top | item 39225004

Juno – A YouTube Client for Vision Pro

686 points| axxl | 2 years ago |christianselig.com

357 comments

order

Some comments were deferred for faster rendering.

nntwozz|2 years ago

If you're into self-hosting there is https://github.com/iv-org/invidious which works great with https://github.com/yattee/yattee for macOS/iOS/tvOS.

This combo is amazing, haven't looked back ever since I deployed it with docker.

Hopefully Yattee will make a native visionOS app in the future.

smith7018|2 years ago

Does this system provide the same level of content recommendations as the Youtube homepage? If so then I'll set it up tonight!

lancesells|2 years ago

I use Yattee on tvOS but lots of invidious and piped servers seem to all be very slow to load. Any server you recommend?

jdminhbg|2 years ago

So nice to see a YouTube client that makes sense on the platform it’s on. Compare to the official YT client for iPad, for example, which bizarrely uses the same tiny Material touch targets as on phones.

thrdbndndn|2 years ago

> which bizarrely uses the same tiny Material touch targets as on phones

I personally think iPad YouTube app's touch is not too bad; but in general (not limited to YouTube), I think the UI design of web video players are all too fixated on the existing design.

For example, when not in fullscreen mode, I don't see why all the controls need to be confined to the video frame and disappear when not hovering. While this design choice has its benefits, it also presents significant drawbacks: it obscures the actual content when you're interacting with the controls (a problem that's particularly acute on smaller screens), and performing quick, repetitive actions becomes difficult because the controls aren't visible until you hover over them, among other issues. This approach to web video player UI has been a pet peeve of mine for some time.

hapticmonkey|2 years ago

The AppleTV YouTube app is so bad that I’m convinced nobody responsible for it owns a TV.

It even forces its own built in screensavers to run instead of the OS one if the app is left paused. Who approves that?!

What Steve Jobs said about Microsoft in the 90s applies to Google today: They have no taste.

cbovis|2 years ago

The YouTube app on our Sony TV kills me. Out of a variety of apps installed (Netflix, HBO, Disney, Apple, Prime) it's the only one that we need to adjust volume for EVERY SINGLE TIME because they decided 15 should be loud vs 30 on all the other apps. Especially frustrating when a lot of the time the first play experience in YouTube is being blasted with some kind of rapid-fire ad sequence.

rob74|2 years ago

Don't get me started on the official YT app on ChromeOS... it's so bad (one example: the seek bar was barely usable with a touchscreen) that I eventually disabled it, using the website is much better.

yard2010|2 years ago

It's on purpose though, YouTube app is designed to maximize time spent on app, not UX

LegitShady|2 years ago

all the youtube apps suck. I can't tell you how many times I've accidentally clicked on another video while watching the one I actually am trying to watch. If you aren't full screen they fill up half the space with giant links to other videos and there's no confirmation or option for confirmation. I'm not sure anyone who works on them actually uses them in real life situations.

danpalmer|2 years ago

This strategy has changed now as far as I can remember. Google used to have a strategy of using material on iOS, but has decided to switch to a more native UIKit feel. I imagine that will be a long transition, but it's promising.

AuryGlenz|2 years ago

The lack of attention for iPad apps is infuriating. Instagram, for instance, uses the damned phone app. That’s insane.

I get it for small time apps, but Meta is clearly big enough to give it the little amount of attention it needs.

LeSaucy|2 years ago

Talented developer for sure, but has a knack for developing software that piggy backs of silicon valley giants that can turn off access at a moments notice.

PaulHoule|2 years ago

Here's an almost trivial bit of "permissionless innovation" thanks to Silicon Valley giants:

https://mastodon.social/@UP8/111049822586450100

30 years ago somebody who wanted to develop a "new object you can use to distribute music" had to spend $100 million on some project like

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Compact_Cassette

today it is very simple because almost everyone has a player in their pocket that connects the card to software which runs in the cloud. It wouldn't be technically difficult at all for me to host the music file in S3, R2 or Azure storage and the storage and network costs are insignificant so far as I expect these cards to be distributed. If I did that I could get in trouble over copyright, so a link to YouTube is a safe and easy solution w/ the disadvantage that people in many geographies can't view licensed music videos.

Fortunately that QR code is a redirect and I can send it to another service. I demoed the cards with quite a few people and found that they usually felt it was a letdown to go to YouTube (maybe because they go to YouTube all the time and there is nothing special about it) but that there was more satisfaction with a link to SongWhip which might send them to YouTUbe in the end but gives them a feeling of agency at the expense of another click.

turtlebits|2 years ago

Or they might just find the user experience lacking and want to improve on it.

I make all sorts of small apps and utilities because to improve usability of services i consume. It doest mean I'm some lackey to big corp.

mlsu|2 years ago

Making something like youtube would be much easier technically than it would have been in 2006 or so. A solo dev could create a small scale streaming service for HTML5 video pretty reasonably.

It's the copyright that's the problem. You would be annihilated, not by YouTube's lawyers, but by UMG and Sony's lawyers, immediately after getting even a small amount of traction.

qarl|2 years ago

Yeah. That makes me respect him more. He's signing himself up for pain and disappointment, but will make supremely useful tools regardless.

grashalm|2 years ago

I don't understand what reasonable alternative there could be. Develop your own YouTube?

jimbokun|2 years ago

I'm assuming this developer is aware of that, and will move on to the next thing as soon as Google develops their own Youtube Vision OS app.

Moto7451|2 years ago

He probably had fun with this one and expects (or hopes!) it to become irrelevant after YouTube for VisionOS comes out. We’ll see.

dharma1|2 years ago

What other choice you have?

Anyway YouTube aren’t going to disable embeds. So don’t see it being turned off

alexsereno|2 years ago

That’s more of a statement of the monopolization of hardware access the App Store gives than it is him “piggy backing”. It’s not like you have a real choice without Apple being forced to allow software downloads via a web browser globally.

throw10920|2 years ago

This is off-topic flamebait and I've flagged it.

mickle00|2 years ago

love that this was built from the Apollo developer. Obviously incredibly talented.

zyang|2 years ago

I have a feeling is going to be a speedrun of the reddit saga. Google obviously doesn't want a smooth youtube experience on vision pro.

p-e-w|2 years ago

I'm amazed that someone who has been this badly burned by a corporation controlling their API access would even think about writing another app that uses third-party APIs, to be honest.

ftio|2 years ago

Christian isn’t charging enough! This could easily be $10 or more.

I still grumble every time I use the Reddit app. RIP Apollo.

dcchambers|2 years ago

I basically just stopped using Reddit after that whole fiasco. I had already been drifting away for years. The site has changed. It was time to move on.

BlindEyeHalo|2 years ago

In general I would agree but charging $10 for something that can be shut down tomorrow just because google doesn't like it seems a bit much.

slg|2 years ago

Seriously, what percentage of people who just spent at least $3,500 on the hardware would quibble over an extra $5 when it comes to as essential a native app as Youtube?

monkeywork|2 years ago

While not as good as Apollo the "Dystopia for reddit" (iOS) or the "Red Reader" (android) are both better than the official reddit app.

palla89|2 years ago

You can sideload without jailbreak, it perfectly works!

SeriousM|2 years ago

> Does it block ads? It doesn’t, I don’t think Google would like that, but if you have YouTube Premium you won’t see ads, just like the website.

I just realised that a new product means new eco system, means less/no customization possibilities.

What a wonderful world...

reustle|2 years ago

I wouldn't necessarily call it a new ecosystem. It's mostly the same walled garden that runs iOS/iPadOS.

password54321|2 years ago

"Google layoffs x percent of its employees". HN: Fckin Google!

"Here is an option to support a platform you use without watching ads". HN: Go fck yourself!

andsoitis|2 years ago

Indy developer charges $5 for app to access 1.78 trillion dollar company’s ad-driven video sharing platform.

michaelhoney|2 years ago

I'm not sure what your point is. Should they not charge anything?

ubiquitysc|2 years ago

That seems pretty fair given the work put in to make what appears to be a much better experience than having to use it in the browser in VisionOS

yakkityyak|2 years ago

1.78 trillion dollar company could have made app, or even better, not disable the iPad version in contempt.

dubrocks|2 years ago

They surely have their own business plan for AR/VR that you're not aware of.

ewzimm|2 years ago

This looks beautiful. I think Alphabet just won a more premium app than they might have made by choosing not to play. I hope a Quest port might happen someday.

drusepth|2 years ago

There might be less incentive for a Quest port because there's already an official YouTube app that works quite well on the platform.

makeitdouble|2 years ago

I might be missing it but I don't see any mention of actual VR videos (180 and 360).

It probably would require a huge dev effort to support, but that's definitely a miss compared to the offical Quest app.

thallavajhula|2 years ago

I like Christian. I was a Apollo (Reddit client) user. I supported him during the whole Reddit vs Devs fiasco of 2023.

I'm not sure this is a good idea. YouTube (Google) intentionally didn't want to put up their app on the AppStore. They had their reasons. Ignoring their reasons and creating an app using their APIs and putting up an app in the AppStore against their will, just doesn't seem like a good move here.

CivBase|2 years ago

> Does it block ads? It doesn’t, I don’t think Google would like that

I suspect Google already doesn't like what you're doing. They chose to make their own app unavailable on the AVP even though it sounds like it would be trivial for them to do so. Whatever their reasons are, I doubt they're keen about a third party stepping in with an alternative.

jdoss|2 years ago

I echo the author's praise of YouTube Premium. When it first came out I was like there is no way I would ever pay for such service. Being an early YouTube user, pre Google buyout, I still was in love with the platform that gave me content from real people.

Fast forward to 2020 the US election cycle broke me. I could not stand the amount of political ads that were being shoved down my throat. My kids were perma home due to COVID and we were running out of things to watch. I finally caved and got YouTube Premium. I told myself OK after this shit show of an election cycle ends I will cancel and yet here I am still paying for it. It is that good.

Yes I realize that I am part of the problem. I just got my first Amazon Prime ad tonight trying to catch up on the train wreck Wheel of Time show they are putting out... and I am going to upgrade to not have them because I simply DGAF about whatever bullshit that they are filling advertisement slots with.

$2.99 a month is worth it. Kill me now.

imiric|2 years ago

So a corporation acquired the platform you enjoyed using, and corrupted the user experience so much that it forced you to pay them to get the old UX back, and... you're happy about it?

Sounds like Stockholm syndrome, to be honest, with Google laughing all the way to the bank.

manquer|2 years ago

it is $13.99 / month in the US now. $150/year is a lot of money - for a product you can choose not to pay and still mostly use.

orangepanda|2 years ago

But does it block the ads that are still shown with youtube premium?

tobiasbischoff|2 years ago

Is there already a word for this fetish of putting your fate in the hands of big companies not shutting you down from their APIs?

manquer|2 years ago

Why do you think this is a flawed decision to do so ? In my opinion this is a conscious choice by Selig both times and a good one.

There are business models where venture funding is unsuitable as there will never be hockey stick growth or unit economics or competitive moats etc, traditionally companies usually small operate here, they are not startups, just SMB doing non flashy stuff.

Similarly also many business models unsuitable talented product teams to risk on , that are perfect for a highly talented freelancer such as Christian Selig - like third party API dependent ideas.

He is amongst the best indie developers in the Apple ecosystem and doesn't have to worry about competition quality too much in these ideas.

These are four main ways that I know of, to be a professional talented product developer -

1. Become a founder, raise funding, chase growth and do things you don't really like anymore

2. Freelance and do boring consulting work, trying to keep customer happy

3. Work in a big bureaucratic tech company and be frustrated constantly with everything from politics to red tape.

4. Pour your heart and soul into a early stage startup and watch it either outgrow you or crash and burn.

He instead gets to build products at a massive scale without having any overhead of an organization, and also making decent amount of money (upwards of few million/year with Apollo), what more can a developer aspire for ?

blowski|2 years ago

Let’s ask some of the people who made a fortune out of doing it. Entrepreneurial, maybe?

newaccount74|2 years ago

I assume that Christian Selig made enough money with Apollo before it was shut down to make it a worthwhile business, even if it was not forever. He seems to be doing just fine despite a big company shutting him down.

graphe|2 years ago

Fetishes are sexually derrived or worship of an idol. Are you calling them losers for not scraping?

Aissen|2 years ago

Question for Christian: doesn't YouTube limit the player when using the embed API (max resolution for example) ?

whatsthatabout|2 years ago

He answers this on the website: "...There’s no API keys, or limits to how many times a day you can call it..."

vessenes|2 years ago

This looks awesome. Christian, you mention comments as a possible future feature -- I think the idea of a livestream off in the corner with comments as a separate spatial box might be nice. I don't like to leave streams on while I'm doing other things, but lots of younger folk I know do, and part of the stream consumption experience is the comments.

jerrygoyal|2 years ago

> At its core, Juno uses the YouTube website itself.

so if it's the official YT site with css customisation then why is there a need to embed video like it's an external site?

p-e-w|2 years ago

> So I dunno, if you can afford an expensive Apple Vision Pro, I’d really consider treating yourself to YouTube Premium!

The reason I don't have premium (and one of the reasons I block ads) is that I don't want YouTube tracking my viewing habits, which I cannot prevent if I'm forced to log in to access premium.

It has nothing to do with monetary cost. I'm always surprised when I see statements like this one that appear to be completely ignorant of this aspect.

simiones|2 years ago

I think most people log in to YouTube specifically so YouTube can see what they look at and show them more content like that and sync across their device, even when they don't have Premium. Yours is a tiny tiny niche use case, even among people who would pay for a YT app.

joemi|2 years ago

Stopping Google's tracking isn't as big a priority to most people as it seems to be to you (otherwise google would be out of business). So it shouldn't really be all that surprising when people make statements that aren't about stopping google's tracking.

diebeforei485|2 years ago

Does their Incognito Mode meet your needs?

newaccount74|2 years ago

They track you whether you are logged in or not. I really don't think it is easy to escape their tracking.

mromanuk|2 years ago

I like how Christian Selig find big tech problematic UI/Ux products and fix that with an app.

KhalPanda|2 years ago

I think $5 is _beyond_ fair, considering every user will have dropped >$3k on hardware.

simiones|2 years ago

Conversely, if I spent $3.5k on a device, I'm not paying a cent more to watch YouTube on it.

graphe|2 years ago

With that logic every app that is free on an iPhone pro max must be unfair.

yard2010|2 years ago

I wish Google is the the Blockbuster of our time, making money off nefarious patterns just to be replaced completely by something more novel ...that ends up making money off nefarious patterns

cityzen|2 years ago

I miss Apollo every day :(

Oreb|2 years ago

I always kind of liked Apollo, but I never saw what was so exceptional about it. These days, I use Narwhal 2, and I can't say I miss any functionality from Apollo. For my use, Narwhal is just as good as Apollo on the iPhone, and vastly superior on the iPad.

sssilverman|2 years ago

I tried using the official client for a while but just couldn't stand it and switched back to Apollo about a month ago.

Sideloadly + ApolloPatcher was surprisingly easy to set up. Who knows how long it'll last, but it's basically set and forget once you create the Reddit+imgur API keys and enable wifi sync/auto refresh.

Zenul_Abidin|2 years ago

Brought to you by the man who created Apollo for Reddit.

thatxliner|2 years ago

Just wondering, how does the logistics of pricing it at a one time purchase work? Isn’t there a $99/year Apple developer program?

infinitecost|2 years ago

It’s $5. Can you imagine it remaining supported in 5 years?

jdminhbg|2 years ago

He's probably hoping to get more than 20 purchases.

danjc|2 years ago

A little off topic but absence of a first party app like YouTube is notable and will really hurt AVP - as intended of course.

bambax|2 years ago

> Does it block ads? It doesn’t

Having recently tried to watch Youtube on iPad without an adblocker, I discovered Youtube advertising. It's insufferable. Ads appear every few minutes, and they're not like the TV ads of yore. They're exclusively get-rich-quick schemes with people explaining how they're able to earn $10,000 a month doing nothing -- all one has to do is go to that website and subscribe to a shady course.

Fortunately Brave still blocks ads successfully, even on an iPad. Without it, it would be unusable. I wonder who puts up with this.

LegitShady|2 years ago

I think youtube ads are terrible and frequent because youtube decided they have no competition and if people want to watch videos, they'll either put up with that shit or pay for premium which is what youtube actually wants.

hhh|2 years ago

This feels like an early iPhone app launch in the best of ways.

m3kw9|2 years ago

Why do this when YouTube would have one eventually? This isn’t like Reddit client, I’ve never heard of a 3rd party YouTube client. Is he doing it for fun or just to get the initial impatient $$ before YouTube shows up?

wrsh07|2 years ago

The worst part of being an early adopter (very first world problems) is that nothing exists yet. When 4k HDR was first being supported, a couple of Netflix shows were there and... not much else (some YouTube videos of dubious quality) VisionOS is going to have a lot of new app developer excitement, and that's good! YouTube is one of the most used apps on my phone, $5 seems pretty reasonable.

hokumguru|2 years ago

You didn’t use an iPhone before iOS6? Hate to break it to you but they took quite a few years with the last platform!

neurostimulant|2 years ago

> I’ve never heard of a 3rd party YouTube client.

There are plenty of cool 3rd party youtube clients. SmartTube, NewPipe and Invidious come to mind. Youtube Revanced could be considered as 3rd party youtube client as well.

iseanstevens|2 years ago

Such a good read. This Apollo dev has a good worldview

user2344597|2 years ago

How do you record the POV from the Vision Pro goggles?

axxl|2 years ago

These were recorded in the simulator as stated in the article by Christian. However there is a recording mode on the device itself as well, although as I don't have one I don't know the specifics.

shuckles|2 years ago

The screenshots in the post are likely from the simulator.

basil-rash|2 years ago

There’s a screen record function, the same as the rest of iOS. MKBHD uses it extensively in his review video.

Sutanreyu|2 years ago

Needs VR video support. :)

ipshii|2 years ago

This look very very cool!

pjmlp|2 years ago

Just wait until Google blocks Juno, just like they did to Microsoft on Windows Phone when they created their own client.

simiones|2 years ago

To be fair, there were plenty of 3rd party YouTube clients on Windows Phone that they didn't block (I even payed for one). They only really didn't want an official YouTube app to exist on Windows Phone, and the same will likely be true for VisionPro (even assuming that Google wants to try to bury VisionOS like they did with Windows - which is not clear yet). And a payed YouTube app will obviously have a tiny install base on any platform, so they don't really care.

notso411|2 years ago

What is the point? Just load up youtube.com press a video full screen it then drag the window around your vision UI

awsanswers|2 years ago

Great moves, great write up. This is simple world class software decision making

thih9|2 years ago

> There’s no API keys, or limits to how many times a day you can call it

Yet. Just like with Apollo and Reddit API, at some point there weren’t any.

basil-rash|2 years ago

> and YouTube still gets to show ads

Is this true? I have never seen an ad on my embedded youtube player. Which I was honestly kind of bummed about, as I wanted some way to give back to the creators of the tutorials I was rendering.

shiroiuma|2 years ago

>Which I was honestly kind of bummed about, as I wanted some way to give back to the creators of the tutorials I was rendering.

I'm sure they'd be happy to take direct donations. Many have Patreon accounts you can subscribe to. Those creators aren't getting any meaningful revenue from ads; that's why they all added those annoying sponsor segments.

rixrax|2 years ago

I can't even begin to describe how excited I am about the Vision Pro and how much I want it to be everything it claims to be! Are there any info available from people who have received their headsets that are 'standard' production versions, and not Apple supplied early access versions? I want to hit that order button, but the rational me tells me to wait for some initial real life reviews to roll in.

lfkdev|2 years ago

I think the MKBHD video is on a normal consumer one

whywhywhywhy|2 years ago

They’re the same thing you’ll get at retail

xyst|2 years ago

Only a matter of time until G blocks access to whatever API he is using or throttles it. YT invests a shit ton of money to ensure you use the official YT app to make sure you view their stupid ads, pump their ad profits, or buy YoUtUbE PrEmIuM

looks good though! Won't be adopting the apple vision pro for awhile. but the developers pushing their apps to this ecosystem will definitely be awarded for early adoption until "native" apps are made available.

pump out a AVP app. early adopters of AVP likely to buy ($5-$10). Rake in that easy money while the big companies take their time in building their own app. Big companies then throttle or block those apis used by indy developers or require fee to use them. Indy developers likely to halt development and thus people end up on the official apps.

rvz|2 years ago

No idea why this comment was downvoted. YouTube (Google) can easily get Apple to ban unauthorized third party apps.

Once YouTube releases support for the Vision Pro, either Google will get Juno banned as an unauthorized third party app or make the API expensive to use even if Juno becomes popular.

> pump out a AVP app. early adopters of AVP likely to buy ($5-$10). Rake in that easy money while the big companies take their time in building their own app. Big companies then throttle or block those apis used by indy developers or require fee to use them. Indy developers likely to halt development and thus people end up on the official apps.

Precisely. Unfortunately the creator of Apollo has not learned anything about what happened to his reddit client and the same will certainly happen with this YouTube client.

quic5|2 years ago

> At its core, Juno uses the YouTube website itself. No, not scraped. It presents the website as you would load it, but similar to how browser extensions work, it tweaks the theming of the site through CSS and JavaScript.