Playlist for iOS(brave.com) |
Playlist for iOS(brave.com) |
I've been building a browser the past year (https://synth.app), and have learned a few things from it (including implementing media players like this). Really makes you realize how little our browsers are currently doing for us.
I essentially built the same thing for myself (music player that combines/searches multiple sources, use youtube-dl server to stream optimized mp3 only), I had to skip app store and sideload it.
This clearly violates YouTube TOS and Brave knows it, I wonder what’s their plan is.
Google never allowed alternative YouTube clients that had this exact feature set on the play store.
The DOJ needs to break apart Apple. If not the DOJ, then Epic's court case.
Apple literally became the monster in their 1984 commercial.
Sure, the current situation isn’t what I’d want either, but this line of thought makes no sense.
edit: I could be completely over thinking this.
> Brave Playlist supports most open web standards. However, it does not currently support Digital Rights Management (DRM) tools or media delivery services (e.g. Spotify or Netflix).
Other than that, seems like a handy app, especially now that travel is on the upswing again.
I wonder if generating/editing media could also use some love. For instance, basic audio/video editing so you can clean stuff up before you post it.
The missing download and export function seems like an obvious and very annoying omission.
Hopefully it can be added in the future.
It has > $2billion market cap. They don't need Google's money like Mozilla.
This feature allows you to download a youtube video and watch it offline. It also lets you play it in background mode so you can listen to audio with the screen off. Google doesn't let you do that unless you pay for youtube.
And on the bottom of this announcement, I see a link to another Brave project, a search engine: https://brave.com/search/
That feature is unrelated to BAT.
Also: Brave has a built-in functionality to violate YouTube's ToS (sections 5B and 5C)?
Not because their (edit:they're) intrusive, but they're basically saying "We're going to block ads from Google, but we're going to show you our own ads, because ours are privacy-friendly!" They are adding a subscription feature though, so that might hopefully be a solution.
>5.2.3 Audio/Video Downloading: Apps should not facilitate illegal file sharing or include the ability to save, convert, or download media from third-party sources (e.g. Apple Music, YouTube, SoundCloud, Vimeo, etc.) without explicit authorization from those sources.
So either they have permission from YouTube, or will be promptly removed from the store....
Again -I totally understand they have to make money. This is only my opinion - that's all - but it just seems wrong to replace someone else's ads with your own.
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Also, what is CyanogenMod? And why did Ubuntu add Amazon products to its search results?
I can't always blame them, really, families need to be fed, people need to feel like it's worth it, and so on. In so many ways, it really does suck because I feel like it stifles innovative ideas, particularly ones that need long term execution. Look at Redis and licensing, it's the same thing, really, in terms of struggle.
If we had a separate way for engineers / companies to fall back where they did not have to worry about this in the same way, then I believe this wouldn't happen the same way, if at all, in many of these circumstances.
Of course Google will protect their copyright. That doesn't mean Apple should prevent video download software from being on their platform. There are an unlimited number of legitimate uses for it.
The disrespect and hubris Apple has to control the behavior of its users is astounding.
But... not sure what an independent developer is to do about that.
What I am not clear about is why Brave would be subject to YouTube’s TOC.
>5.2.3 Audio/Video Downloading: Apps should not facilitate illegal file sharing or include the ability to save, convert, or download media from third-party sources (e.g. Apple Music, YouTube, SoundCloud, Vimeo, etc.) without explicit authorization from those sources.
Plus, it needs almost weekly updates to function because Google (my guess!) intentionally breaks some API slightly, just to make this sort of thing more difficult.
The YouTube ToS clearly says players shouldn’t play audio without video (aka background audio).
Does scrapping via youtube-dl make it legal?
I can see how it might feel scummy to do this, but on the other hand, from a rational perspective I'm having a tough time seeing what's wrong with it. If it's because it's taking away revenue from the party serving the ads, then replacing the ads is no worse than blocking ads entirely. If it's because the organization blocking the ads is directly benefiting as a result, I'd argue that's already happening just by blocking ads, just not necessarily in a direct monetary manner.
I block ads so that I will not be manipulated into buying things I don't want or need. I'm defending myself from an assault on my ego and self worth. I'm not making money, I'm just consuming content that people have chosen to make public.
When Brave replaces the ads of a website they are just stealing the content and selling it.
1. Brave is replacing Google Ads with their own ads. 2. Brave already blocks Google Ads, they might as well make some money while doing so and add their own.
Funnily, I don't find either of these wrong, so I'm not sure which one to believe. I'd love to hear your opinion on it though!
At the end of the day I hope the brave model catches on - not only are the brave ads more ethical since the ads are served locally (ie no user tracking server side), but my understanding is you can also fill up your wallet with your own money and then use that for the micro-transactions given to each site you visit, which gives you the choice to still support the ecosystem but without ads being necessary. Unfortunately brave is not easy for me to use for other reasons but if it ever got big enough maybe they'd make a Firefox extension or something so I could at least plug into the payment system without all the other blocking/brave ads features.
Also, I turned them off as these ads are quite annoying and have a "cheap feel" to them.
And yes, the idea of sending BAT to websites directly was excellent. The website needs to have registered for the BAT wallet though. (Not a big deal, of course)
Those who serve ads might see them as a way to fund their services.
However, we see this being abused on a near daily basis, by not only service operators, but by ad networks themselves.
The flip side is, from a user perspective, nobody has a right to run ads on my machine I don’t want.
Brave solves for that. Shows me ads I opt into, and gives a mechanism for service operators to get paid.
Is it perfect? No, but I think it hits close to the target.
I'm just rephrasing it, because for some reason it would be creepier for me if Google served ads in notifications - but that may just be me.
It is different because you are collecting money that would otherwise have gone to the sites creator?
(assuming a non ad blocking reader)
Update: I think I see where you are coming from, that as a _reader_, blocking ads in Firefox is the same as choosing to use Brave and willing watching Brave ads so that the Brave company can make money that would otherwise not have gone anywhere. The _reader_ generates no money for the content producer.
But as a _publisher_, an ad blocker reader in Firefox is just somebody who chooses to ignore the ads, but the Brave company is directly monetizing your content without your consent.
I my mind, the difference is that in scenario A. the use wants to be free of ads, in scenario B. the user doesn't mind ads, just not the ads you have chosen to show. And Brave is making money from that.
Or it could be that in scenario B the user does not mind ads if they are done in a privacy respecting manner.
Alternatively, the way I see it is that brave ads are entirely separate from the content you have requested. I'm honestly not sure exactly how the ads are displayed in brave but as far as I'm concerned, brave could show ads on a blank new tab page with no content whatsoever and still make money from it. It makes no difference what (if any) content is loaded at any given time.
And back to my original message - even if Brave the company was "only" blocking ads - it might not be directly monetizing someone else's content, but by blocking the ads they are still benefiting as a company by gaining the good will of their customers by blocking those ads (or we could create a hypothetical scenario where eg brave blocks ads that happen to be for google chrome or mozilla firefox, in which case they have not directly benefited in a monetary way but have suppressed their competition).
Don't get me wrong - I see how it looks grimy given a certain framing. I guess you could say I just don't particularly care given the overall situation.
