With jellyfin going from strength to strength, is there much point in a pay software model ?
Strength to strength is a bit debatable. I run both Plex and Jellyfin (occasionally try Jellyfin to see how it evolved) because I want to have a quick switchover from any platform that’s not fully local or under my control since those are very prone to enshittification.
Unless Jellyfin was revolutionized in the past month, its only (invaluable) advantage will still be the control you have over your own platform. In other aspects which are core requirements for such a platform (e.g. HW transcoding, or even sorting and pulling metadata for series) it’s still behind by a substantial degree if you ask me (others may disagree or we just use it differently).
I’m not against paid software, and I also don’t think free necessarily means better, or that there’s no room for commercial offerings. Jellyfin getting better just means Plex will have to put the money to good use and do better too.
is it?
all it’s client apps are dogshit.
the server app has some things that it does better then plex, but there are many things that aren’t
Jellyfins problem is that it’s open source, and all the contributors do it for free in their own free time. this means that “must have” features either never arrive (because the contributors don’t have the skill or don’t need it themselves) or happen at a glacial pace.
at the moment, for me, i have pretty much given up on plex clients, and only use plex as a server backend (with all the nonsense disabled as much as they allow you to). i now use Infuse (in direct mode) for playback, with the benefit that Infuse actually plays the content “correctly” unlike the plex client.
2 Likes
Yeah I sort of wish Plex would just license using Infuse for their Apple TV player. I don’t want them to buy Infuse (because they’d most likely wreck it) - just use their code for the player.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
