YouTube is probably one of the parts of the internet I consume the most, so I was more than a little sad when YouTube announced that they don’t have plans to build a visionOS app, and disabled the option to load the iPad app. This leaves you with Safari, and the website is okay, but definitely doesn’t feel like a visionOS app. Couple that with visionOS not having the option to add websites to your Home Screen, and YouTube isn’t that convenient on visionOS by default.
He did plenty of monetization on the app, and made good money with it with volume that doesn’t exist on Vision Pro. He never said anything implying apps don’t deserve to be paid for.
In literally every discussion he ever had about the API pricing change, he said that he entirely supported their need to monetize the API. His issues were not any sort of issue with the premise of the API changes. It was the specific nature of the API changes very obviously being for the sole purpose of making using the API to make an app impossible, when the app ecosystem was the entire reason Reddit was successful to begin with.
All of it. He was never an advocate for software being free or against the right of companies to monetize their API in any context. He was against a specific company using “monetizing” their API as an excuse to make it impossible for third party apps to exist.
His position has not changed in any way and there is nothing that is in any way consistent between any of his statements or behavior.
It’s possibly fair you misunderstood me the first time, not everyone is a great reader, or ESL, or any other reason. .
But you persisted after clarification, after I called on you to cite my words, not continue to invent your own. (Ex: you claiming I said he “advocated” for certain practices.) That’s toxic.
I’m done with you. I’ve made my position very clear, and you’ve don’t nothing but bloviate your own issues and reality, rather than what’s written.
It’s not a lie.
I’m asserting two things:
He formerly produced a free app that was very popular.
He openly discussed the the API pricing changes destroyed the model Apollo was operating on.
He did plenty of monetization on the app, and made good money with it with volume that doesn’t exist on Vision Pro. He never said anything implying apps don’t deserve to be paid for.
In literally every discussion he ever had about the API pricing change, he said that he entirely supported their need to monetize the API. His issues were not any sort of issue with the premise of the API changes. It was the specific nature of the API changes very obviously being for the sole purpose of making using the API to make an app impossible, when the app ecosystem was the entire reason Reddit was successful to begin with.
You said I lied and I didn’t. Retract that.
My assertions are consistent from comment 1
Absolutely not. Your statement does not have anything in common with the truth.
Quote the exact words in my first comment that are untruthful
All of it. He was never an advocate for software being free or against the right of companies to monetize their API in any context. He was against a specific company using “monetizing” their API as an excuse to make it impossible for third party apps to exist.
His position has not changed in any way and there is nothing that is in any way consistent between any of his statements or behavior.
I never said he “advocated” anything.
You’re arguing in bad faith. You are being toxic.
I asserted some very basic things about how people may be familiar with this person, and you abstracted a whole fight.
-He made a free app.
-He gained greater public visibility during the reddit API price changes.
Those are fucking facts, and those are quite clear in my original comment.
I never claimed he was a champion of “free”.
No, you are.
Your presentation implied he owed someone something because he made an app that had a free version once.
It absolutely is not, and does not resemble, “fair” to complain that a guy followed the bare minimum rules for an app to be allowed to exist.
“no u”
Followed by an assumption.
Great stuff.
It’s possibly fair you misunderstood me the first time, not everyone is a great reader, or ESL, or any other reason. .
But you persisted after clarification, after I called on you to cite my words, not continue to invent your own. (Ex: you claiming I said he “advocated” for certain practices.) That’s toxic.
I’m done with you. I’ve made my position very clear, and you’ve don’t nothing but bloviate your own issues and reality, rather than what’s written.
Cya