←back to thread

579 points Leftium | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.218s | source
Show context
molticrystal ◴[] No.45306399[source]
The claim that Google secretly wants YouTube downloaders to work doesn't hold up. Their focus is on delivering videos across a vast range of devices without breaking playback(and even that is blurring[0]), not enabling downloads.

If you dive into the yt-dlp source code, you see the insane complexity of calculations needed to download a video. There is code to handle nsig checks, internal YouTube API quirks, and constant obfuscation that makes it a nightmare(and the maintainers heroes) to keep up. Google frequently rejects download attempts, blocks certain devices or access methods, and breaks techniques that yt-dlp relies on.

Half the battle is working around attempts by Google to make ads unblockable, and the other half is working around their attempts to shut down downloaders. The idea of a "gray market ecosystem" they tacitly approve ignores how aggressively they tweak their systems to make downloading as unreliable as possible. If Google wanted downloaders to thrive, they wouldn't make developers jump through these hoops. Just look at the yt-dlp issue tracker overflowing with reports of broken functionality. There are no secret nods, handshakes, or other winks, as Google begins to care less and less about compatibility, the doors will close. For example, there is already a secret header used for authenticating that you are using the Google version of Chrome browser [1] [2] that will probably be expanded.

[0] Ask HN: Does anyone else notice YouTube causing 100% CPU usage and stattering? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45301499

[1] Chrome's hidden X-Browser-Validation header reverse engineered https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44527739

[2] https://github.com/dsekz/chrome-x-browser-validation-header

replies(18): >>45306431 #>>45307288 #>>45308312 #>>45308891 #>>45309570 #>>45309738 #>>45310615 #>>45310619 #>>45310847 #>>45311126 #>>45311155 #>>45311160 #>>45311645 #>>45313122 #>>45315060 #>>45315374 #>>45316124 #>>45325129 #
Aissen ◴[] No.45316124[source]
You conveniently side-stepped the argument that YouTube already knows how to serve DRM-ized videos, and it's widely deployed in its Movies & TV offering, available on the web and other clients. They chose not to escalate on all videos, probably for multiple reasons. It's credible that one reason could be that it wants the downloaders to keep working; they wouldn't want those to suddenly gain the ability to download DRM-ized videos (software that does this exist but it's not as well maintained and circulated).
replies(2): >>45316199 #>>45384502 #
1. moritzwarhier ◴[] No.45316199[source]
It seems more credible to me that they would cut off a sizable portion of their viewers by forcing widevine DRM.

Or is it something different you are thinking about?

What benefits does DRM even provide for public, ad-supported content that you don't need to log for in order to watch it?

Does DRM cryptography offer solutions against ad blocking, or downloading videos you have legitimate access to?

Sorry that I'm too lazy to research this, but I'd appreciate if you elaborate more on this.

And also, I think they're playing the long game and will be fine to put up a login wall and aggressively block scraping and also force ID. Like Instagram.

Would be glad if I'm wrong, but I don't think so. They just haven't reached a sufficient level of monopolization for this and at the same time, the number of people watching YouTube without at least being logged in is probably already dwindling.

So they're not waiting anymore to be profitable, they already are, through ads and data collection.

But they have plenty of headroom left to truly start boiling the frog, and become a closed platform.