YouTube App Removed From iOS 6 Beta4

thank god by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-06 08:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

I can now delete an app I never used.

Re:thank god by mwfischer · 2012-08-06 08:31 · Score: 5, Funny

What about the other 51 apps you probably have on your phone that you used once? /also guilty
Re:thank god by Ossifer · 2012-08-06 11:44 · Score: 3, Informative

The difference is that you can delete most of those. Also, when you upgrade to iOS 6, you won't have to delete the youtube app--it'll just be gone.
Most people I know have a folder of undesired, undeletable Applue-supplied apps...
Re:thank god by sg_oneill · 2012-08-06 14:40 · Score: 2

Finally more memory for the Stockmarket ticker app!

--
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Re:thank god by Ossifer · 2012-08-06 14:42 · Score: 4, Funny

How could Android phones possibly have any bloatware? I mean haven't Google, the phone manufacturers, and your carrier teamed up to give you FULL CONTROL of what's running your phone?
Re:thank god by ChunderDownunder · 2012-08-06 16:02 · Score: 1

Cyanogenmod.
I picked up an unlocked handset from the local electronics store. The box said $AU480 but they gave it to me for half price because it was had Eclair 2.1 The phone runs the Jelly Bean nightlies fine but I have deployed the Gingerbread stable release (CM 7.2)
Carrier lockin? Only if you're worried about voiding the warranty on your Galaxy S3 when, for me at least, a superseded previous generation is adequate. Will upgrade only when the new CortexA15 models with 2GB of RAM are sufficient to replace my ageing Linux home PC.

Downward Spiral by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-06 08:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

First no Google Maps, now this. iOS is really heading south.

Re:Downward Spiral by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-06 08:32 · Score: 5, Funny

But I live in Antarctica you insensitive clod!.
Re:Downward Spiral by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-06 08:33 · Score: 2, Funny

Yes. Please hold me tenderly. Let the bristles on your neck touch my face softly.
Re:Downward Spiral by Richard_at_work · 2012-08-06 08:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yup, because no one could possibly produce anything better...
YouTube never made sense as a built in app - it also breaks your flow of usage if you want to view multiple videos on one page, as each takes you out of the fecking browser and into another app. Keep it all in the browser and allow it to full screen the video when requested - you know, like PornHub does!
And relying on a third service for what is rapidly becoming a central reason to have a multipurpose phone (mapping and turn by turn navigation) when the relationship between you and that third party was never going to fly, especially when that same third party is fostering a competitor to your platform - goodbye Google Maps, hello something better.
Re:Downward Spiral by Cinder6 · 2012-08-06 08:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

YouTube made lots of sense when the iPhone first came out. Back then, youtube.com didn't work properly in Safari--the app was necessary to even watch YouTube videos. Since then, support was added and the .app never received much in the way of updates. This move is actually a good thing. Just go to youtube.com/mobile and tap "add it to the homescreen".

--
If you can't convince them, convict them.
Re:Downward Spiral by cpu6502 · 2012-08-06 08:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

>>>relying on a third service for what is rapidly becoming a central reason to have a multipurpose phone (mapping and turn by turn navigation) when the relationship between you and that third party was never going to fly, especially when that same third party is fostering a competitor to your platform - goodbye Google Maps, hello something better.
>>>
How disappointing you don't see a problem with this. It would be equivalent to Comcast/NBC ejecting all the ABC and FOX-owned channels from our television screens. Goodbye FOX News... goodbye FX... goodbye ABC Family... goodbye Disney... goodbye Nickelodeon... goodbye A&E... goodbye Showtime... et cetera. (Don't worry: They'll soon be replaced with NBC-owned channels which are "better".)

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:Downward Spiral by AmiMoJo · 2012-08-06 09:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

The Android app has quite a few extra features compared to the mobile site. The UI is more responsive since there is no need to fetch HTML/Javascript of course, and you get all the usual system integration goodies like the sharing menu. On-screen controls and the menu button work better while watching videos too.
If the iPhone version sucked, well, that isn't a reason to celebrate it going away. That is a reason to complain that it sucked compared to other versions.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Downward Spiral by Richard_at_work · 2012-08-06 09:22 · Score: 2

Your comparison makes sense only when ABC and Fox also run a competing network to Comcasts/NBCs. Until then, it's to the same situation as I describe.
Google is giving a lot of functionality to Android for free with regard to Google Maps - Apple has to license that functionality at a cost (there was a big thing made of the fact that turn by turn direction apps were against the terms of the license they held). So what should they do, pay the increased license cost and continue to be held hostage, or free themselves from the shackles of a competing organisation?
It's one thing when the people you do business with are just your suppliers, it's a whole different ball game when they are also your largest competitor and they also hold all the balls.
So what's disappointing in that? Nothing as far as I can see.
Re:Downward Spiral by EGSonikku · 2012-08-06 09:28 · Score: 1

Yeah, because this:
http://imgur.com/a/vK6tr
Looks and functions so much worse than Google Maps. Oh wait, it's better. As far as YouTube, that's Google, not Apple. Apple's license with Google expired, and Google is making an AppStore replacment that will undoubtedly be available by the time iOS 6 launches to the public.

--
- "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
Re:Downward Spiral by oakgrove · 2012-08-06 09:45 · Score: 2

Yeah, because this:
http://imgur.com/a/vK6tr
Looks and functions so much worse than Google Maps. Oh wait, it's better.
Yeah, but Google has already previewed their much improved Maps for iOS 6 so that's the one the Apple app will be competing with. I don't know how far Google is willing to go to put a great Maps experience on a competitor's platform but if they are committed, just like with the Google Now vs. Siri thing, Google can almost certainly make a better Maps app than Apple since they have the experience and the data that Apple can't match. Personally I use Android and iOS devices and I love it when apps are decoupled from the underlying platform. Maps, Youtube, etc. should be a separate download so they can be updated without having to wait for a whole new version of the OS to come out. Most of the original Google Apps for Android including, incidentally Youtube and Maps in addition to GMail, Chrome Browser and probably some others I'm forgetting are now a download from Google Play and are updateable that way. Yes, your phone will still come with that stuff but the apps aren't in lockstep anymore. This is a good thing and should be celebrated for what it is.

--
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Re:Downward Spiral by cpu6502 · 2012-08-06 10:02 · Score: 2

>>>Your comparison makes sense only when ABC and Fox also run a competing network to Comcasts/NBCs
Uh. What? They do run competing networks/channels to NBC-Comcast. Just as google runs competing OS to Apple's OS. That's why I made the comparison in my original post.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:Downward Spiral by mmcxii · 2012-08-06 10:03 · Score: 1

Google Maps on the iPhone wasn't really that good in the first place.
Re:Downward Spiral by thetoadwarrior · 2012-08-06 10:10 · Score: 1

There will be a Youtube app provided by Google if you had read it. Surely that's better than some half hearted effort by Apple.
Re:Downward Spiral by Zadaz · 2012-08-06 10:20 · Score: 1

Really? Has anyone ever intentionally used the YouTube app in iOS? I never have and I've owned an iPhone since v1. If Google wants a iOS Youtube app, please make me download it instead of preloading it. My phone doesn't need crapware.
Re:Downward Spiral by AngryDeuce · 2012-08-06 10:30 · Score: 1

I agree. On my v1 Droid, which is admittedly feeling it's age in a big way, the Youtube app works much better than viewing through the browser.
Re:Downward Spiral by jbolden · 2012-08-06 10:43 · Score: 1

I do. I often like the way searches come back on the app vs. website searches.
Re:Downward Spiral by a0me · 2012-08-06 14:21 · Score: 1

The YouTube app was great the first year on the original iPhone, but it has never been updated since. I don't really see what's the problem of having a new modern YouTube app developed by Google instead of the obsolete, non-uninstallable one we have now.
Re:Downward Spiral by quacking+duck · 2012-08-06 15:38 · Score: 1

The only reason to ever use the Facebook app is because it's the only way to upload photos. Without that, may as well use the mobile version.
The Youtube app never let you upload videos from the phone, so indeed, there's less reason to keep it as a discrete app.
Re:Downward Spiral by TedRiot · 2012-08-06 19:16 · Score: 1

Well, at least on my Galaxy S, I upload photos to FB through m.facebook.com, just because it works better (faster and more reliable) than the Android FB App.
Re:Downward Spiral by isorox · 2012-08-06 20:33 · Score: 1

First no Google Maps, now this. iOS is really heading south.
Oh good, the compass app is still there then?
Re:Downward Spiral by DickBreath · 2012-08-07 03:48 · Score: 1

youtu.be

(Don't put any .com suffix on.)

--

I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.

Glad to be an Android user.... by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-08-06 08:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm glad to be an Android user. I'll stick with that.

Re:Glad to be an Android user.... by the_B0fh · 2012-08-06 08:34 · Score: 3, Informative

What has that got to do with anything? You *DO* realize that youtube is available via the Safari browser too, right? And that you can put a shortcut to it in your screen? And the mobile version can pull down better resolution stuff..?
A lot of people prefer to use the mobile version of youtube rather than the app. With the app, you can't even copy a damned url link.
Re:Glad to be an Android user.... by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-08-06 08:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

*I* am also able to decide that I want a YouTube app and I don't have to let Apple make that decision for me.
Re:Glad to be an Android user.... by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-08-06 08:41 · Score: 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Smith
dumbass
Re:Glad to be an Android user.... by Kenja · 2012-08-06 08:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

So you choosing to download an app is "apple making a decision for you", unlike the app being included no mater what you choose?

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Re:Glad to be an Android user.... by alen · 2012-08-06 08:44 · Score: 1

i see you live a full life to pay attention to such trivial things as a lack of a youtube icon on a screen
Re:Glad to be an Android user.... by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-08-06 08:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

In this case, the change is actually for the better as far as you are concerned, then - where previously YouTube was a stock iOS app, and, as such, unremovable, Now it's going to be just another app published by Google via App Store, so you can decide whether to install it or not.
Re:Glad to be an Android user.... by Karlt1 · 2012-08-06 08:49 · Score: 1

So is there some reason you can't choose to go to the app store and download it if Google decides to release a dedicated app?
Re:Glad to be an Android user.... by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-08-06 08:52 · Score: 4, Informative

Why wouldn't Apple approve it? Especially when they already gave the line of "Google is working on their own app" as an excuse.
Re:Glad to be an Android user.... by Desler · 2012-08-06 08:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

Then just download the new app when it hits the store and shut the fuck up. This is a change only in that the Youtube app is no longer unremovable from the system which was a stupid idea.
Re:Glad to be an Android user.... by irving47 · 2012-08-06 08:57 · Score: 1

I'm not arguing with you... BUT.. This is just another example of where the consumer misses out (is inconvenienced, however slightly) because of all this patent and licensing nonsense that we've been hearing non-stop for the last what? 10 years?

--
I had a sucky sig.
Re:Glad to be an Android user.... by DdJ · 2012-08-06 09:04 · Score: 1

With the app, you can't even copy a damned url link.
But you can mail or tweet it, which is the main reason I'd want to copy it myself, so I never even noticed that "copy" wasn't one of the sharing options.
This change sucks for me, but I'll adapt. I prefer the behavior or the app I have right now over that of the web site (mobile or desktop). Sure, Google may add their own app shortly, but want to make bets over whether or not they'll force all sorts of Google+ social/sharing crap on users?
All I want is a simple list of channels my account is subscribed to that lets me access the videos uploaded to those channels, plus the ability to interact with my own videos and lists.
Ah well. The last time I looked, there were open APIs for YouTube. If Google messes this up, I'll either write my own app or switch to Vimeo. Slightly annoying, sure, but ultimately not a huge deal.
(Now, if they get rid of the AppleTV YouTube channel as well, that could suck.)
Re:Glad to be an Android user.... by the_B0fh · 2012-08-06 09:04 · Score: 1

Come now, you're trying to inject sense into this. Not allowed!
Re:Glad to be an Android user.... by Desler · 2012-08-06 09:05 · Score: 1

This has nothing to do with patents. The 'license' was just that Google paid Apple to make Youtube a built-in app. The agreement has now expired and it will just be a separate app.
Re:Glad to be an Android user.... by oakgrove · 2012-08-06 09:07 · Score: 1

My girlfriend has a Kindle Fire and the Youtube app on that thing is phenomenal. As in it never buffers especially compared to my Xoom. I'm pretty sure they are proxying it somehow and feeding a compressed version but still it's pretty smooth and exceeds the experience I get.

--
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Re:Glad to be an Android user.... by EGSonikku · 2012-08-06 09:39 · Score: 1

Really? Because a quick peek at the AppStore on my iPad seems to show Google has no issues putting apps up:
http://i.imgur.com/8TOIL.jpg
But keep wearing that tinfoil hat brother!

--
- "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
Re:Glad to be an Android user.... by nedlohs · 2012-08-06 09:39 · Score: 1

But downloading the app will use up some of my download quota for the month meaning I won't get to watch as many youtube videos.
The horror!!!
Re:Glad to be an Android user.... by interkin3tic · 2012-08-06 10:00 · Score: 1

I just checked, and on at least my android (gingerbread with touchwiz crap) you can't uninstall the youtube app. And a google search looked like you couldn't on stock android either. Until this update, you couldn't remove the youtube app from iOS either. Apple cited licensing issues to include it in iOS, but I'm dubious they'll allow it into the app store to install if I want it.

So I see both camps dictating to me whether I do or do not have the youtube app on my phone or tablet. I can see why they'd want to include it by default: there are a lot of people who can't figure out how to install apps on their phone. I don't understand why the app must be immortal and impossible to remove without rooting or jailbreaking the phone. It's not like there's anything important on youtube.
Re:Glad to be an Android user.... by thetoadwarrior · 2012-08-06 10:13 · Score: 1

As an Android owner I find it lacking and given I would be more likely to earn more money from developing apps for Rim handsets, I don't find it attractive as a developer either. It's only real upside is you can get Android phones for free on a contract where as you have to pay through the ass for an iphone even on a contract.
Re:Glad to be an Android user.... by jo_ham · 2012-08-06 10:33 · Score: 1

*I* am also able to decide that I want a YouTube app and I don't have to let Apple make that decision for me.
Err, you can make the Youtube site into a self-contained app that launches from the springboard, or choose not to. Either way, via Safari or via the springboard directly it's much better than the old, obsolete Youtube app written by Apple and now being retired.
I guess if you want to keep an obsolete app around you can jailbreak and reinstall it if you really want.
Re:Glad to be an Android user.... by jo_ham · 2012-08-06 10:36 · Score: 1

You're assuming that Apple will approve it.
You can get to it via Safari and set it into a self-contained web app. Apple doesn't need to approve anything. Google doesn't need to create an app that is distributed via the store. This is the very reason that the old Apple app is being removed - it's obsolete and inferior to the version that Google offers directly to iOS users via Safari/web-app.
Re:Glad to be an Android user.... by the_B0fh · 2012-08-06 10:58 · Score: 1

You do realize it is because Google wouldn't give those features to Apple, without Apple giving more screen real estate to Google "come on, we want our Logo there!!!"
Re:Glad to be an Android user.... by the_B0fh · 2012-08-06 11:00 · Score: 1

And guess what, you have a choice. Stay with iOS 5, and keep the darn app, or move to iOS 6, and download the youtube app.
Is that really so difficult for you?
Re:Glad to be an Android user.... by oakgrove · 2012-08-06 11:20 · Score: 1

Er, then give them the freaking real estate and carry on. The apps are top notch and add considerable value to the device when done correctly. Just having the full Maps API available to developers on iOS like we have on Android would have been a boon and certainly not worth getting into a turf war over.

--
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Re:Glad to be an Android user.... by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-08-06 11:38 · Score: 1

Google is making the new app, and it will be in the store.
THAT FACT IS IN THE ***SUMMARY*** OF THE ARTICLE.
FFS, they say hate blinds people, but I never took that literally.
Re:Glad to be an Android user.... by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-08-06 11:49 · Score: 1

so am i, but on the merits of the device and framework itself and not on the comparison of poorly weighted arguments. reading around, this whole topic is not an issue.

--
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
Re:Glad to be an Android user.... by the_B0fh · 2012-08-06 12:39 · Score: 1

If Apple wouldn't cave in to the damned cell phone companies, do you think they'll cave in to a little search/ad company...?
Remember, the first iPhone hadn't even been seen by AT&T, and Jobs refused any of the crapware AT&T foisted on all you non-Nexus Android users...
Re:Glad to be an Android user.... by the_B0fh · 2012-08-06 13:29 · Score: 1

Apple has always pushed for browser apps. If you wanted to write native apps, they provided tools, but they had always pushed browser apps.
But I supposed facts are too inconvenient for you.
Re:Glad to be an Android user.... by omfgnosis · 2012-08-06 15:02 · Score: 1

They pushed web apps as their "SDK", and they stopped the moment a real SDK was released. It was clearly an unfinished aspect of the platform, and one they saw fit to delay while they determined the platform's viability. A pretty good strategy, all in all, but not quite the same as you're portraying it.
Re:Glad to be an Android user.... by Desler · 2012-08-06 16:00 · Score: 1

What iPhone? I own a Galaxy S.
Re:Glad to be an Android user.... by Desler · 2012-08-06 16:03 · Score: 1

No native apps came along because even 'nativey' web apps were crap.
Re:Glad to be an Android user.... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-08-06 16:44 · Score: 1

It's RIcky.

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Glad to be an Android user.... by MachineShedFred · 2012-08-07 00:29 · Score: 1

iOS users can also now make that same decision, because Google is releasing a YouTube app on the iOS app store. In iOS 5, you cannot make that decision, as you cannot remove the YouTube app - you can only hide it.
So by your own logic, this is an improvement because it allows more user choice, right?
Now go away.

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Re:Glad to be an Android user.... by __aaqvdr516 · 2012-08-08 08:20 · Score: 1

That's the beauty of the iOS application process. They don't have to tell you why they disapproved it.

Make a Link on the Desktop by R3d+M3rcury · 2012-08-06 08:36 · Score: 2

Personally, I hate the iOS App for YouTube. I have a link on my desktop which I use instead. Works great.

Re:Make a Link on the Desktop by AmiMoJo · 2012-08-06 09:32 · Score: 1, Insightful

I was going to post a comment about how whenever Apple removes a feature or the iPhone doesn't do something all the fanboys suddenly don't want it and never wanted it and it sucked anyway and normal people don't use it and it's better with out... But then I realized you might actually be making a genuine point.
The Apple fan club has made having any kind of serious debate rather difficult.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Make a Link on the Desktop by jo_ham · 2012-08-06 10:39 · Score: 2

He does have a point - the built in app is really outdated. The web version provided by Google via Safari is much better. I'm not sure who still uses the built in one any more - now that it's gone that's an extra icon that I previously had to stash in a junk folder that's no longer an issue since as a stock app you couldn't remove it. This is a good move.
Re:Make a Link on the Desktop by MachineShedFred · 2012-08-07 00:40 · Score: 1

The current YouTube app hasn't changed since the original iPhone in 2007. It sucks so powerfully that it causes localized weather changes.
This is a change for the better for everyone - Apple doesn't have to maintain a shitty app, Google can update the app at will, and users that want to have it there can put it there; users that don't want it there can finally get it the fuck gone.
Everyone wins. Why is anyone bitching?

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Re:Make a Link on the Desktop by R3d+M3rcury · 2012-08-07 10:43 · Score: 1

The Apple fan club has made having any kind of serious debate rather difficult.
I'm sorry, I think we're having a different argument.
My point was that there is a solution to this which is better than the YouTube app--namely a desktop link. Your point was that it's a bad thing that Apple is removing YouTube. I agree.
Whether I throw a link on my desktop or download the YouTube app, I'm actually having to make an effort to get something that is already available on other phones. People are lazy and they're not necessarily going to search through the store or figure out how to put links on their desktop. The phone came this way and that's the way they keep it.
So if I'm clueless, I walk into the Verizon store and see that cool looking new iPhone 5. But it doesn't have YouTube. I looked at the desktop and there's no YouTube. Then I look at that Samsung Galaxy S3 with the great big screen and it has YouTube--I can see it right there on the desktop. Maybe I'll get that one since it can do Internet video, which the iPhone can't. I mean, that's the problem with Apple stuff, right? It doesn't work with the rest of the world. At least, that's what I heard...

Good by MrDoh! · 2012-08-06 08:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

These devices should come with the basic app market/store and as little else as possible. When signing up, offer the basics, browser/email, and a list of suggested good to haves, but the lighter these things are on base install, the better. Ok, might be a pain for some people getting a device that's 'empty' and needs 5 mins of installing before it's considered useful, but sure would make upgrades easier later with having no apps baked in.

--
Waiting for an amusing sig.

Re:Good by oakgrove · 2012-08-06 08:49 · Score: 2

These devices should come with the basic app market/store and as little else as possible.
Yep, it's a joy installing something like Cyanogenmod or similar on an Android handset and getting nothing but the most barebones pack-ins even when installing the gapps. You get just what you need as far as extras. The browser, the market, a terminal, and a few extras like calculator. No streaming apps, no gmail, youtube, nothing. Not even Maps is included. If you want it, play.google.com has it. I wouldn't have it any other way.

--
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Re:Good by fermion · 2012-08-06 15:34 · Score: 1

The youtube app was included and necessary because the iPhone could not play videos and back in the day everyone was under the delusion that youtube videos were kewl. Youtube was tolerated by the aristocracy because there was a limit on what could be done with the videos.
The basic functionality with a smart phone is music, rowsing, maps, video, and mail. I am looking forward to not having the phone redirect to an app when I look at a video. I am looking forward to the voice directions, something which Google has withheld even though Apple pays a huge fortune for the rights to the Google app.

--
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Re:Good by ChunderDownunder · 2012-08-06 16:32 · Score: 1

Carriers and Manufacturers may bundle Sense, Blur, Touchwiz or other cruft but the baked-in 'distro' should be minimal.
Android has no package manager in the apt-get sense but using the Play store for userspace is the best compromise.
Re:Good by oakgrove · 2012-08-07 03:12 · Score: 1

Android has no package manager in the apt-get sense
Which is really strange considering Cydia on iOS is nothing but a front end to apt-get with dependency checking and the whole nine. Of course you could distribute "packages" to rooted devices that could install system binaries and libraries but it would be more akin to what you see on Slackware where you just extract a tar onto your file system. I think to do any kind of sophisticated preinstall etc. scripts like you get in a deb package would have to be done as a two step process. User downloads apk and installs it and on first run, the apk acts as an installer that does all the heavy lifting. Unfortunately this approach would suffer from lack of coordinated efforts so somebody would have to oversee the whole affair as an alternative market where in order to get admission your app couldn't step on any other apps. It could be done though if you were committed.

--
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.

Does there need to be an app for everything? by Compaqt · 2012-08-06 08:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm amazed at the indolent culture spawned by the iPhone: Nowadays, you can't just go to a website. You have to have a special executable for every single different website you visit!

It seems like there are people who don't go to certain websites, until they announce "Announcing the blah.com iPhone App!"

--
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog

Re:Does there need to be an app for everything? by magamiako1 · 2012-08-06 08:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

Part of the reason for 'having an app' is for native performance on the hardware itself. Even Facebook is making a native app on iOS.

Source: http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/27/3120964/facebook-objective-c-app
Re:Does there need to be an app for everything? by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-08-06 08:55 · Score: 1

I don't personally believe the customers are demanding this "we want a dedicated app" approach, in most cases. Instead, I think it's mostly driven by content providers that have been unsuccessful in monetizing their web content. They think if they develop an app, they'll somehow magically figure out how to turn their customers into profits.

--
#DeleteChrome
Re:Does there need to be an app for everything? by oakgrove · 2012-08-06 09:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

As a part time mobile developer, I can kind of understand why. For any truly interactive site running a lot of javascript and doing anything ajaxy, the performance on a mobile device more is nothing short of ass-tastic. You go to a lot of sites and get greeted with some weird javascript popup that's almost impossible to click close on as the button just doesn't respond well. And a lot of sites take a long time to load especially blogs like theverge.com. A mobile app for those sites almost always loads the content quicker, has native controls for scrolling etc. so you don't have to rely on the craptacular javascript emulated UIs, and just does a better job of formatting the content to the screen. Of course all that could just be the fault of the website in question but I just don't see (for example) how engadget.com could ever be as good on the iPad as the engadget app. They both show the same content but the app is so much faster and has additional features that would be very difficult to do on the actual site with web dev tools. The only real issue is that if you had an app for every single site that needed one you'd have one cluttered phone. Maybe they could just disappear and automatically pop up if you put the url in the browser or clicked a bookmark. This could be done right now at least on Android since you can trigger apps to respond to custom uri's. Like slashdot://slashdot.com when clicked as an embedded link or in a bookmark could automatically open a "Slashdot" app.
Of course with suitably fast mobile devices, the speed advantage of the apps starts to get smaller and smaller. On my Xoom with Jellybean I don't bother to use any mobile site apps as the sites work perfectly well in the browser and all controls work well. My first gen iPad not so much.

--
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Re:Does there need to be an app for everything? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-06 09:03 · Score: 1

WTF does "performance" have to do with Facebook??!!
Facebook's a freaking website. A bunch of static content appears there.
It's not a game, a web app, or a video. Performance?
Re:Does there need to be an app for everything? by Hentes · 2012-08-06 09:04 · Score: 1

The Youtube app was a hotfix since you couldn't view the site without Flash.
Re:Does there need to be an app for everything? by westlake · 2012-08-06 09:11 · Score: 1

I'm amazed at the indolent culture spawned by the iPhone: Nowadays, you can't just go to a website. You have to have a special executable for every single different website you visit!
The browser wars are over.
The wars for placement in the app store have begun.
The app developer can use any audio or video codec he likes, development can be as open or closed as he likes, web "standards" don't mean a hell of a lot and what the geek doesn't know won't hurt him.
Re:Does there need to be an app for everything? by PeanutButterBreath · 2012-08-06 09:15 · Score: 2

WTF does "performance" have to do with Facebook??!!
Facebook's a freaking website.
But it is a shitty website that is trying to do a ton of things behind the scenes (even if they aren't things that the user wants or sees). A dedicated app could (conceivably) handle that more elegantly.
Re:Does there need to be an app for everything? by swb · 2012-08-06 09:20 · Score: 1

You can't just go to a web site because the web site's developers/owners have decided they want to run scripts from a dozen different domains and the tool that did the primary site decided that since everything works well on his 8-core desktop with 64 gigs of RAM, why it will work on everyone's desktop, especially since they all have super-large displays, too.
Some websites get it and produce a mobilized version of their web site which runs well on a small device. But it seems most are locked into a big, clumsy, hostile user interface that doesn't scale (physically) that an app for a mobile device becomes necessary for sanity.
Re:Does there need to be an app for everything? by AmiMoJo · 2012-08-06 09:26 · Score: 1

Web sites are slow because every time you navigate the browser has to connect and fetch more data. An app can also easily spawn a background thread to, say, handle posting a message while the UI is free to get on with other stuff. You can sort of do it in Javascript but it is never as fast as a native app.
That's why Twitter and Facebook apps are so popular. No need to sit on the site waiting for your photo to upload or ads to download. Plus they integrate with the system nicely, so for example on Android you can send photos directly to the Facebook app from the Gallery.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Does there need to be an app for everything? by Just+Some+Guy · 2012-08-06 10:03 · Score: 1

Even Facebook is making a native app on iOS.
You can't make me believe that's for performance purposes. When I do a search in the current, awful iOS app, it's not the app that's taking 45 seconds to reply with a list of results.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Re:Does there need to be an app for everything? by oakgrove · 2012-08-06 10:06 · Score: 1

Sadly most sites that can't be bothered to optimize for mobile are the very ones that wouldn't even dream of a mobile app. Speaking of optimizing for mobile, has anyone else noticed how ass-tastic Slashdot looks on an Android tablet vs. the iPad? On my Xoom with the default User Agent, I'm an ugly stretched cell phone version of the site while on my iPad I get what looks pretty much like the desktop version. You'd think "geek".net would be on top of that kind of thing.

--
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Re:Does there need to be an app for everything? by oakgrove · 2012-08-06 10:11 · Score: 1

An app can also easily spawn a background thread to, say, handle posting a message while the UI is free to get on with other stuff. You can sort of do it in Javascript but it is never as fast as a native app.
This is a very important point. Java and Objective C are much more robust and full-featured than javascript and make things like multi-threading a breeze. A lot of people on here use native RSS readers on their desktops and don't think twice about it. An RSS reader like akregator and the "engadget app" are different only in degree.

--
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Re:Does there need to be an app for everything? by NameIsDavid · 2012-08-06 10:29 · Score: 1

iPhone didn't support 3rd party apps for its entire first year. In fact, Apple's argument was that web apps using exisiting HTML5 technology made more sense. But users kept complaining about the lack of support, spawning jailbreaking and the Cydia store. So, Apple introduced the App Store with the iPhone 3G. Sometimes the market speaks and it wanted native performance.
Re:Does there need to be an app for everything? by Entropius · 2012-08-06 10:55 · Score: 2

On my phone (Android), though, the performance of the Facebook app is worse than loading their mobile page in Opera. The app looks better, but it performs substantially worse.
Re:Does there need to be an app for everything? by Anubis+IV · 2012-08-06 11:18 · Score: 1

Ironically, the YouTube app existed because you couldn't go to YouTube's site and watch videos at the time that it came out. The YouTube app shipped with the very first iPhone, and it stood out at the time since it accessed hidden content that had been encoded behind the scenes in h.264, that way Flash wasn't necessary. Since then, stuff like that has become more common and the site has opened up the ability to view h.264 content in the browser (which was not a feature at that time), making the app redundant and unnecessary.
As a result, most iPhone users have actually come to resent the app, since it's difficult to navigate, forces a context switch to a different app, and is incapable of being removed, thus cluttering up their device. Many have turned to using the included Safari browser instead. In this particular case, iPhone users are celebrating the removal, rather than bemoaning it, since it will become an optional app. That's hardly the indolent culture you describe.
Re:Does there need to be an app for everything? by snookums · 2012-08-06 11:20 · Score: 1

Publishers love to push apps in your face because it gets their branding on your home screen. When I worked in agency-land we were approached by a client who wanted an iPhone app. The RFP was basically "We need an app. We don't really care what it does, just get our icon on the phone."

--
Be careful. People in masks cannot be trusted.
Re:Does there need to be an app for everything? by jmerlin · 2012-08-06 11:58 · Score: 1

CSS, caching, HTML5, and input hints. Those issues have solutions. The problem is that nobody makes mobile websites very well, you just have normal websites and "mobile" ones that are smaller and have fewer hard-to-click things (they're basically the full version of the site but gutted to bare minimum) and then a native app which is really what the mobile version of the website should've been in the first place.
Re:Does there need to be an app for everything? by grouchomarxist · 2012-08-06 13:47 · Score: 1

The original Facebook app for iOS was fast, but Facebook updated the app to be HTML5-based and it has slowed down significantly. There are rumors that Facebook is working on re-introducing more native components to their app, but this is just a rumor.
Re:Does there need to be an app for everything? by grouchomarxist · 2012-08-06 13:48 · Score: 1

On iOS they went from having a native app to having a app that uses HTML5. If they did the same thing on Android this could explain the poor performance.
Re:Does there need to be an app for everything? by Swampash · 2012-08-06 13:49 · Score: 1

I'm amazed at the indolent culture spawned by the iPhone: Nowadays, you can't just go to a website. You have to have a special executable for every single different website you visit!
The Youtube app had one reason for existence: to bully Google into transcoding all of Youtube's content repository into an HTML5-viewable form. Google did it, now the licensing has expired, and neither Apple nor Google WANTS there to be a Youtube app.
Apple wants that content to be viewable normally in Mobile Safari. Google wants to kill the Apple-coded Youtube app because it skips advertisements. Both companies get what they want out of the app being dropped.
Re:Does there need to be an app for everything? by GrahamCox · 2012-08-06 14:09 · Score: 1

But it is a shitty website that is trying to do a ton of things behind the scenes (even if they aren't things that the user wants or sees). A dedicated app could (conceivably) handle that more elegantly.

Conceivably, but it doesn't. Most of the iOS Facebook app is just a WebKit view. In other words it's a cut-down browser that only allows you to view one site, which is pretty much what the parent was saying.
Re:Does there need to be an app for everything? by SvnLyrBrto · 2012-08-06 14:53 · Score: 1

Oh what short memories people have.
When the iPhone first came out, there was no SDK, no AppStore, no way to load 3rd-party code on it at all. Apple's response to people who wanted to add functionality? "You should write web apps in HTML 5."
People screamed bloody murder at the notion. They DEMANDED an SDK. Jailbreaking started not to get around AppStore restrictions, but because there was no way to code and load native apps of ANY kind. So Apple eventually gave in and released an SDK and created the AppStore.
And now you want to go back? Now having a native app is indolent?

--
Imagine all the people...
Re:Does there need to be an app for everything? by ChunderDownunder · 2012-08-06 16:18 · Score: 1

Well I wonder if the iOS ecmascript engine has been improved. I read somewhere that mobile safari had been super-optimised but that the engine for HTML5 apps was a generation or two behind - to encourage 'native' apps, or so the conspiracy theory goes.
Similar story on Android, perhaps. Jelly Bean has Chrome in the Play store but I doubt its JS engine replaces the system-wide one.
Re:Does there need to be an app for everything? by macshit · 2012-08-06 17:00 · Score: 1

Hmmm, "nobody can use an ad-blocker in an app"...?

--
We live, as we dream -- alone....
Re:Does there need to be an app for everything? by Compaqt · 2012-08-06 17:58 · Score: 1

Thanks for bringing this up.
I actually had it mind.
Granted, people demanded the ability to create native apps.
But I would think they would be for, well, actual applications: I.e., compass, calorie counter, whatever.
Just loading a website and displaying links so you can view the articles? That's what a browser link to m.example.com and a suitable shortcut icon should be for.

--
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Re:Does there need to be an app for everything? by Compaqt · 2012-08-06 18:03 · Score: 1

I'll grant you that the websites have a lot (too much) stuff going on these days (cnn, huffpo).
But if someone's coming in on a phone, you'd just track that and send them to m.cnn.com (or whatever). On the mobile site, show them a search box, single-column list of the last headlines, plus one ad (not multiple).

--
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Re:Does there need to be an app for everything? by Compaqt · 2012-08-06 18:13 · Score: 1

While we're on the subject, has anyone noticed how the lazy developers of nypost.com offer "Download our app to view The Post optimized for your tablet" if you go there with "Linux" in your browser string.
(They're assuming Linux==Android tablet.)
The annoying thing is they ask each and every time.

--
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Re:Does there need to be an app for everything? by Compaqt · 2012-08-06 18:17 · Score: 1

Yeah, I'll grant you that, for applications where you actually doing a lot of stuff. A Flickr app makes sense, too.
But for your average ho-hum content site? App for Time, app for Newsweak/DailyBeast, app for USNews, app for Politico, app for nytimes, that's nutty.

--
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Re:Does there need to be an app for everything? by Nurgled · 2012-08-07 02:57 · Score: 1

Conspiracy theories aside, I believe the problem is that Mobile Safari does JIT compilation of JavaScript, but since third-party apps are forbidden to do runtime code generation, and the WebKit widget runs in-process of the app that embedded it, third-party apps end up using the older, pre-JIT engine.
Re:Does there need to be an app for everything? by Just+Some+Guy · 2012-08-07 03:17 · Score: 1

Oh, I'm familiar with the story. But my problem with the Facebook app is that server queries take ages or time out. If I open it and go into the search bar and search for a friend, it may take 30 seconds to get the results. A more-native app isn't going to fix those types of latencies. Once the server sends the data, the app seems to be reasonably quick to act on it.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Re:Does there need to be an app for everything? by oakgrove · 2012-08-07 03:36 · Score: 1

Google Voice has a fantastic mobile website where they use some javascript trick to defeat the inherent latency of pressing buttons on a mobile webview screen. It's not hugely interactive though so could you give me an example of a great mobile site that has some complexity and shows how it should be done?

--
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.

Not like we used it anyway by Supp0rtLinux · 2012-08-06 08:43 · Score: 2

The app has always been somewhat restricted. It was good back in 2007. Since 2010 the web app has been better. Considering its impossible to delete stock apps unless you JB, I'm glad to see this one go. It won't be missed and free's up space.

Re:Not like we used it anyway by Supp0rtLinux · 2012-08-06 08:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

Ironically, since the Safari web app came out, people have been asking for this especially since many of the videos won't play in the native app anyway you need the web app or Vevo, etc. Yet as soon as they pull it, people start making a big deal out of it. Sure Apple is distancing themselves from Google a bit, but its not like this broke something. It would be different if Google Voice was built into IOS like it is on Android and then Apple removed it. That would have some impact. But simply removing the YouTube app? Not so much.
Re:Not like we used it anyway by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-06 08:52 · Score: 2, Funny

free's
Holy shit, here comes an s!

Re:Mars expedition is staged by jellomizer · 2012-08-06 08:45 · Score: 3, Funny

XKCD

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.

Re:Slow news day by CanHasDIY · 2012-08-06 08:45 · Score: 2

I'm not usually the guy to post the "bitch about Slashdot" troll post, but seriously guys: It's not necessary to post something everytime someone from APPL, MSFT, or GOOG wipes their ass.

Whereas the story I posted the other day about how Valve is updating their user agreement to ban class-action lawsuits, ala Sony/EA, magically disappears from the firehose about 20 minutes after submission.

Either malice or stupidity, either way not a complement...

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Life is hotter in the south by SuperKendall · 2012-08-06 08:49 · Score: 1, Insightful

First no Google Maps, now this. iOS is really heading south.

Yes, south to a more hospitable climate.

Instead of being locked into YouTube, iOS users can happily use any video service (like Vimeo for example).

Instead of iOS developers being limited in what they can do with a map (like no turn by turn directions) by arbitrary Google limitations, iOS map based apps can now do anything they like atop a map.

The only ways iOS users are not better off from being freed from Google is that they get more ads from Safari based YouTube viewing on iOS. But since that's Google's choice, it's hard to blame apple for it...

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Life is hotter in the south by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-06 09:10 · Score: 1

Please tell me how Google "locked iOS users out from using Vimeo".
Re:Life is hotter in the south by oakgrove · 2012-08-06 09:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

Instead of iOS developers being limited in what they can do with a map (like no turn by turn directions) by arbitrary Google limitations, iOS map based apps can now do anything they like atop a map.
How about iOS developers that need high perfomance javascript in their webviews? Or users that would like to use Opera as their default to open links? On Android not only can I make any browser (or none of them) the default but I can fine tune it down to the point that links from different sites seamlessly open in my browser of choice, e.g., some sites just look better in Opera like Slashdot, some better in Chrome like CNet. And because a developer restricts API access or doesn't offer a particular API at all doesn't mean it's some "arbitrary decision". There are many things that go into those types of decisions and just because Apple brass is accusing Google of essentially "being mean" and you parroting the party line doesn't make it so. Think carefully lest you be hypocritical.

--
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Re:Life is hotter in the south by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-06 09:33 · Score: 1, Funny

"javascript" "high performance" good one.
Re:Life is hotter in the south by SuperKendall · 2012-08-06 10:31 · Score: 2, Informative

How about iOS developers that need high perfomance javascript in their webviews?
That's unrelated to the issue at hand.
If you need performance in an app, don't use a WebView. You are in an app after all... you have the ability use any native code you like.
Meanwhile enjoy your improperly sandboxed OS of choice that does accelerate WebView equivalents in an app...
Or users that would like to use Opera as their default to open links?
Yes, that limitation should be removed - it would be great to be able to configure alternate web browsers.
Too bad Google doesn't let you chose other providers for alternate transit routing like Apple does in iOS6 though. What Google gives with the one hand, they tale away with the other.
And because a developer restricts API access or doesn't offer a particular API at all doesn't mean it's some "arbitrary decision".
Pardon me, instead of Arbitrary I should have said "because of a choice that Google made in order to try and hurt the iOS platform".
The FACT is that as a developer of applications that use maps I have far more flexibility now in what I can do than I did when Google supplied the map data. The FACT is that as a developer of map based applications I can be integrated alongside the native maps app and called out for when the user is in a specific region.
All of these things are possible because Google is no longer making arbi.... strategic choices about what iOS developers can do relative to Android developers.
Think carefully lest you be hypocritical.
How is it hypocritical to point out that were Google is removed as a controlling entity I have more options as a developer?

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Re:Life is hotter in the south by AngryDeuce · 2012-08-06 10:37 · Score: 1

iOS users can happily use any video service (like Vimeo for example).
So you're saying they finally removed the 'auto-destruct on attempt to use a non-Youtbe video service' function?! Whew, finally!! I was wondering what was going on on Vimeo but I didn't want my iPhone to explode so I just kept using Youtube. Free at last, free at last!!
Oh, wait. That actually never really was a thing. So the people whining about not having a choice for a video service are just retards that are too lazy to type in a url, huh? Sure seems that way.
I'm not a fandroid, BTW, but that's just a dumb argument. Nobody forced you to use Youtube other than yourself. I know people that make it a lifestyle choice to avoid Google at all costs. Lets not try and seem helpless here...
Re:Life is hotter in the south by jbolden · 2012-08-06 10:38 · Score: 1

How about iOS developers that need high perfomance javascript in their webviews?
Apple to Apple for a access to a lower level service go through the process and get it granted. There have been about a 1/2 dozen successful applications where apps have asked for higher levels of access.
Or users that would like to use Opera as their default to open links?
1) Jail brake
2) Change the default via. developer SDK
3) Have your company change the default via the enterprise / university SDK
4) Keep wanting
5) Pick a different phone.
Re:Life is hotter in the south by oakgrove · 2012-08-06 11:14 · Score: 1

If you need performance in an app, don't use a WebView. You are in an app after all... you have the ability use any native code you like.
Except when you're developing an alternative browser that due to the arbitrary limitations set by Apple must wrap a webview. Personally, I prefer Mercury browser on my iPad. It sure would be nice to take advantage of Nitro.

Meanwhile enjoy your improperly sandboxed OS of choice that does accelerate WebView equivalents in an app...
You're confused. You don't have to use webview on Android as you can ship your own rendering engine thereby making the point moot. And if you do use a webview, you use the one the version of the OS shipped with and you have full access to the JavaScript engine. Since Google decoupled Chrome from Android, and will be updating it independently, it doesn't make sense for webviews to be dependent on it as any bug could be a showstopper for an entire class of apps. And how is Android improperly sandboxed? With Jellybean, apps with no permissions can't read the sdcard anymore unless you let them. As far as an Android app seeing what all is installed on the phone, this is necessary in order for the intent system to work properly which is something I wouldn't expect you to know about since iOS doesn't even have that functionality unless you code it up bespoke on a per app basis and even then it is extremely limited. The supposed issue of an app being able to open the browser is moot since if the app doesn't have the internet permission, it can't connect to the internet anyway even through an external browser. Basically your FUD about the Android sandbox is either outdated or pure bunk anyway.

Too bad Google doesn't let you chose other providers for alternate transit routing like Apple does in iOS6 though. What Google gives with the one hand, they tale away with the other.
But that's only with their own app and can almost certainly be chalked up to licensing and availability. You are free to include your own providers with no fear of being kicked off for "duplicating functionality".

Pardon me, instead of Arbitrary I should have said "because of a choice that Google made in order to try and hurt the iOS platform".
If they really wanted to hurt iOS (as if they really could), they just wouldn't develop any apps for it at all. Kind of like Apple's attitude towards Android. Where's Safari for my Xoom? Chrome on my iPad is a first class experience. Who is trying to hurt whom here?

The FACT is that as a developer of applications that use maps I have far more flexibility now in what I can do than I did when Google supplied the map data. The FACT is that as a developer of map based applications I can be integrated alongside the native maps app and called out for when the user is in a specific region.
Obviously well integrated map and location functionality is very important on a mobile device. However, it isn't Google's job to hold Apple's hand and deliver a robust full-featured API to their device. That is the device integrator's job and Apple up until now has failed you. Yet you blame Google. I could understand if it was a situation like on OS X where it can almost be seen as MS's duty to bring full featured Office functionality as that is a grotesquely complex program and being perfectly compatible with the various formats and interfaces is an unreasonable expectation. In that case, yes, you could say it is MS's "fault" if they lay down on the job. But in the case of mobile Maps, Google doesn't have any kind of a monopoly and they ;don't owe you nor Apple an API no matter how many times you stomp your feet.

How is it hypocritical to point out that were Google is removed as a controlling entity I have more options as a developer?
You aren't just being hypocritical, you're being downright di

--
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Re:Life is hotter in the south by oakgrove · 2012-08-06 11:39 · Score: 1

Apple to Apple for a access to a lower level service go through the process and get it granted. There have been about a 1/2 dozen successful applications where apps have asked for higher levels of access.
Which one of the old mobile OSs was it that used to restrict CPU time from third party apps yet their native apps that shipped with the device got a first class share? Windows Mobile? Symbian? I don't exactly recall but that was one of the number one developer complaints of the platform. The last thing we need is a trip back to the bad old days. Legitimate restrictions that make for a better user experience for their customers I understand. You don't want devs just running amok on a mobile platform. But when an arbitrary decision like "no Nitro for YOU" gets in the way of me fully enjoying my webview wrapper of choice on a device I paid money for, I, as a consumer have a right to say something about it. And the "security" excuse is just weak.

Or users that would like to use Opera as their default to open links?
1) Jail brake
2) Change the default via. developer SDK
3) Have your company change the default via the enterprise / university SDK
4) Keep wanting
5) Pick a different phone.
1 - 3) Yes, I can do any one of those things but the first one voids your warranty and all of them are cop-out answers for functionality that shouldn't even be in question. 4) This is the internet, consumers don't have to just sit quietly and "want". And you don't speak for Apple so you don't know what they think about feedback from customers anyway. People do companies a favor by expressing dissatisfaction in products. 5) Of course but on the way out the door I'll be happy to let Apple know why they lost my business.

--
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Re:Life is hotter in the south by jbolden · 2012-08-06 11:54 · Score: 2

I doubt the number one developer complaint about symbian would be anything having to do with performance, so many other things to take the #1 slot :) Anyway I don't know.
But when an arbitrary decision like "no Nitro for YOU" gets in the way of me fully enjoying my webview wrapper of choice on a device I paid money for, I, as a consumer have a right to say something about it.
What makes you think that's arbitrary? Apple has been very clear on the why and it sure doesn't sound arbitrary. Any browser hitting secure javascript would need to have a security layer like Safari's. If you don't know how how to hack your webkit to point to the high speed engine then you don't know enough about webkit security to judge. You may disagree with Apple on that theory but it is not arbitrary at all. Apple has never been a "you can have it your way" for customers that don't have developer access. They have never offered that kind of flexibility.
Ultimately you have it Steve's way (or Tim's way) with the choices they offer you. I disagreed with the move to Intel processors, still do and they still don't care.
Re:Life is hotter in the south by ChunderDownunder · 2012-08-06 16:08 · Score: 1

Hotter? Well, the solstice was 6 weeks ago. But technically it's still winter for another 3 weeks.
Though it has been warmer in Perth, AU than London, UK several days during the Olympics!
Re:Life is hotter in the south by SuperKendall · 2012-08-06 16:19 · Score: 1

Ok, that was exaggeration - but iOS by only offering a native YouTube player focused people on using that service for social media video viewing.
Now users will be more open to using different video services, like Vimeo.
It really was more locked in at the beginning of the iPhone, when fewer video services supported MP4 playback on the web. Thanks to the iPhone and iPad, now users really are not locked in to anything and they can expect video from anywhere to play on an iOS device.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Re:Life is hotter in the south by SuperKendall · 2012-08-06 16:28 · Score: 1

You don't have to use webview on Android as you can ship your own rendering engine thereby making the point moot.
Which cannot use the same low level speedup techniques Nitro uses, unless the security model on Android is horribly flawed.
But that's only with their own app and can almost certainly be chalked up to licensing and availability.
Since Google owns the mapping data just what would the "licensing" problem be exactly?
If they really wanted to hurt iOS (as if they really could), they just wouldn't develop any apps for it at all.
That would hurt Google far more than Apple, just as removing Google as the mapping provider for iOS is more of a loss to Google.
They were trying to retard iOS progress as much as possible while still making money from the platform.
Obviously well integrated map and location functionality is very important on a mobile device. However, it isn't Google's job to hold Apple's hand and deliver a robust full-featured API to their device.
Apple built the excellent MapKit API, including a very nice means of providing annotations and vector overlays. They have had that for years.
Apple already HAS the API in place to provide routes overlaid on a map if you like. What they could not get was the permission from Google for app developers to show turn by turn routes overlaid on a map.
Google never had a controlling hand in the iPad
As far as mapping applications they did, because they disallowed some kinds of apps from existing.
How is it hypocritical to point this out? This is a valid concern; I have a few map applications I wanted to build but could not solely because of Googles license, nothing technical to do with Apple at all. In iOS6 I am proceeding to build them, because Google has been removed from the equation.
Again, nothing has changed except Google is gone. Obviously Google is wholly at fault.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Re:Life is hotter in the south by SuperKendall · 2012-08-06 16:37 · Score: 1

I agree, it was a bad description. It was really more of a lock-in at the start of the iPhone because of realities of video encoding at the time. Not really so much any more.
But it was making YouTube more prominent in the minds of iOS users than it will be going forward.
I always preferred Vimeo myself as a service, partly because they supported HD video earlier than YouTube and I always liked the player better. That has nothing to do with Apple, but I am happy to think going forward more people may be using Vimeo now that the YouTube iOS app is gone as as the path of least resistance to video discovery on iOS.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Re:Life is hotter in the south by sglewis100 · 2012-08-07 06:06 · Score: 1

Please tell me how Google "locked iOS users out from using Vimeo".
The same way that removing Youtube locks iOS users out from using Youtube. Hint: The answer to both is it doesn't. PS: Google already has said they'll have a YouTube app in the app store soon.

Huh? There's an app for that? Really? by zarmanto · 2012-08-06 08:49 · Score: 1

Levity is tempting and all... but in all seriousness, YouTube is most definitely not one of my most frequented apps, and I don't sense much loss at it's removal from the default set. No loss at all, in fact... since Google will almost certainly roll out a non-bundled version of the app to coincide with the release of the final version of iOS 6. Oh, I'm sure I'll download the new YouTube app, alright, right after I install iOS 6... but it'll still sit buried in a folder, used once every few months or so when I hit an Angry Birds level that I simply can't figure out on my own -- just like the current version of the YouTube app.

Re:Slow news day by tuppe666 · 2012-08-06 08:50 · Score: 1

I believe Apple, and Google are quite influential in the technology world some people even still use Microsoft in places. So reporting what they do is pretty much the whole point of this sites existence. That said a quick glance over the front page shows Incredible Planets; Cold Servers; ISP vs The Law ; Celebrity Gossip (admittedly of Apple Fame); Phone Carrier Scandal (with Apple Slant); Nuclear Cyber Attacks; Dead Gaming Koreans; Ironic Microsoft Security Article...but No Google at all, Apple mentioned only to boost another article, and Microsoft in what has been a pretty shunned post. To be fair what a lovely mix of technical articles...and NO OLYMPICS. Today Slashdot delivered.

I don't see a problem here. by westlake · 2012-08-06 08:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

The proper place for Hulu, YouTube, Netflix, and all the rest would seem to be as optional downloads from the iOS App Store.

The only fair alternatives are to pre-load all competing media players and give them the same prominence as iTunes or introduce a purely bureaucratic solution like the European "browser ballot" for media play.

Re:I don't see a problem here. by mkraft · 2012-08-06 10:34 · Score: 1

I agree it should be a Google coded app from the App Store. I'm hoping Google ads the remote control feature from the Android app. Yes I can currently go to YouTube in Safari and use the remote control feature there, but the built in app is what opens when I click on YouTube links.
Re:I don't see a problem here. by SuiteSisterMary · 2012-08-07 01:34 · Score: 1

Yup. I can't stand the set of 'built in' iOS apps that you can't delete, but that I'll never use, like the Weather app, and the Stocks app.

--
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.

Re:Mars expedition is staged by EdIII · 2012-08-06 08:54 · Score: 4, Funny

From what I've read, the new Total Recall movie doesn't even happen on Mars.

WTF!?

Then it ain't Total Recall. If I can't see a mutant 3-titted Martian hooker in cheap biodome light, then I just don't see the point in watching that movie...

Re:Mars expedition is staged by irving47 · 2012-08-06 08:55 · Score: 1

I'm sure you're right. I suppose it's convenient, too... The rocket used to "launch the mission" wasn't carrying anything that went to Mars. It was launching the satellite that controls the minds of a significant portion of the population. (ie-the ones that are not shielding their brains with the proper grounded metallic covering.)

--
I had a sucky sig.

Re:Coming soon, "Apple iTube" by MrEricSir · 2012-08-06 08:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

Wait, what? They're removing a watered-down YouTube app made by Apple, and now you'll have the option to install an official one instead (or just use the website.)

So no, it's the exact opposite of what you said.

--
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."

Story Is Flamebait by Frosty+Piss · 2012-08-06 08:55 · Score: 1

I'm sure the "story" poster intended to torch off a giant anti-Apple flame fest.

But as usual, it's a non-story.

As they say, "Move along, nothing to see here..."

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.

Re:Story Is Flamebait by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-08-06 11:42 · Score: 1

Since when does a controversy and blithering hate fest need to be based on anything real?

Re:Coming soon, "Apple iTube" by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-08-06 08:57 · Score: 1

Isn't that how it goes? Remove competition and then add in watered down version Apple controls.

So Apple... somehow controls the new YouTube app Google is developing? Wow that's amazing!

--
#DeleteChrome

Re:Huh? There's an app for that? Really? by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-08-06 08:59 · Score: 1

but it'll still sit buried in a folder, used once every few months or so when I hit an Angry Birds level that I simply can't figure out on my own -- just like the current version of the YouTube app.

Haha, this is pretty much THE only thing I've used YouTube for in the last six months!

--
#DeleteChrome

Re:Mars expedition is staged by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-06 09:05 · Score: 1

Y'know, back in my day, our conspiracy theorist nuts would come up with better flimsy evidence than that. They'd string together total coincidences that might stop to make you think for a second before they noticed the bleary eyes and slight hint of frothing around the lips. They certainly wouldn't depend on a movie's release date to pull it off; that's the job of the movie industry shills. And they MOST definitely wouldn't pull a movie out of their asses that had nothing to do with Mars (the remake takes place entirely on earth, loony).

*sigh* Kids today. No respect for the lunatic wackjobs of old.

Re:Slow news day by dyingtolive · 2012-08-06 09:14 · Score: 1

I was mostly being ironic with the slow news day comment, but this is kind of a non-story in the scheme of things.

--
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...

Re:Mars expedition is staged by elfprince13 · 2012-08-06 09:23 · Score: 1

I'm actually concerned that my metallic covering isn't properly grounded. Could you walk me through proper procedure?

Re:customers can use YouTube in the Safari browser by garcia · 2012-08-06 09:24 · Score: 2

The only YouTube content I haven't been able to view on my iPhone is specifically disabled for mobile (some media company, which I now cannot recall, that mainly does music videos).

YMMV.

Re:customers can use YouTube in the Safari browser by larry+bagina · 2012-08-06 09:27 · Score: 3, Informative

I don't have flash on my computer. In my experience, 100% of youtube videos are html5 compliant on Safari/h.264. With Firefox/ogg/webm, a large number don't work.

--
Do you even lift?

These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

Re:Mars expedition is staged by fiannaFailMan · 2012-08-06 09:28 · Score: 2

From what I've read, the new Total Recall movie doesn't even happen on Mars.

WTF!?

Then it ain't Total Recall. If I can't see a mutant 3-titted Martian hooker in cheap biodome light, then I just don't see the point in watching that movie...

The original story (written in a book) was not set on Mars. Therefore Arnie's Total Recall was not Total Recall.

--
Drill baby drill - on Mars

burned bridges? by dicobalt · 2012-08-06 09:39 · Score: 1

I think so, but that's how Apple does business.

Re:Mars expedition is staged by kallisti · 2012-08-06 09:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

Therefore Arnie's Total Recall was not Total Recall.

Yes it was, it's just not "We Can Remember It For You, Wholesale". Which neither movie really resembles in the slightest.

Re:Mars expedition is staged by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-06 09:46 · Score: 1

The original story (written in a book) was not set on Mars.

It also wasn't called "Total Recall" (it was titled "We Can Remember It for You Wholesale").

So Arnie's Total Recall *is* "Total Recall", but not "We Can Remember It for You Wholesale", whereas Colin Farrell's Total Recall isn't really "Total Recall", but more "We Can Remember It for You Wholesale".

It's all rather confusing, but not nearly as confusing as reading some of Phillip K. Dick's novels.

Re:Mars expedition is staged by Pathwalker · 2012-08-06 09:55 · Score: 3, Funny

The grounding is a trick; it just ties you into the Earth's energy fields, and makes the mind control easier.

Just remember:
* Shiny side out blocks mind control.
* Shiny side in blocks reading your thoughts.

You have to pick one!

So... by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-08-06 11:21 · Score: 1

...no actual news occurred.

Re:customers can use YouTube in the Safari browser by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-08-06 11:26 · Score: 1

Where did you pull that number out from?

Re:Mars expedition is staged by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-08-06 11:27 · Score: 1

It's all rather confusing, but not nearly as confusing as reading some of Phillip K. Dick's novels.

at least one rapper understands him...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVIKMZIRKaU

--
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT

Re:Mars expedition is staged by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-08-06 11:30 · Score: 1

so... are we back to celestial spheres and ether then?

--
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT

Re:Mars expedition is staged by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-08-06 11:32 · Score: 1

not really, asshole.

--
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT

Re:Mars expedition is staged by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-08-06 11:34 · Score: 1

if they can control your mind they already chose what you're thinking for you. debunked!

--
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT

Re:Mars expedition is staged by Ossifer · 2012-08-06 11:41 · Score: 4, Funny

Yet again something easily filmed in Arizona....

"overrated" mod, really? by jo_ham · 2012-08-06 13:24 · Score: 1

"Overrated" does not mean "I disagree". My post addresses the point in question in a manner suitable for a debate. If it's repeating a previous point, then perhaps "redundant"; if it's inflammatory or trolling then "troll" or flamebait"; if it's amusing then "funny". But overrated as a moderation on a comment that has not yet received any moderation? Come on guys, at least give a token nod to impartiality in moderation.

I'd be curious to know exactly what about my comment earned it a score of "overrated" with a starting score of 1.

offtopic? by jo_ham · 2012-08-06 13:27 · Score: 1

Come on mods. Offtopic? The point is directly relevant to the OP's query about Youtube working on Safari on iOS, in a story about Youtube on iOS...

I'm not sure how to be more on topic?

Re:Mars expedition is staged by ozmanjusri · 2012-08-06 15:06 · Score: 1

the satellite that controls the minds of a significant portion of the population.

I can set your mind to rest there.

After having extensive conversations with many US citizens recently, I've found minimal evidence their minds are controlled, by themselves or externally.

--
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."

Wrong, by SuperKendall · 2012-08-06 16:34 · Score: 1

the first one voids your warranty and all of them are cop-out answers

The first one does NOT void your warranty. If you jailbreak simply restore the device to the factory OS for service. If it will not turn on, then how will they know it's jailbroken... they won't, they'd just give you a new device.

It's that kind of petty ignorance that bothers me most about Apple Haters. No matter how many times the truth of a thing is pointed out to people like you you proceed to use the same argument, even though it cheapens the rest of what you write.

As for expressing dissatisfaction, yes that is healthy - but it's better to express informed dissatisfaction if you want to be listened to. Apple has been very clear on the security reasons around why Nitro is not by default allowed in App Store apps. If you care at all about the hundreds of millions of non-technical users operating mobile devices you can easily see that it's a reasonable default and not something that should be casually enabled, except for technical users... and that's where Jailbreaking comes in. It takes minutes and gives you all the freedom to hurt yourself you could ever desire, which is a great tradeoff for everyone.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Wrong, by oakgrove · 2012-08-07 04:34 · Score: 1

The first one does NOT void your warranty
Yes, actually it does. There are ways around that like you suggest but it doesn't negate the fact that your warranty is voided when you jailbreak and you can't always hide the evidence. There are many reasons for a device to stop working. There could be a loose connection from the battery or anything. When Apple receives the device and manage to boot it up they see it is jailbroken and your warranty is void. What you are proposing borders on fraud and more scrupulous people than you would not be comfortable doing that.

Apple[...]security[...]browser
Yes, for people like you that swallow the kool-aid by the gallon, I am sure their excuses seem reasonable. More objective people on the other hand see the usefulness of a jit javascript compiler in a webview and wonder why Apple can't figure out a way to make it happen. Anecdotally, can you name one actual case of an Android handset being compromised in the wild due to a vulnerability in the javascript jit compiler? And if you're so concerned about javascript then you should also know that you have to explicitely enable it in an Android webview for it to work anyway.

express informed dissatisfaction
Um, asking for a faster javascript engine that compares to Safari is informed dissatisfaction. It is a glaring flaw in alternative web browsers and webview based mobile apps and if Apple is so concerned about the security implications then they need to figure it out. It would provide a better user experience for millions of people and be one more minor headache for their development team. I'm sure they can handle it being big boys and girls.

If you care at all about the hundreds of millions of non-technical users[...]it is a resonable default.
No, it is not. Those hundreds of millions of users are getting a poorer experience and they don't even realize it nor would they know why even if they did. The security implications are very manageable and it is a cop-out to keep parroting the party line and then reaching for the jailbreak card. Jailbreaking does not help anybody that doesn't do it which is the vast majority of users of the OS. If Apple wanted to be truly responsible they wouldn't allow travesties like the Facebook webview app to even exist on their platform. The thing is atrociously obnoxiously slow and the primary reason is lack of jitted javascript. So instead of getting a reasonable performance app that jit would provide or forcing Facebook to use native widgets, you get this in between garbage. Facebook shares some of the blame but Apple is the one that made it possible by trying to inflate appstore numbers with expedient toolkits yet not giving developers all the resources they need to make performant apps.
Fuck this, I'm done with it. Now go on your little rant about how I'm an "Apple hater" (completely untrue) or how security should trump user experience no matter how small the risk blah blah blah. Don't forget to wipe your mouth though as I think there's still some bullshit hanging.

--
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.

I like this app by tomofumi · 2012-08-06 20:23 · Score: 1

Am I the only one who like this YouTube app? I have tried the android's honeycomb native YouTube app too, but I found iPad's YouTube app is much faster, responsive and smooth for casual browsing. The mobile web is slow to loading all the UI's before starting the video...and iPad's safari is never a fast browser anyway. If I must required to upgrade to IOS6, I'll try to jailbreak it, then find a way to install this .app by copy the binary from IOS5.x....

Why would they remove it? You can go to Safari by Cutting_Crew · 2012-08-07 04:30 · Score: 1

and type in *GASP* http://youtube.com./ If people want to visit youtube they will and a lack of an app isn't going to change that. Not sure what Apples motivations are here.

Re:Mars expedition is staged by Meski · 2012-08-07 11:33 · Score: 1

Good explanation, a pity you did it as an AC. Convinces me I ought to watch it, I liked the book.

Remove them all! by HArchH · 2012-08-07 14:53 · Score: 1

IMHO, it would be great if all of the default apps were removed, but available in a special app-store category. Then I wouldn't have to have a folder called "Useless" that contains the default apps that can't be deleted (if you don't jailbreak your phone). Or, they could come pre-installed if they could just be deleted from the device.

Same issue seems to exist on Android, though. Pre-installed apps are just there taking up space and there's nothing you can do about it without rooting your device.

Slashdot Mirror

YouTube App Removed From iOS 6 Beta4

161 of 233 comments (clear)