Some Firefox users noticed playback issues on YouTube for several months. These affected high resolution videos only, from 1080p and up. To make matters worse, no clear pattern could be identified.
Some videos played fine, others would stop abruptly when they ran out of buffer.
For months I’ve had problems with YouTube videos in Firefox, at any resolution. They would play at really low FPS. Sometimes the player would pause and continue at the correct FPS, but usually not. Skipping backwards or forwards usually fixes it but not always. Another step in their monopoly to destroy competition.
Firefox for Android? Happens with any video, this is not YT bug.
Oh lol so that was it, yesterday all of a sudden 1440p and 4k videos were unwatchable, it was a stutter fest and thought something was wrong with my gpu.
Ya I’ve had this issue for months now, the video will freeze when the original 10 seconds of buffer is used, and it’ll play fine if I skip another 10 seconds but just buffer indefinitely otherwise.
You can get an extension to easily change your browser ‘user agent’ to make YouTube think you’re on chrome lol
Which one
Not OP, I use this https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/uaswitcher/
I’ve noticed that 60fps videos struggle a lot, even at 720p, suspiciously, no issues on chrome
Badly muxed VP9 stream? Is that where they tried to stuff ads into it?
If it doesn’t load quickly or properly, I just don’t watch it, which ultimately hurts Google.
I have had the same issue for at least a month now. I use YouTube Premium, the fuck am I paying for?
You’re posting for your inability to download ublock.
I already have an uBlock dude, it’s just I like to support content creators on YouTube by having Premium.
Support them directly instead of whatever peanuts google decides to graciously give them.
That’s a lot of effort, given how many people I am subscribed to. And I wouldn’t say that it’ “peanuts”, after all they redistribute 55% of YouTube Premium earnings, that’s a lot more than what other similar subscriptions give.
Would you support that kind of business model if you were at the other end, knowing full well you could be earning more? Then again, this is an age-old question…
For your experience to only be degraded a little.
For an slightly better but still degraded experience they want you on Google Chrome. But remember please use 360p or lower so their poor servers don’t have to work so hard, they even help you do this by default on mobile!
I also pay for YouTube, and I keep chrome around for watching it, and for the Google apps
You’re paying them to sell your data and to better advertise to you.
I resorted to having Chrome for work things, Opera for Youtube and Firefox for the good stuff. Divide and conquer, I guess.
I love freetube
I use Librewolf with Ublock and sponsorblock. Sometimes youtube video stops loading or keeps seeking 5-10 seconds forward. However, reloading the page helps. I don’t have such problems when watching Youtube with mpv.
I happens to me but all i thought was that YouTube was bad not Firefox.
It is.
“This problem is triggered by bad muxed VP9 bytestream served by Youtube, so it’s not a regression on our side, this issue can also be reproduced on old versions Firefox”.
My videos play fine but my side bar is completely gone. No recommended videos, no similar videos, no playlist. Works fine on my other PC.
It’s underneath on mine, with the contents in the sidebar. Looks shite.
They work fine on Brave Browser.
Of course, Brave is built by Google.
Here we go with the circle jerk of trolls.
No, it isn’t.
@FlashMobOfOne
Sort of, Chromium is maintained by Google, Brave and its users just sit atop the Goggle shitpile and help enable it to contine.Brave is built on Chromium which is maintained by Google. Under that context, what they said is true and also makes perfect sense
Clearly this isn’t an anti-competition effort.
We need to being back trust busting.
FTC is already on Google’s case
Yeah that $1000 fine should fix things (or whatever amount they pick)
75% of annual revenue until the issue is addressed would actually work.
Yes well that’s pie in the sky.
The question is why? Having big corporations beyond the control of regulation should not be as normalized as it is.
A pie in the face is worth two in the sky.
Affected users might have blamed Firefox for the issue. Some may even have switched to a Chromium-based browser, as these worked without any issue.
I’ve been having issues with YouTube on Firefox for ages, not these issues, different ones. I haven’t bothered to test if it’s only Firefox that has the problem because I’m not using Firefox for a seamless experience, I’m using it because why the fuck would I use anything else on Linux? I won’t put google or ms into a Linux environment, even if I don’t really care about privacy or whatever, it just feels like mixing oil and water.
Might use another browser like brave or whatever foss solutions are out there, but I’d be surprised if anything like that is better than Firefox.
I have issues with YouTube playback specifically on my work laptop. At home it’s fine. It just started one day where videos sometimes fail to auto play and requires multiple refreshes. Even once they get going they often stall out and the progress bar goes all the way back to the beginning so I’ve gotten in the habit of taking notes of the time before I hit refresh and hope it comes back before I completely lose all interest.
I’d use Piped instead, but it has literally never once worked for me. Videos never load.
Invidious on PC,
Grayjay on Android.
You’re welcome.
How can I use those while keeping my watch history automatically sync’d between devices?
Can’t speak for invidious, but grayjay’s youtube plugin has a “Provide Youtube Activity” option in it’s settings to keep history synced.
NewPipe on Android.
Fuck GrayJay, their marketing lies, and their nasty license.
“nasty license” ok dude.
Take your pills grandpa.
What’s wrong with having some principles and logic ?
The source is available and open for anyone to view.
The license protects the product while allowing anyone who wants to poke through the code.
Isn’t the greyjay developer team funded by Louis Rossman
What’s wrong with Louis Rossman? His right-to-repair push is great.
Grayjay is funded by FUTO, and Louis works for FUTO.
No. Louis works for greyjay. There is some billionaire behind it all.
What lies? And what’s wrong with the license? It is to prevent other companies from taking their source code to make applications that aren’t free.
Advertised as “open source”, violates several key parts of the open source definition. AKA false advertising. It’s really a “look but don’t touch” thing.
And you do realise ANY copyleft license (GPL, etc) prevents the creation of nonfree applications using that code? Making the app proprietary (yes, GrayJay counts as proprietary) is completely unnecessary.
I know Rossmann brought up NewPipe fakes on the Play Store as justification, but NewPipe is licensed under the GPL. These fakes were already illegal as per the terms of the GPL. His special restrictive license is no better than the GPL for preventing that. So all it really does is prevent legitimate uses of the code.
If someone posts their source code publicly, it’s open source. It’s unreasonable to ask them to review and maintain every PR sent their way. If they want to work on it by themselves, that’s fine. If you want to fork it and make changes yourself, you can. Literally the only qualification for something to be open source is that the source is open.
It’s also unreasonable to be upset if they tell you you’re not allowed to take their work and re-sell it for your own profit. That would be like saying that artists are in the wrong for being upset that all those AI companies used their work to train their bots without asking. “Why would they prevent the creation of nonfree applications that use their work?!” I assume that’s not your position, right?
But as you said, NewPipe is also copyleft, and it seems like you don’t have a problem with that. So I don’t really understand what your issue is with Grayjay/FUTO. It’s reasonable to be concerned about where their funding comes from, but you haven’t mentioned that. You say they have “marketing lies”, but haven’t pointed to any.
It’s perfectly fine for there to be multiple open source solutions to the same problem, and you’re allowed to have a favorite, but that doesn’t warrant dragging the others’ names through the mud for no reason.
If someone posts their source code publicly, it’s open source.
Uh, no. That’s called “source-available”. Terms have meanings. And from the day the words “open source” started being used, this definition is what defined them: https://opensource.org/osd
You can’t just redefine an established term because it’s inconvenient to your argument.
It’s unreasonable to ask them to review and maintain every PR
Good thing being free/open source doesn’t require that, then? It basically just requires the users be free to make their own modifications freely and distribute them freely (and of course to use the program freely). No requirement for public development involvement at all, really. It’s standard practice but by no means necessary.
If you want to fork it and make changes for yourself, you can
They can terminate your license for any reason or no reason (stated in the license) making your fork in violation of copyright law :).
In other words, they can take down your fork if they feel like it. Making the ability to fork useless.
literally the only qualification for something to be open source …
Again, terms have established meanings. See above.
It’s also unreasonable to be upset if they tell you you’re not allowed to take their work and re-sell it for your own profit.
I don’t see how this paragraph relates to my point at all. Is it about the NewPipe paid clones? Because they were illegal anyways (copyleft violation), no egregious license needed.
But as you said, NewPipe is also copyleft, and it seems like you don’t have a problem with that. So I don’t really understand what your issue is with Grayjay/FUTO.
What do you mean “also copyleft”? Are you implying the GrayJay license is copyleft? Because it absolutely isn’t. Again, established term, definition: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html
You say they have “marketing lies”, but haven’t pointed to any.
I was referring to Rossmann proudly proclaiming that GrayJay is open source in the announcement (?). The immediate aftermath was a gain in goodwill in the free software/open source communities (you can see this on Reddit threads in those communities upon initial announcement), until people dug into the license and found that its actually a proprietary license.
And finally, here’s some particularly nasty parts of the license, which funilly enough you don’t ever see in free/open source licenses (because they’re horribly restrictive terms):
“If you issue proceedings in any jurisdiction against the provider because you consider the provider has infringed copyright or any patent right in respect of the code (including any joinder or counterclaim), your license to the code is automatically terminated.”
“We may suspend, terminate or vary the terms of this license and any access to the code at any time, without notice, for any reason or no reason, in respect of any licensee, group of licensees or all licensees including as may be applicable any sub-licensees.”
You can’t just redefine an established term because it’s inconvenient to your argument.
Agreed, which is why you can’t expect to enforce the definition you like on everyone. The only thing about “open source” that we agree on is that the “source” is “open”.
I’m realizing you’re working with outdated information. Take a look at the license again, it’s been updated.
you can’t expect to enforce the definition you like on everyone
It is literally the definition which has been used since the term’s conception when the open source movement split off from the software freedom movement. It is a well established term with a well established meaning. Just because you don’t want to use that meaning doesn’t mean it isn’t correct and most widely recognised. Its not that I like the definition, it’s that it is the primary definition and always has been.
Taking the words “open” and “source” separately and interpreting them as you like and combining them is just changing well established meanings to suit yourself, when the whole term “open source” is already well defined.
it’s been updated
Okay the new one does seem a bit less egregious to be fair but still doesn’t fit the open source definition due to the restrictions on how you’re allowed to use it and redistribute it.
