Parent comment might be referring to Kiwi Browser, a closed source fork of Chromium for Android that allows desktop extensions.
Though it's currently available on the Android app store, and the reason it was briefly removed was because it included built-in background YouTube video playback, not ad-blocking.
Of course, you could always get the app from another store.
"Though it's currently available on the Android app store, and the reason it was briefly removed was because it included built-in background YouTube video playback,"
Oh, so being anti-competitive as their native youtube app will NOT let you play in the background unless you pay for it. Bingo.
Eh, that's sort of like saying Spotify is being "anti-competitive" when they block apps that give you Spotify Premium features for free.
Third-party apps for streaming services aren't meant to be a competitive market. At least with YouTube you can still download third-party apps elsewhere, such as youtube-dl for desktops or NewPipe on F-Droid, even if apps that violate YouTube's TOS are removed from Google's own app stores.
What does blocking "on Spotify" mean? It's not as if Spotify is blocking songs within its own catalog or something: these pirate apps exist outside of Spotify, except they hijack Spotify's streaming service.
> If they merged with... let's say Medium, and now blocked articles about such apps, that would be a problem.
Writing about piracy, as TorrentFreak or a Medium blog might do, is not the same as piracy itself. The former is journalism, protected by free speech; the latter is not.
Detecting and blocking those apps from accessing the Spotify servers.
> They're dealt with in the same way, by getting legitimate app stores such as Apple's to take down the pirate apps
Those are modified versions of the official app, violating its copyright. That's not the same thing as blocking a third-party app because it doesn't work the way Spotify likes.
In other words, the app itself is being pirated. That's a completely separate issue from "Spotify Premium features for free".
> Writing about piracy, as TorrentFreak or a Medium blog might do, is not the same as piracy itself. The former is journalism, protected by free speech; the latter is not.
Sure. I thought you were talking about third party apps, since your second paragraph was about third party apps... A pirated official app is piracy itself. A third party app is not piracy.
It's a distinction without a difference. Whether you use legal or technical means, blocking an offending app that violates the terms of streaming service is not "anti-competitive", as the parent comment accused. Neither Spotify nor YouTube is obliged to offer bandwidth.
I'd rather YouTube use legal means to remove offending apps from app stores, rather than technical means that would interfere with apps outside of app stores as well. I like having youtube-dl available, thanks.
> It's a distinction without a difference. Whether you use legal or technical means, blocking an offending app that violates the terms of streaming service is not "anti-competitive", as the parent comment accused. Neither Spotify nor YouTube is obliged to offer bandwidth.
I think you're missing what the argument is.
Youtube blocking something that violates Youtube TOS: completely fine
One part of a massive conglomerate company blocking something because it violates the TOS of an unrelated part: anti-competitive
> I'd rather YouTube use legal means to remove offending apps from app stores, rather than technical means that would interfere with apps outside of app stores as well. I like having youtube-dl available, thanks.
Youtube isn't using legal means, in general. They get apps taken down that don't do anything illegal. So the distinction does matter.
That's not "anti-competitive". What sort of competition is being blocked? No court is going to side with third-party apps that depend on YouTube's servers while violating the terms on which they're allowed to use its streaming services.
And what does it matter how the company is organized? YouTube is in fact a direct subsidiary of Google, not just a sibling company under Alphabet, but so what? Would calling it "Google Video" make a difference?
The problem with the earlier hypothetical example (of Spotify acquiring Medium and blocking articles about apps that violate Spotify's ToS) was not cooperation between Spotify and Medium, but issues regarding free speech, insofar as that applies to a private platform.
The analogous situation with YouTube would be content on Google platforms discussing third-party YouTube apps... and in fact, there are plenty of videos on YouTube itself discussing youtube-dl or apps such as NewPipe.
> Youtube isn't using legal means, in general.
That's semantics. Call it technical vs. non-technical means, then, or whatever.
The problem with that line of ideological reasoning is that it implies YouTube should use technical means, such as locking down its API, rather than just booting offending apps off the company's own app stores. The end result would be worse for users.
Firefox lets you do that on Android and obviously it hasn't been removed from the Play Store. Do you remember any specifics?