Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
IOS Youtube News

YouTube App Removed From iOS 6 Beta4 233

Posted by samzenpus
from the you're-outta-here dept.
TrueSatan writes "iOS 6 beta 4 has removed the YouTube application that existed on iOS since the first version in 2007. Apple confirmed that YouTube is gone from iOS 6. Google is apparently building its own app saying: 'Our license to include the YouTube app in iOS has ended, customers can use YouTube in the Safari browser and Google is working on a new YouTube app to be on the App Store.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YouTube App Removed From iOS 6 Beta4

Comments Filter:
  • thank god (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I can now delete an app I never used.

  • Downward Spiral (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 06, 2012 @04:29PM (#40898783)

    First no Google Maps, now this. iOS is really heading south.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 06, 2012 @04:32PM (#40898815)

      But I live in Antarctica you insensitive clod!.

    • Re:Downward Spiral (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Richard_at_work (517087) <richardprice&gmail,com> on Monday August 06, 2012 @04:48PM (#40898973)

      Yup, because no one could possibly produce anything better...

      YouTube never made sense as a built in app - it also breaks your flow of usage if you want to view multiple videos on one page, as each takes you out of the fecking browser and into another app. Keep it all in the browser and allow it to full screen the video when requested - you know, like PornHub does!

      And relying on a third service for what is rapidly becoming a central reason to have a multipurpose phone (mapping and turn by turn navigation) when the relationship between you and that third party was never going to fly, especially when that same third party is fostering a competitor to your platform - goodbye Google Maps, hello something better.

      • Re:Downward Spiral (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Cinder6 (894572) on Monday August 06, 2012 @04:57PM (#40899083)

        YouTube made lots of sense when the iPhone first came out. Back then, youtube.com didn't work properly in Safari--the app was necessary to even watch YouTube videos. Since then, support was added and the .app never received much in the way of updates. This move is actually a good thing. Just go to youtube.com/mobile and tap "add it to the homescreen".

        • Re:Downward Spiral (Score:5, Interesting)

          by AmiMoJo (196126) <mojoNO@SPAMworld3.net> on Monday August 06, 2012 @05:20PM (#40899299) Homepage

          The Android app has quite a few extra features compared to the mobile site. The UI is more responsive since there is no need to fetch HTML/Javascript of course, and you get all the usual system integration goodies like the sharing menu. On-screen controls and the menu button work better while watching videos too.

          If the iPhone version sucked, well, that isn't a reason to celebrate it going away. That is a reason to complain that it sucked compared to other versions.

          • I agree. On my v1 Droid, which is admittedly feeling it's age in a big way, the Youtube app works much better than viewing through the browser.

      • Re:Downward Spiral (Score:4, Interesting)

        by cpu6502 (1960974) on Monday August 06, 2012 @04:57PM (#40899089)

        >>>relying on a third service for what is rapidly becoming a central reason to have a multipurpose phone (mapping and turn by turn navigation) when the relationship between you and that third party was never going to fly, especially when that same third party is fostering a competitor to your platform - goodbye Google Maps, hello something better.
        >>>
        How disappointing you don't see a problem with this. It would be equivalent to Comcast/NBC ejecting all the ABC and FOX-owned channels from our television screens. Goodbye FOX News... goodbye FX... goodbye ABC Family... goodbye Disney... goodbye Nickelodeon... goodbye A&E... goodbye Showtime... et cetera. (Don't worry: They'll soon be replaced with NBC-owned channels which are "better".)

        • Your comparison makes sense only when ABC and Fox also run a competing network to Comcasts/NBCs. Until then, it's to the same situation as I describe.

          Google is giving a lot of functionality to Android for free with regard to Google Maps - Apple has to license that functionality at a cost (there was a big thing made of the fact that turn by turn direction apps were against the terms of the license they held). So what should they do, pay the increased license cost and continue to be held hostage, or free t

          • by cpu6502 (1960974)

            >>>Your comparison makes sense only when ABC and Fox also run a competing network to Comcasts/NBCs

            Uh. What? They do run competing networks/channels to NBC-Comcast. Just as google runs competing OS to Apple's OS. That's why I made the comparison in my original post.

    • by EGSonikku (519478)

      Yeah, because this:

      http://imgur.com/a/vK6tr [imgur.com]

      Looks and functions so much worse than Google Maps. Oh wait, it's better. As far as YouTube, that's Google, not Apple. Apple's license with Google expired, and Google is making an AppStore replacment that will undoubtedly be available by the time iOS 6 launches to the public.

      • by oakgrove (845019)

        Yeah, because this:

        http://imgur.com/a/vK6tr [imgur.com]

        Looks and functions so much worse than Google Maps. Oh wait, it's better.

        Yeah, but Google has already previewed their much improved Maps [pcmag.com]for iOS 6 so that's the one the Apple app will be competing with. I don't know how far Google is willing to go to put a great Maps experience on a competitor's platform but if they are committed, just like with the Google Now vs. Siri thing, Google can almost certainly make a better Maps app than Apple since they have the experience and the data that Apple can't match. Personally I use Android and iOS devices and I love it when apps are decou

    • by mmcxii (1707574)
      Google Maps on the iPhone wasn't really that good in the first place.
    • There will be a Youtube app provided by Google if you had read it. Surely that's better than some half hearted effort by Apple.
    • by Zadaz (950521)

      Really? Has anyone ever intentionally used the YouTube app in iOS? I never have and I've owned an iPhone since v1. If Google wants a iOS Youtube app, please make me download it instead of preloading it. My phone doesn't need crapware.

  • I'm glad to be an Android user. I'll stick with that.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by the_B0fh (208483)

      What has that got to do with anything? You *DO* realize that youtube is available via the Safari browser too, right? And that you can put a shortcut to it in your screen? And the mobile version can pull down better resolution stuff..?

      A lot of people prefer to use the mobile version of youtube rather than the app. With the app, you can't even copy a damned url link.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        *I* am also able to decide that I want a YouTube app and I don't have to let Apple make that decision for me.

        • by Kenja (541830) on Monday August 06, 2012 @04:43PM (#40898915)
          So you choosing to download an app is "apple making a decision for you", unlike the app being included no mater what you choose?
          • by nedlohs (1335013)

            But downloading the app will use up some of my download quota for the month meaning I won't get to watch as many youtube videos.

            The horror!!!

        • by alen (225700)

          i see you live a full life to pay attention to such trivial things as a lack of a youtube icon on a screen

        • by shutdown -p now (807394) on Monday August 06, 2012 @04:46PM (#40898951) Journal

          In this case, the change is actually for the better as far as you are concerned, then - where previously YouTube was a stock iOS app, and, as such, unremovable, Now it's going to be just another app published by Google via App Store, so you can decide whether to install it or not.

        • by Karlt1 (231423)

          So is there some reason you can't choose to go to the app store and download it if Google decides to release a dedicated app?

        • I just checked, and on at least my android (gingerbread with touchwiz crap) you can't uninstall the youtube app. And a google search looked like you couldn't on stock android either. Until this update, you couldn't remove the youtube app from iOS either. Apple cited licensing issues to include it in iOS, but I'm dubious they'll allow it into the app store to install if I want it.

          So I see both camps dictating to me whether I do or do not have the youtube app on my phone or tablet. I can see why they'd
        • by jo_ham (604554)

          *I* am also able to decide that I want a YouTube app and I don't have to let Apple make that decision for me.

          Err, you can make the Youtube site into a self-contained app that launches from the springboard, or choose not to. Either way, via Safari or via the springboard directly it's much better than the old, obsolete Youtube app written by Apple and now being retired.

          I guess if you want to keep an obsolete app around you can jailbreak and reinstall it if you really want.

      • I'm sure the "story" poster intended to torch off a giant anti-Apple flame fest.

        But as usual, it's a non-story.

        As they say, "Move along, nothing to see here..."

      • by DdJ (10790)

        With the app, you can't even copy a damned url link.

        But you can mail or tweet it, which is the main reason I'd want to copy it myself, so I never even noticed that "copy" wasn't one of the sharing options.

        This change sucks for me, but I'll adapt. I prefer the behavior or the app I have right now over that of the web site (mobile or desktop). Sure, Google may add their own app shortly, but want to make bets over whether or not they'll force all sorts of Google+ social/sharing crap on users?

        All I want is a

    • by oakgrove (845019)
      My girlfriend has a Kindle Fire and the Youtube app on that thing is phenomenal. As in it never buffers especially compared to my Xoom. I'm pretty sure they are proxying it somehow and feeding a compressed version but still it's pretty smooth and exceeds the experience I get.
    • As an Android owner I find it lacking and given I would be more likely to earn more money from developing apps for Rim handsets, I don't find it attractive as a developer either. It's only real upside is you can get Android phones for free on a contract where as you have to pay through the ass for an iphone even on a contract.
  • by R3d M3rcury (871886) on Monday August 06, 2012 @04:36PM (#40898847) Journal

    Personally, I hate the iOS App for YouTube. I have a link on my desktop which I use instead. Works great.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo (196126)

      I was going to post a comment about how whenever Apple removes a feature or the iPhone doesn't do something all the fanboys suddenly don't want it and never wanted it and it sucked anyway and normal people don't use it and it's better with out... But then I realized you might actually be making a genuine point.

      The Apple fan club has made having any kind of serious debate rather difficult.

      • by jo_ham (604554)

        He does have a point - the built in app is really outdated. The web version provided by Google via Safari is much better. I'm not sure who still uses the built in one any more - now that it's gone that's an extra icon that I previously had to stash in a junk folder that's no longer an issue since as a stock app you couldn't remove it. This is a good move.

  • Good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MrDoh! (71235) on Monday August 06, 2012 @04:37PM (#40898853) Homepage Journal
    These devices should come with the basic app market/store and as little else as possible. When signing up, offer the basics, browser/email, and a list of suggested good to haves, but the lighter these things are on base install, the better. Ok, might be a pain for some people getting a device that's 'empty' and needs 5 mins of installing before it's considered useful, but sure would make upgrades easier later with having no apps baked in.
    • by oakgrove (845019)

      These devices should come with the basic app market/store and as little else as possible.

      Yep, it's a joy installing something like Cyanogenmod or similar on an Android handset and getting nothing but the most barebones pack-ins even when installing the gapps. You get just what you need as far as extras. The browser, the market, a terminal, and a few extras like calculator. No streaming apps, no gmail, youtube, nothing. Not even Maps is included. If you want it, play.google.com has it. I wouldn't have it any other way.

  • by Compaqt (1758360) on Monday August 06, 2012 @04:39PM (#40898887) Homepage

    I'm amazed at the indolent culture spawned by the iPhone: Nowadays, you can't just go to a website. You have to have a special executable for every single different website you visit!

    It seems like there are people who don't go to certain websites, until they announce "Announcing the blah.com iPhone App!"

    • by magamiako1 (1026318) on Monday August 06, 2012 @04:51PM (#40899011)
      Part of the reason for 'having an app' is for native performance on the hardware itself. Even Facebook is making a native app on iOS.

      Source: http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/27/3120964/facebook-objective-c-app
      • Even Facebook is making a native app on iOS.

        You can't make me believe that's for performance purposes. When I do a search in the current, awful iOS app, it's not the app that's taking 45 seconds to reply with a list of results.

      • by Entropius (188861)

        On my phone (Android), though, the performance of the Facebook app is worse than loading their mobile page in Opera. The app looks better, but it performs substantially worse.

    • I don't personally believe the customers are demanding this "we want a dedicated app" approach, in most cases. Instead, I think it's mostly driven by content providers that have been unsuccessful in monetizing their web content. They think if they develop an app, they'll somehow magically figure out how to turn their customers into profits.

    • by oakgrove (845019) on Monday August 06, 2012 @05:02PM (#40899141)
      As a part time mobile developer, I can kind of understand why. For any truly interactive site running a lot of javascript and doing anything ajaxy, the performance on a mobile device more is nothing short of ass-tastic. You go to a lot of sites and get greeted with some weird javascript popup that's almost impossible to click close on as the button just doesn't respond well. And a lot of sites take a long time to load especially blogs like theverge.com. A mobile app for those sites almost always loads the content quicker, has native controls for scrolling etc. so you don't have to rely on the craptacular javascript emulated UIs, and just does a better job of formatting the content to the screen. Of course all that could just be the fault of the website in question but I just don't see (for example) how engadget.com could ever be as good on the iPad as the engadget app. They both show the same content but the app is so much faster and has additional features that would be very difficult to do on the actual site with web dev tools. The only real issue is that if you had an app for every single site that needed one you'd have one cluttered phone. Maybe they could just disappear and automatically pop up if you put the url in the browser or clicked a bookmark. This could be done right now at least on Android since you can trigger apps to respond to custom uri's. Like slashdot://slashdot.com when clicked as an embedded link or in a bookmark could automatically open a "Slashdot" app.

      Of course with suitably fast mobile devices, the speed advantage of the apps starts to get smaller and smaller. On my Xoom with Jellybean I don't bother to use any mobile site apps as the sites work perfectly well in the browser and all controls work well. My first gen iPad not so much.

    • by Hentes (2461350)

      The Youtube app was a hotfix since you couldn't view the site without Flash.

    • by westlake (615356)

      I'm amazed at the indolent culture spawned by the iPhone: Nowadays, you can't just go to a website. You have to have a special executable for every single different website you visit!

      The browser wars are over.

      The wars for placement in the app store have begun.

      The app developer can use any audio or video codec he likes, development can be as open or closed as he likes, web "standards" don't mean a hell of a lot and what the geek doesn't know won't hurt him.

    • by swb (14022)

      You can't just go to a web site because the web site's developers/owners have decided they want to run scripts from a dozen different domains and the tool that did the primary site decided that since everything works well on his 8-core desktop with 64 gigs of RAM, why it will work on everyone's desktop, especially since they all have super-large displays, too.

      Some websites get it and produce a mobilized version of their web site which runs well on a small device. But it seems most are locked into a big, c

      • by oakgrove (845019)
        Sadly most sites that can't be bothered to optimize for mobile are the very ones that wouldn't even dream of a mobile app. Speaking of optimizing for mobile, has anyone else noticed how ass-tastic Slashdot looks on an Android tablet vs. the iPad? On my Xoom with the default User Agent, I'm an ugly stretched cell phone version of the site while on my iPad I get what looks pretty much like the desktop version. You'd think "geek".net would be on top of that kind of thing.
    • by AmiMoJo (196126)

      Web sites are slow because every time you navigate the browser has to connect and fetch more data. An app can also easily spawn a background thread to, say, handle posting a message while the UI is free to get on with other stuff. You can sort of do it in Javascript but it is never as fast as a native app.

      That's why Twitter and Facebook apps are so popular. No need to sit on the site waiting for your photo to upload or ads to download. Plus they integrate with the system nicely, so for example on Android yo

      • by oakgrove (845019)

        An app can also easily spawn a background thread to, say, handle posting a message while the UI is free to get on with other stuff. You can sort of do it in Javascript but it is never as fast as a native app.

        This is a very important point. Java and Objective C are much more robust and full-featured than javascript and make things like multi-threading a breeze. A lot of people on here use native RSS readers on their desktops and don't think twice about it. An RSS reader like akregator and the "engadget app" are different only in degree.

    • iPhone didn't support 3rd party apps for its entire first year. In fact, Apple's argument was that web apps using exisiting HTML5 technology made more sense. But users kept complaining about the lack of support, spawning jailbreaking and the Cydia store. So, Apple introduced the App Store with the iPhone 3G. Sometimes the market speaks and it wanted native performance.
    • Ironically, the YouTube app existed because you couldn't go to YouTube's site and watch videos at the time that it came out. The YouTube app shipped with the very first iPhone, and it stood out at the time since it accessed hidden content that had been encoded behind the scenes in h.264, that way Flash wasn't necessary. Since then, stuff like that has become more common and the site has opened up the ability to view h.264 content in the browser (which was not a feature at that time), making the app redundan

    • by snookums (48954)

      Publishers love to push apps in your face because it gets their branding on your home screen. When I worked in agency-land we were approached by a client who wanted an iPhone app. The RFP was basically "We need an app. We don't really care what it does, just get our icon on the phone."

  • by Supp0rtLinux (594509) <Supp0rtLinux@yahoo.com> on Monday August 06, 2012 @04:43PM (#40898913)
    The app has always been somewhat restricted. It was good back in 2007. Since 2010 the web app has been better. Considering its impossible to delete stock apps unless you JB, I'm glad to see this one go. It won't be missed and free's up space.
    • by Supp0rtLinux (594509) <Supp0rtLinux@yahoo.com> on Monday August 06, 2012 @04:46PM (#40898953)
      Ironically, since the Safari web app came out, people have been asking for this especially since many of the videos won't play in the native app anyway you need the web app or Vevo, etc. Yet as soon as they pull it, people start making a big deal out of it. Sure Apple is distancing themselves from Google a bit, but its not like this broke something. It would be different if Google Voice was built into IOS like it is on Android and then Apple removed it. That would have some impact. But simply removing the YouTube app? Not so much.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      free's

      Holy shit, here comes an s!

  • Levity is tempting and all... but in all seriousness, YouTube is most definitely not one of my most frequented apps, and I don't sense much loss at it's removal from the default set. No loss at all, in fact... since Google will almost certainly roll out a non-bundled version of the app to coincide with the release of the final version of iOS 6. Oh, I'm sure I'll download the new YouTube app, alright, right after I install iOS 6... but it'll still sit buried in a folder, used once every few months or so wh
    • but it'll still sit buried in a folder, used once every few months or so when I hit an Angry Birds level that I simply can't figure out on my own -- just like the current version of the YouTube app.

      Haha, this is pretty much THE only thing I've used YouTube for in the last six months!

  • by westlake (615356) on Monday August 06, 2012 @04:50PM (#40899007)

    The proper place for Hulu, YouTube, Netflix, and all the rest would seem to be as optional downloads from the iOS App Store.

    The only fair alternatives are to pre-load all competing media players and give them the same prominence as iTunes or introduce a purely bureaucratic solution like the European "browser ballot" for media play.

    • by mkraft (200694)

      I agree it should be a Google coded app from the App Store. I'm hoping Google ads the remote control feature from the Android app. Yes I can currently go to YouTube in Safari and use the remote control feature there, but the built in app is what opens when I click on YouTube links.

  • ...no actual news occurred.

To understand a program you must become both the machine and the program.

Working...