Please wait...
Once again I'm probably the last to figure this out, but ...
I was using "XBrowserSync" extension to sync my bookmarks across browsers. It has a choice of servers or you can run your own. I was happy with it for years but it appears to be getting murdered by the ManifestV2 slaugter.
Found a replacement called Floccus. It does all the same things, can store your bookmarks using a bunch of different stores (both cloud and personal options -- I'm actually using my own git server), and relies on HTTPS encryption rather than storing bookmarks in an opaque format. And it is ManifestV3 so the Goolag won't try to destroy it anytime soon.
Yes, all browsers have bookmark sync, but none of them are willing to sync between different browsers. This does. I am happy.
Gotta love walled gardens, that feed off of advertisements. How dare you circumvent us!
Once again I'm probably the last to figure this out, but ...
I was using "XBrowserSync" extension to sync my bookmarks across browsers. It has a choice of servers or you can run your own. I was happy with it for years but it appears to be getting murdered by the ManifestV2 slaugter.
Found a replacement called Floccus. It does all the same things, can store your bookmarks using a bunch of different stores (both cloud and personal options -- I'm actually using my own git server), and relies on HTTPS encryption rather than storing bookmarks in an opaque format. And it is ManifestV3 so the Goolag won't try to destroy it anytime soon.
Yes, all browsers have bookmark sync, but none of them are willing to sync between different browsers. This does. I am happy.
Apple is still worse.
Also, i suspect 3rd party phones will still allow it. Or there will be a way to 'fix' it, at least for the foreseeable future. Much like you could ( still can? i donno ) jailbreak iOS.
Louis Rossman is pointing out that if they move to an app store only model, then at that point you might as well be on iPhone.
Subject: Re: Bookmarks sync in the Mv3 world
Gotta love walled gardens, that feed off of advertisements. How dare
you circumvent us! [36m
Yeah. And the more they do it, the more resistance they get.
For example: I have a ten year old Vizio television that has a "cast" receiver built in to its software. It's the only time I tolerate ads in the videos, because the older protocol doesn't have remote control integration (not even through the sending phone) so it plays ads that are non-skippable but mercifully short. (Ok, they're starting to get longer, but they're not, like, three minutes long.)
The old software is getting unreliable, though. It appears to be maintained by a diversity hire who doesn't really know how to code. And/or Goolag simply doesn't care. So I looked into a replacement and I found Youtube Cast Receiver [https://github.com/GarrettBlackmon/youtube-cast-receiver] which is, quite simply, an Electron app that sets the user-agent to that of a smart TV and then opens https://youtube.com/tv -- which, as it turns out, is what ALL modern Smart TVs do. This seems like an obviously good strategy because now Goolag need only maintain the "lean-back" UI in one place, instead of orchestrating a thousand apps on a thousand Smart TV devices.
And it works! I tried it on my laptop this past week and opened it up on the TV in a hotel room, and it worked perfectly. BUT...
As soon as Goolag determines that you are holding a device that can be used as a remote control (including a linked smartphone) ... it goes into MEGA AD MODE. I watched a 25 minute video and there were three commercial breaks, and each of them had ads that would run for 1 to 3 minutes if I didn't skip them.
You know what I'm going to do now? Damn skippy you do. I'm going to join the product and add "security features" that block harmful URL's from being ingested. And the way you feed those URL's in will be through the standard Adblock list format.
Congratulations, dirtbags. You've converted a user who tolerated a few ads to a user who will consume zero ads.
Miracast is an option. Its what the rest of the industry uses other than than apple and google.
In fact, i just ordered a new "anycast" dongle. It supports several protocols, even apples.. native. Supposedly even chromecast, but never got that to work right. ( part of my plan B for when my current AndroidTV box either dies or gets upgraded to GeminiTV ). Ironically, chrome use to stream to it too. But google cut that off some time ago and now its "only allowed sites". ( which does not include any of theirs :) )
Was supposed to arrive today " hurry, order in 3 hours it will be there at 4am Saturday!!!" "um, never mind, perhaps Monday ( Not that i care, but annoyed at the false-promises )
New, in that my previous gen current dongle works fine ( just updated it Friday actually ) only is 2G WiFi, and this bumps it to 5G. Its not used much, mostly was to record something when i have no other practical alternative, or when i was on the road i could use it in a hotel room. Just cast to that, and then hook my HDMI to USB converter, and hit record. If i go to that as plan B ( instead of the NUC idea ) ill want the extra bandwidth i think.
And apparently i cant read.
Well, it arrived today anyway.... What i have now is 'anycast' i thought i got an upgraded version. But no, its 'ezcast' and no, its not the same feature set. Not sure if its going to work for me or not.
Subject: Re: Bookmarks sync in the Mv3 world
Miracast is an option. Its what the rest of the industry uses
True, and I have devices that do Miracast as well.
The win with doing youtube the native way is that the remote device (phone or whatever) does not sit in the media data path; it is basically your phone commanding your TV to play a video directly.
While true, aside from being shackled into the google infrastructure the biggest disadvantage to chromecast is it *requires* internet. Not that im against google ( yet ), but i dont want to be locked into it. And im slowly getting aggravated with them.
Sure, if you are watching YT, or Netflix or something that is fine, but if you want to use local files and not expose your TV to the outside.. it wont work if its 'only' a chromecast. ( one advantage to my AndroidTV, its a real android box underneath and chromecast is optional.
I had a blueray player like that once. For it to work at all it *had* to have internet. It wasn't around long and found its way to the dumpster.
( oh, and if you cast YT to your TV, all your browser ad blocks die, since like you say, its not really coming from your browser anymore, its direct to your tv )
Miracast is an option. Its what the rest of the industry uses
True, and I have devices that do Miracast as well.
The win with doing youtube the native way is that the remote device (phone or whatever) does not sit in the media data path; it is basically your phone commanding your TV to play a video directly.