> Vanced is discontinued for "legal reasons" as vanced was infringing the logo and branding of the original YouTube app as the logo resembles the original logo in a similar way and was used without taking prior permission from Google for using the branding.<p>Huh?!? That was the only reason behind the C&D letter and they killed the product when a simple logo redesign could have solved the issue? Or the C&D letter would have voided any attempt to do that? Something doesn't add up.
Broadly, I think it would be a mistake to read this with the idea that you're going to get the truth out of it. This smells very much like CYA spin. Not mad at all of course, do what you gotta.
> <i>The main source of income for youtube isn't ads. YouTube revolves around the merchandise and YouTube Premium subscriptions.</i><p>Lol. You can open Alphabet's 10-Q or 10-K and find out in a matter of seconds how untrue this is. Reminds me of the famous "Senator, we run ads <suppressed smile>" by Zuckerberg.
> Vanced is discontinued for "legal reasons" as vanced was infringing the logo and branding of the original YouTube app as the logo resembles the original logo in a similar way and was used without taking prior permission from Google for using the branding<p>So if this is the actual reason, shutting down completely seems a bit of an overreaction. Why not just get a new logo and rebrand the app ?
Not an attorney, but I suspect two mistakes the YouTube Vanced team did with the project is having "YouTube" in the name (Could be considered as a false association and trademark violation by Google or YouTube), and redistributing complete APKs that were modified YouTube APKs that would be under copyright.<p>I have not looked into the inner works of this, but on device patching of APK DEX classes from a set of patches is possible. Would not require root as long as it generates a patched APK and installs that using the standard PackageInstaller. That is probably a less risky proposition then distributing modified APKs themselves.
> Some users believe that Google had sent cease & desist letter because the Vanced Team had posted NFT to earn money out of the vanced project. The Vanced NFT was never sold in the end. Besides, it was done as a joke and nothing more.<p>Says everything you need to know about NFTs
> The main source of income for youtube isn't ads. YouTube revolves around the merchandise and YouTube Premium subscriptions.<p>> If you are talking about creators who are not earning money for using vanced, you should know they won't make millions out of those ads.<p>... right. Feel free to keep telling yourselves that.
>The vanced team will "NEVER" make its source code public. Making the source code available on the internet can cause serious complications for us.<p>There shouldn't be issues as long as you are sharing them as patches unless they didn't own the rights to the code they added.
This part jumped out at me:<p>> The vanced team will "NEVER" make its source code public. Making the source code available on the internet can cause serious complications for us.<p>???<p>Anyone have any idea (or even guesses) as to what that's about? Does the source contain a murder confession?
>The vanced team will "NEVER" make its source code public. Making the source code available on the internet can cause serious complications for us.<p>What would those complicatiosn be?
I'm really sad I missed the boat on Vanced by one day. I'd heard about it for a long time and randomly decided to finally start using it only to find all the download links had been removed the day before. Youtube ads have become horrendously annoying.<p>Does anyone know if the apks can be found on any archive site?
> The vanced team will "NEVER" make its source code public. Making the source code available on the internet can cause serious complications for us.<p>is it possible that Vanced actually contained Malware/Cryptominers and therefore they dont want to open source it?
> The vanced team will "NEVER" make its source code public. Making the source code available on the internet can cause serious complications for us.<p>How would Google have acted if the source code was open source from the beginning?
So they couldn't just redesign the logo/app to be dissimilar enough from YouTube?<p>I really want to know what these "complications" are, this is the sketchiest way I've seen someone refuse to open source something.<p>> The vanced team will "NEVER" make its source code public. Making the source code available on the internet can cause serious complications for us.
It sounds like they're making it really clear that they've "killed" the project, probably so they can just start another one that doesn't have the same issues. I wouldn't be surprised if they just form a new LLC, and transfer the old code as IP between the two, tweaking the offending assets and calling it a day.
Here's a link to the post in the official Telegram channel it was posted in:
<a href="https://t.me/Vanced/207" rel="nofollow">https://t.me/Vanced/207</a>