The fact that the device requires IPv4 is a much different complaint than anything to do with the use of the DNS protocol. What if YouTube were just IPv4 only? Then you'd be in the same situation no matter what DNS server you are using.
Then DHCP isn't even used/required and this is all moot as clients are fully allowed (and even expected) to self-configure, including DNS if they want. Heck, DNS advertisement via IPv6-RA is still only even a proposed standard: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6106 it hasn't been ratified yet, and support isn't widespread.
Would you say that Google is "controlling your network" if they just hard-coded the IP for YouTube? This is effectively the same but with one layer of indirection in between. What's the difference?
Does Google make the DNS requirement clear pre-purchase, or accept returns over this issue?
This isn't the same as coming into your home and forcing you to use Public DNS, sure, but I think people are justified in being annoyed if they buy something, then find an arbitrary and unannounced dependency in it.
(I can't find any mention of the DNS requirement by Google, just extensive threads elsewhere about working around the problems it's caused people. It looks like there is a 15-day return window for working devices. That's something, but if I stopped allowing Public DNS on day 16 and my device stopped working, I'd hardly feel like I had fair notice unless it was explicit somewhere in the instructions.)
Where do they announce all the other IPs that need to be reachable in order to access YouTube? Why is the dependency on 8.8.8.8 being reachable somehow more annoying than the rest?
Well there are nearly infinite ways to route traffic to/from YouTube.com, that is how the internet works. However for this product there is a very hard dependency on this one specific IP address, which isn’t documented and is pretty unreasonable
> Well there are nearly infinite ways to route traffic to/from YouTube.com, that is how the internet works.
I'm talking about the endpoint. YouTube.com resolves to a finite set of IP addresses, and accessing YouTube requires that outgoing traffic is allowed to all of them. All of this is entirely under the control of Google, so how does adding one small additional dependency on 8.8.8.8 affect the end user's control in any way? It's just one more IP address that has to be allowed to be able to use YouTube, and it's equally as documented as the others (i.e. not documented at all).
Additionally, 8.8.8.8 uses anycast routing to distribute the requests over many servers. So it's not like having "one fixed IP" is any worse than having one fixed domain, as you seem to be implying. It's not a single point of failure.
You do realize that many networks use DNS security products, right?
These networks block all DNS traffic to 'random' DNS servers, including 8.8.8.8 to prevent any number of different attacks. The security device can examine the DNS packet and say 'youtube.com = allowed', or 'yourtube.com = not allowed'. It can also to the reverse "if youtube.com 'expected_ip_set' then allow". By requiring this device to use outside DNS servers you are punching holes in the network for no particularly valid reason.
Unfiltered and uncontrolled DNS is a security risk. I can transmit all your company information out of your network easily with DNS queries.
Ah I see - well if your position is that it's not that much of a big deal to add one more IP address and that customers shouldn't mind that much ... then that's pretty subjective. However the reason we are here and talking about this is that one very prominent customer really DOES mind. Judging from the other responses, this person is not alone.
The bigger picture here is that Google has a lot of power and any time they do something like hard-coding their own DNS server in a product (which could be construed as saying "we ARE the internet") people get worried and annoyed, whether this was a benign oversight, innocent mistake or a deliberate act.
Map 8.8.8.8 to the machine of your choosing.