[izacus]

MicroG talks to Google servers and uses Google's infrastructure while breaking the terms of service (at least in case of FCM).

Same goes with NewPipe - you're using YouTube without actually paying for bandwidth, storage costs or the video author.

So you're not actually getting yourself rid of Google or tracking, you're just using their resources without paying the asking price.

Use other alternatives instead.

[autoexec]

> Same goes with NewPipe - you're using YouTube without actually paying for bandwidth, storage costs or the video author.

> So you're not actually getting yourself rid of Google or tracking, you're just using their resources without paying the asking price.

I love newpipe. I block ads on my desktop, I'm not going to feel bad blocking them on my phone. Google has taken far too much from us, from me, for me to worry about their bandwidth or storage costs. Somehow I think the multinational billionaires will manage.

As for video creators (who themselves are regularly screwed over by Google) they should be supported using other channels.

[kbit]

Yeah, ads are a terrible and unsustainable business model anyways. I think it's much better (both for the creator and for the business and community in general) to support YouTubers you like through something like Patreon.

[JetSpiegel]

> you're using YouTube without actually paying for bandwidth

NewPipe actually saves bandwidth when you listen to audio only. As I recall, it parses the HTML and doesn't download the wasteful video stream, if you want just the audio.

Google should thank NewPipe users for their responsible use of their free resource.

[commoner]

Similar arguments have been employed against ad blocking. Users should be aware of the ramifications of their software decisions, but whether someone should download and use Google Play Services vs. MicroG, YouTube vs. NewPipe, etc. is the user's choice.

From a privacy perspective, MicroG and NewPipe are much less intrusive than Google Play Service and YouTube, because the open source apps send less user data to Google.

[izacus]

That would be fine if they'd be clean reimplementations of an API using their own backends. But advertising services which abuse SaaS infrastructure of a company is just not ok, especially in an article that's all about not using anything from Google.

I'd feel similarly about having someone advertise a way to crack Slack enterprise features instead of using something like Matternmost.

[bubblethink]

Newpipe is literally doing what the browser does, which is fair. The rest of the argument boils down to ad blocking. If you are a stickler, you could use youtube in a browser and get the ads.

[TeMPOraL]

> But advertising services which abuse SaaS infrastructure of a company is just not ok

A nitpick, but somewhat important: they're not services, they're products. Pieces of software. Alternative user agents. Very opinionated web browsers, if you like.

[bennofs]

But using FCM is enforced by apps. If they would roll their own, no app would work.

[izacus]

Not on LineageOS or any other ROM you have MicroG installed on.

[yyyk]

NewPipe is technically no different than using a web browser which isn't Google's to browse YouTube, and that's still allowed. If Google wants to turn YouTube into a closed garden, they can go ahead - I can think of no better move to spur competition.

[paulddraper]

It's not though, according to the terms of service

[yyyk]

What ToS has NewPipe been violating? I've read the ToS[0] and it seems that NewPipe is perfectly complaint.

It accesses YouTube via "the video playback pages of the Website" so it satisfies 5.1 article C. I don't see any limitation to using browsers there.

Indeed, article H strongly implies that it is allowed to use non-browser software to access these pages - otherwise spiders and robots would be banned and there would be no point to the request limit in that article.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms

[paulddraper]

I believe the most relevant section is 4.F.

> If you use the Embeddable Player on your website, you may not modify, build upon, or block any portion or functionality of the Embeddable Player, including but not limited to links back to the YouTube website.

[yyyk]

5.1. Article G? NewPipe isn't a website, so this shouldn't apply.

[realusername]

> MicroG talks to Google servers and uses Google's infrastructure while breaking the terms of service (at least in case of FCM).

Depending the country where you are based it might not matter, it might fall into interoperability legal exceptions.

[cameronbrown]

Blocking ads is ultimately irrelevant for me. I pay for YouTube Premium, however I get that most don't.

[izacus]

Yeah, I don't see the issue if you're paying for YT. But I'm still not a fan of having guides on how to essentially avoid paying for use of SaaS services. It's not unlike piracy.

[mindslight]

> So you're not actually getting yourself rid of Google or tracking, you're just using their resources without paying the asking price.

Google's asking price includes performing invasive surveillance. So when dodging Google's surveillance, it is impossible to access any content hosted at Google while living up to your standard. Which makes your argument a bit dishonest.

Now sure, there is a straightforward argument that the best way to push back against Google is to completely avoid content hosted there, which discourages others from hosting there in the first place. But you did not make this argument, I suspect because it's overly optimistic in an environment of heavy network effects.