. Probably a good
time for it's release.

~~~
fceccon
Your app looks good, on Twitter you say it will be free, please don't. I
prefer paying €3-€4 now and have it stick around than having it for free and
abandoned in a year.

------
esolyt
This is an interesting prejudice. I don't know what makes the author think
Google's app will offer poor experience. YouTube app for Android is great. I'm
sure Google will try to create a great experience for iOS as well.

------
paul9290
Apple is losing points with me due to...

\- Youtube app removal \- New iMaps when you click a map link on a website
your built in map app no longer loads showing you the address you seek.
Rather, it now takes you to a dead end Google Map in your browser. \- The
iPhone 5 if the new designs seen throughout the blogosphere are true then MEH.
The S3's design is slick; size of a credit card. \- Wielding their patent
power to try & kill the competition, which could possibly back fire on them.

I have owned various iPhone models over the past four years. Though I'm
seriously considering a different manufacturer - hopefully one that provides
the same level of customer service Apple does.

------
shanselman
I don't let my kids on YouTube, it's too dangerous. I do let them use an app
called Zoodles that is "kid safe YouTube." It is just curated videos and they
send you a list of what they watch.

------
jonaphin
As you noted duly, there will be a Youtube app for iOS.

You also noted the move might bring ads and other unwanted noise. It will
certainly. Someone has to pay for the service.

Now, what will be interested to see is how many people switch to Android
because of it. My guess, close to 0.

Of all the videos I watch online from major sources, I have to give it to
Google, their ads are the least annoying (possibility to minimize them or quit
the video ads after 5 seconds).

~~~
objclxt
Although I don't _think_ you could watch any videos with ads through the
YouTube app, because YouTube are only able to serve ads through the Flash
player, not the plain H.264 feeds.

~~~
tonfa
I thought the android app had video ads now.

[http://googlemobileads.blogspot.nl/2012/08/trueview-video-
ad...](http://googlemobileads.blogspot.nl/2012/08/trueview-video-ads-now-on-
mobile-devices.html)

------
spullara
My 2 yr old can navigate the app very well. I doubt it will be as easy once it
is updated. I'll likely just keep ios 5 around until he gets old enough to use
the real site.

------
prophetjohn
If your sister can ignore the comments and ratings just fine, I'm optimistic
of her ability to ignore ads and social integration as well.

~~~
brandoncapecci
My thoughts exactly... comments and ratings are just social feedback anyway.
Moreover, YouTube ads are stuff your sister might even like: Katy Perry and
iCarly. Hipsters are the ones who are unable to bear those 20 seconds, not
little girls.

------
petercooper
This is exactly what I thought when I heard the news about the YouTube app
too, with respect to my own daughter.

But then I realized I never upgrade iOS devices and just buy new ones, so she
can milk out our existing iPads for at least a few years yet.. unless they'll
totally disable access from the old YouTube app(?)

------
smartkids
Teach her to turn off Javascript. Voila. No more ads. (Or at least a
drastically reduced number of them.)

Just as Google is entitled to show ads, the user is entitled to disable
Javascript.

It's a fair trade.

And as for inserting the ads into the video, as Zach says, she'll just figure
out how to skip them.

------
capo
YouTube.apk has ads, and all the sharing options and comments, etc. Yet it
still manages to be mostly about the video, and is superior by far to it's
current iOS counterpart; so I wouldn't worry about it.

~~~
b0jangles
I find it interesting that my 5 year old son prefers the YouTube app on my
iPhone to the one on my Galaxy Tab, even though the screen is obviously
smaller on the iPhone. I don't really know why. He seems to find it easier to
navigate.

