Jellyfin isn’t arguably better, especially for some of tne main things people use Plex for - remote streaming and library sharing. Jellyfin pretty much doesn’t support them.

[–] bigbangdangler@reddthat.com 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

That's the arguably part. The argument.

[–] Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So...

What is the argument for jellyfin? It's basically the exact same thing without the relay servers or no-setup remote streaming and sharing.

[–] bigbangdangler@reddthat.com 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Remote access is the single area where Plex is better. Even then, it's not that you can't do it with Jellyfin; it's just harder to set up.

Everything about Jellyfin is free. This includes hardware transcoding, which is subscription based on Plex.

The Jellyfin apps are also much better than they used to be. I'd say easily on par with Plex now (the native Jellyfin client and the music app, finamp).

To me, it seems like a really hard sell when Jellyfin effectively does everything that the paid service does for free.

[–] Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I do think it's weird that Plex decided to put hardware transcoding behind a paid membership, so that's obviously a negative, but it sounds like the argument for jellyfin is that it's free but you get less. That's ok, I'm not dragging jellyfin through the mud on this, but you have to admit many people think their Plex purchase is worth it compared to jellyfin.

[–] bigbangdangler@reddthat.com 1 points 1 month ago

As I said, I don't think it's worth it. And that's OK -- we can disagree.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 points 1 month ago

Remote access is the single area where Plex is better.

Saying things like this is laughable. JellyFin is basically temu plex, better at pretty much nothing other than being open source. At best it matches it in some ways, at worst it is significantly worse and lacking features.

Everything about Jellyfin is free. This includes hardware transcoding, which is subscription based on Plex.

If the server owner has a lifetime pass, theres no subscription fee needed by anyone. Hardware transcoding on Plex is also significantly better than on JellyFin.

The Jellyfin apps are also much better than they used to be.

But still trash compared to plex.

To me, it seems like a really hard sell when Jellyfin effectively does everything that the paid service does for free.

Again, apart from easy and secure remote streaming.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

How?

The argument for Plex is their catalogue.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No, the argument for plex is that it's easy and widely supported. It has an app on every device in existence, and a new user can be streaming from a friends server remotely within minutes of asking for access, with no VPN or IP whitelisting or any other workaround required. Secure, fast, easy.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

What platform doesn’t support Jellyfin?

The rest of that applies to Jellyfin as well, I just give you the url and the account details then you’re good to go.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

90% of the TVs out there. Not everyone has an android tv.

What url are you giving me for jellyfin? You’ve exposed jellyfin to the open internet? You know how stupid that is?

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

You think 90% of TVs don't use Roku, webOS, Android, or Apple?

No different than exposing any other port service, like Plex for example. However it's my reverse proxy.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

No, they don’t.

Very different to that, actually. Someone with this poor knowledge of networking absolutely should not be exposing their server to the open internet.