Juno for YouTube Removed From the App Store
Christian Selig (tweet, Mastodon, Hacker News):
For those not aware, a few months ago after reaching out to me, YouTube contacted the App Store stating that Juno does not adhere to YouTube guidelines and modifies the website in a way they don’t approve of, and alludes to their trademarks and iconography.
I don’t personally agree with this, as Juno is just a web view, and acts as little more than a browser extension that modifies CSS to make the website and video player look more “visionOS” like. No logos are placed other than those already on the website, and the “for YouTube” suffix is permitted in their branding guidelines. Juno also doesn’t block ads in any capacity, for the curious.
I stated as much to YouTube, they wouldn’t really clarify or budge any, and as a result of both parties not being able to come to a conclusion I received an email a few minutes ago from Apple that Juno has been removed from the App Store.
The App Store guideline is stacked against developers:
5.2.2 Third-Party Sites/Services: If your app uses, accesses, monetizes access to, or displays content from a third-party service, ensure that you are specifically permitted to do so under the service’s terms of use. Authorization must be provided upon request.
So it doesn’t matter whether the app was actually violating the terms of use. If YouTube complains and won’t provide authorization, there’s nothing you can do. There seems to be no limiting factor that would prevent any Web site from objecting to any app that displays Web content.
YouTube does not have a dedicated app for the Vision Pro, which is why Selig designed and released Juno last February. Prior to when the Vision Pro launched, YouTube said that it would not develop a Vision Pro app, nor would it allow the YouTube iPad app to run on the headset. With Juno removed, those who want to watch YouTube on Vision Pro will need to use Safari.
Kyle:
Dang, just last night I thought to myself, “if it wasn’t for Juno I would never use my Vision Pro.”
Welp… with that, the one use-case I really cared about on Vision Pro is now gone (or at least unable to be updated, and Google may eventually break the app).
Vision Pro is probably the worst “business investment” I’ve ever made. As much as I love the hardware, there’s just not enough content and not enough compelling apps. If Google does break Juno, my several hour a week usage will probably drop to near zero.
I don’t expect to see YouTube launch a native VisionOS app soon, and even if they do, I doubt it’ll be anywhere near as good as Juno. What I was obviously wrong about in that February post was thinking that YouTube wouldn’t care about Juno’s existence, given that Juno did not block ads. All it did was make the YouTube experience great on Vision Pro.
This makes Selig — one of the most gifted indie developers working on Apple’s platforms today — 2 for 2 on getting hosed by big platforms for which Selig created exquisitely well-crafted clients.
It’s a shame, but clients for services that you don’t control just seem to be a bad place to be. If the service is free, the company providing it can kill your app. If it’s paid, Apple will want a cut of the revenue, even though it doesn’t pass through you.
Previously:
Update (2024-10-03): Andre LaBranche:
There is exactly one reason that Juno is very easy for YouTube to kill and yt-dlp is very hard for YouTube to kill.
16 Comments RSS · Twitter · Mastodon
Perhaps Selig should reconsider investing in apps that rely on services from major corporations and make a Mastodon client app just like everyone else.
Along the lines of what Mark is talking about, this is the big reason why I'm incredibly adverse to making any software that's reliant on third party services, especially from big monolithic tech companies that have proven time and time again that they'll just stomp you out with no thought or consequences to them. I don't even want to develop apps for iOS because of how terrible it is dealing with their app store, to say nothing of developing apps for Reddit or YouTube.
Hell, it's bad enough being reliant on third party operating systems!
And this is what is killing software quality all across the board right here. Perfect example.
Even if he did work for Google or Reddit, they wouldn't allow him to make an app this good. They don't want the user experience to be good.
And now we've come to the point where if you try to make it good anyway, with no harm to them, they shut it down.
I don't blame Selig for not wanting to fight Google on this, but I wish someone with money would fight this kind of thing for the right reasons.
He could make a good Odysee app instead maybe? It's based on the LBRY protocol which makes it censorproof. Of course, that also means there is stuff on it to offend everyone. But at least Google couldn't shut it down.
Not a lawyer (of course) but this feels like big tech colluding. Google doesn't want the app on visionOS for whatever reason.
There are Youtube clients on other platforms though. Does this app use Youtube's API or is it just a web view that loads YouTube.com? If it's the latter how is it any different than saving Youtube.com as a web app on Mac?
Apple going along with it of course because they have business with Google; they aren't going to stand up for an indy developer. But I imagine they *could*. If you publish a website on the public web, I don't think you should be able to arbitrarily prevent a web browser from loading it.
> “So it doesn’t matter whether the app was *actually* violating the terms of use“
Seems like not providing authorization when asked is against App Store / Apple’s terms of use.
Sounds harsh but makes some sense - Apple could also be accused of profiting from said unauthorized use.
That’s said, it introduces some interesting possibilities. Like, what if Google says Firefox iOS app is not authorized to display google.com?
> Like, what if Google says Firefox iOS app is not authorized to display google.com?
Interesting idea. Section 5.2.2 as it stands now, is a minefield.
@ObjC4Life It’s not using the API.
@Someone else I mean it doesn’t seem to be violating the YouTube terms of use. Google just didn’t like it for whatever reason. And that’s enough to create an actual violation of Apple’s guidelines.
@Mike Yes, a minefield.
I find this so interesting because I know of an app called Musi on iOS which is just a youtube client that markets itself as a music app (like a competitor to Spotify). A lot of music is on Youtube and the app works but it’s just a youtube client..marketing itself like a music streaming app. It’s not the best, it’s LOADED with ads but it is convenient to use to listen to music without paying for it. It’s got great App Store placement and I would guess it has made the developer rich because of that.
Why pick on this visionOS app? Practically nobody is using visionOS.
Apple could have a PR win by standing up for developers for a change.
“Hey pal this is a webview and your app is published on the public internet, so fuck off. “
Now if Juno is using Youtube’s API they can revoke it if they want (even if it is a bitch move). If they are misrepresenting themselves as being the official Youtube app or something, that would be another story but it doesn’t sound like that is what is going on
Could Juno be implemented as a userscript instead?
"Userscripts" claims to be compatible with Apple Vision (https://apps.apple.com/us/app/userscripts/id1463298887)
Instead of installing and loading the Juno app, you'd install Userscripts, add the Juno userscript, and then load youtube.com in Safari.
Apple would be unable to shut this down - unless they banned all userscript managers.
"I don't blame Selig for not wanting to fight Google on this, but I wish someone with money would fight this kind of thing for the right reasons."
It's what epic has been doing for years.
@Kristoffer yes I was kind of thinking of that when I said it, but Epic is not really the best representative. It's still just Tim Sweeney's personal vendetta against mostly Apple. I still don't think he's doing it for the right reasons. If the Epic store were the one in the position of power, I doubt he would be so vocal.
And I agree with the take everyone else seems to have, that was also my first thought. It's just a custom web browser. If this stands, it's a dangerous precedent.
I've completely missed what it was that Tim Sweeney did that has earned this intense distrust I see every time Epic or him are mentioned. He seems to be a modern day Bill Gates.
Also, if YouTube is that important to the APV Apple have much bigger problems than a missing Google colab. $35K to look at big screen youtube will be a tough sell.
"It's still just Tim Sweeney's personal vendetta against mostly Apple. I still don't think he's doing it for the right reasons."
The Apple dev community: "I wish someone would fight back against Apples policies"
Epic: "👋🏻"
The Apple dev community: "Not like that"
Silly Apple. Silly Google. Both know you can't build revenue on web apps when people have control over their web browsers—unless, of course, it's inconvenient for business interests. In which case fuck it, innovation and competition must go, sorry.
@Griff Modern left politics in a nutshell. :(
So apparently Google went after Musi too. I did not know about this...I still have the app on my phone and had no idea it was pulled from the App Store (see https://9to5mac.com/2024/10/09/the-legality-of-free-music-streaming-app-musi-may-be-settled-as-developer-sues-apple/). So at least Googe/Apple are acting like douche bags somewhat consistently.
Musi must've bankrolled a lot of cash over the years as they can and are fighting this legally. It should be interesting to see what happens.
