YouTube Kills Background Playback on Third-Party Mobile Browsers (androidauthority.com)
- Reference: 0180726244
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/02/03/1655249/youtube-kills-background-playback-on-third-party-mobile-browsers
- Source link: https://www.androidauthority.com/youtube-background-play-broken-3636179/
Users began reporting the issue last week, noting that audio would cut out the moment they left the browser, sometimes after a brief "MediaOngoingActivity" notification flashed before media controls disappeared. A Google spokesperson [1]told Android Authority that the platform "updated the experience to ensure consistency," calling background play a Premium-exclusive feature.
[1] https://www.androidauthority.com/youtube-background-play-broken-3636179/
Properly enshittifying (Score:5, Funny)
Smell and distribution of the brown stains cannot be overlooked any further.
Oh noes! (Score:3)
[1]https://revanced.app/ [revanced.app]
[1] https://revanced.app/
Re: (Score:1)
[1]https://www.androidauthority.c... [androidauthority.com]
[1] https://www.androidauthority.com/youtube-background-playback-browsers-fix-3636806/
Only an Insucure Browser Would Allow Detection (Score:5, Interesting)
No private browser would allow the detection of user activity--got that Firefox?
Re:Only an Insucure Browser Would Allow Detection (Score:5, Informative)
I was thinking the same thing because i can still do this without issue in brave.
Re: (Score:2)
I currently am able to listen to Videos while they are tabbed, or behind other browsers, aka "background" in Firefox.
Dunno what everyone is talking about with it, get rid of Chromium based browsers where Google has all the power over your internet browsing.
Google Must Die (Score:5, Insightful)
If they had said "We're doing this to make more money from advertising" one would merely by pissed off.
But when they say shit like "The platform updated the experience to ensure consistency" they are showing themselves to be complete and utter cunts.
Fuck Evil Google
Re:Google Must Die (Score:4, Interesting)
They're just lying because they really are doing it for the first reason you pointed out. What they should do is recognize that some of their content works fine as an audio experience and start selling audio only ads to play when delivering content in that way. Even if the audio ads don't make them as much money, the savings from not having to delivery video streams to people who aren't watching the video should make up for it.
Re: (Score:2)
> They're just lying because they really are doing it for the first reason you pointed out. What they should do is recognize that some of their content works fine as an audio experience and start selling audio only ads to play when delivering content in that way. Even if the audio ads don't make them as much money, the savings from not having to delivery video streams to people who aren't watching the video should make up for it.
This.
Also, background does not necessarily mean "screen off". It can also mean "floating window", where you're still seeing the visual ad content and the video content. Yeah, users might then swipe it off where they don't have to see the ad, but either way, they're hearing it. And if YouTube can't figure out how to monetize that, this shows a real lack of imagination.
Re: (Score:2)
They are lying, but it isn't about ads. This is not about the ads at all. It's entirely about trying to get people to pay them extra for something that is a function of a device they already paid for, not YouTube.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's likely about ads. Those browers likely have been able to block the YouTube ads consistently. Firefox has been iffy at best - it usually works, but sometimes YouTube ads breaks through. But Edge and such have been really consistent at being able to skip YouTube ads (usually with UBlock). It's really the only reason I use Edge these days.
Re:Google Must Die (Score:4, Informative)
They are ensuring consistency. They are insuring it is consistently shitty.
Re: (Score:3)
"they are showing themselves to be complete and utter cunts"
Heh... We Dutchies had to come up with a word for Enshittification, and it looks like it will be Verkuttificatie, which translates back to "Encuntification". Maybe it's a good word to describe not the products being enshittified, but these companies slowly but consistently turning ever more evil.
Re: (Score:2)
"With this action, it is clear that Google have been encuntified as badly as HP !"
Re: (Score:2)
Is it a word that isn't too obscene to use in the media? That was Doctorow's mistake - he came up with a term that can't be used by the press (FCC banned obscenity), so the issue doesn't get discussed.
Re: (Score:2)
Which might be a valid excuse if it was a function provided by YouTube. It is not. It's a function built into the device that they decided to block. To my knowledge, nobody else did so. Everything else plays in the background.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess they meant, "Consistent with how we screw iPhone/iPad users out of being able to play videos in the background. The ads play there too; we just want to make people pay us to stop preventing them from using a built-in function of their devices."
Something that pisses me off to no end.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it evil, or merely Grade-A Capitalism?
You create a product in America that is two-tiered, with certain features exclusive to those who pay for Premium features. Then you find that consumers are able to steal from you by sidestepping said features. Which of course in turn deters current Premium members from continuing to pay, so they cancel their membership and choose a sidestepping alternative instead. Which directly impacts your revenue and ability to survive.
IF YouTube were a small to medium sized f
Re: (Score:2)
Is it evil, or merely Grade-A Capitalism? "It's the same picture."
wait, so they don't do this on chrome? (Score:4, Insightful)
If I was alphabet I would be extremely careful to make sure I don't prefer my own browser. That is.. unless I wanted the government to break me up.
Re:wait, so they don't do this on chrome? (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, just like what happened to Microsoft when they were found to be a monopoly because they favored their own browser over any other.
We're so fortunate that they were broken up into multiple companies!
Re: (Score:1)
For Microsoft, that would be the wrong way. Instead of making many Microsofts, the govts should go the other way, and make zero!
Re: (Score:2)
A judge already [1] ruled on that monopoly position and didn't force them to divest from Chrome. [bbc.com] Why change strategies if there isn't punishment?
From the article:
> He refused to grant government lawyers their request for a Google breakup that would include a spin-off of Chrome, the world's most popular browser.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyn0ek5rdpo
Re: (Score:3)
> If I was alphabet I would be extremely careful to make sure I don't prefer my own browser. That is.. unless I wanted the government to break me up.
They know in that case they'd just have to throw some money Donald's way and the problem would disappear.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats not what this about. Chrome already pauses playback when you minimize while watching youtube. YT on other browsers are now doing exactly what happens on Chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
What they are doing is enforcing the same rules to non-Chrome browsers that already applied to Chrome.
i.e. fixing the flaw in their code that let you do background streaming without a premium subscription by using a non-Chrome browser. They want background streaming to be a "paid subscription only" feature.
The smell of desperation (Score:5, Informative)
You can smell the desperation as they fail to keep people from blocking ads. They're just so so so so greedy and grasping that they piss themselves into a frenzy if they think they're losing ad views.
Remember, if you go to the bathroom during a commercial, you're breaking the implicit contract to watch every ad they show you, or you'll be STEALING from the advertisers. (Some ad exec actually said something to that effect but I can't find the quote.)
TRANSLATION TIME (Score:3)
A Google spokesperson told Android Authority that the platform "updated the experience to ensure consistency,"
TRANSLATION: "Fuck you, you'll watch our ads or we'll cripple your browser."
Can we please get rid of the feature entirely? (Score:2)
I find few things on my phone more annoying, than when I close the YouTube app, it keeps playing the video. No, when I close the app, the video needs to go away. Period.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't you just turn off "background app refresh" (or its Android equivalent) for the YouTube app?
I disable that for most apps as a matter of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I've been annoyed for years about that not happening because they block background playback on iThings. I want the video to play in the corner, which works for every other video app/website, but YouTube disables that built-in function.
And that's what really pisses me off. It's not a function YouTube had to create and support, it's a function of the device itself, and they prevent it from working.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess your idea of watching a video is different from mine. (And there's nothing wrong with that!) When I watch a video, I'm focused on it, not trying to do something else. When I go do something else, I don't want the video there interrupting me.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on context. There are some videos I watch because I'm interested, and other videos I watch to go to sleep. With the latter it's quite nice to be able to turn the screen off and still listen to the audio.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like a waste to use YouTube for audio only. There are plenty of music and podcast apps that focus on sound, and don't stop playing when your screen is off.
They snuck in another minor change. (Score:2)
They have changed the player app so you can no longer scrub through videos that are playing on your feed. If you're watching something and you don't care about the audio it was a handy way to avoid ads.
Just FYI (Score:2)
I know if people start buying Premium, they'll just raise the price. HOWEVER, as a massively biased Youtuber for 19 years with 100+ mil views, we make 40-200x more per user that has Premium depending on video length. Those are old stats that they no longer let us view but that's what it was. Also, you take the power away from the advertisers who can boycott and bully Youtube into aligning with their morals and politics. They'll generally do it anyway but still, it did happen twice and we're all sick of it.
Firefox Android still works (Score:2)
Firefox on Android with the [1]Video Background Play Fix [mozilla.org] extension still works, and probably won't stop working.
[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/android/addon/video-background-play-fix/
Fix, then fixed (Score:2)
Got that last week suddenly, Brave browser on Android,
Checking with ChatGPT, it proposed a few things, the one that worked: load the page in desktop mode.
I could then switch off my screen and continue listening.
Then i realised last night that Brave might have done something, or Youtube reversed that function ?
I no longer need to load the page in desktop mode, i can switch off my screen, continues to play.
If you wonder why i need this, i listen to stuff while falling asleep.
This isn't new! (Score:2)
On my iPhone, the YouTube app won't play in the background. It won't play in the background in Safari. It won't play in the background with any browser I have tried. I get a popup about paying for YouTube Premium, which I refuse to do. We're talking about built-in functionality that's blocked on YT's side for no legitimate reason I can see.
This is how it has been for YEARS! They didn't just do it. Maybe it's a new thing on Android, but they've had their dicks up iPhone users' asses for years. So, I
Re: (Score:2)
If it does not work in a web browser with an Ad blocker installed, then they can go away.
I will NEVER have these companies "App" on any of my devices, they can sod off as far as possible when it comes to my privacy.
They want access to MY computer in MY home...then it's by MY rules. If they do not like it, they are free to block me, I will just do other things.
google has no right to dictate how i use my device (Score:1)
fuck the bootlickers
Invidious is not affected (Score:1)
Also a good way to steer clear of the YT algorthm [1]https://invidious.io/ [invidious.io]
[1] https://invidious.io/
Do no evil? (Score:2)
I know they dropped that motto long ago. I still find it both sad and funny.
It’s getting harder and harder to remain with their tools.
I do get value from YouTube to help with home improvement projects and electronics hobby how-tos.
But the level of crap that comes through. How do these guys take themselves seriously? Ads for get rich schemes, perpetual motion machines (some variant of ‘free energy’ devices), bitcoin, ed drugs, etc. I don’t have particularly salacious browsing habit
Plenty of Browser Extensions (Score:2)
There are plenty of browser extensions for your favorite browser(s) that block or hijack the Javascript API's around backgrounding. Just search "Background Video" and pick one that looks reputable to you. There are also ViolentMonkey or TamperJS scripts.
This will be circumvented (Score:2, Informative)
NOBODY loves Google ads!
Re: (Score:2)
> NOBODY loves Google ads!
I don't entirely understand what background playback has to do with avoiding ads. If anything, playing in the background without Premium would mean hearing and possibly seeing more ads, because you won't be able to quickly skip them.
I also don't understand why YouTube thinks paywalling this is a good idea. From my perspective, background playback is basic functionality. If your app stops when I background it, I stop watching at that point, because it means I have something else to do with my phone. And
Re: (Score:2)
It's all about making people pay for Premium. It clearly isn't about ads, those play. It isn't about volume, or the screen. The device is what provides the background or windowed playback, not YouTube. YouTube has to change a setting from the default to make it not work.
It's all about making you pay for something they aren't providing. That's a scam.
Re: (Score:1)
That's not really true. This is accomplished with JavaScript. You can circumvent it with a very simple JS injection. I'm sure extensions will be created specifically for this, but if you already know how to inject JS... Easy peasy to bypass. And has nothing to do with changing a setting from the default... Whatever setting your suggesting and what you would change the default to I completely am lost. That's just not how Android works in this case(afaik).
I used Revanced or I'd have the injection code snippe