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:
3 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.
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.
> “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?
