| ▲ | rappatic 3 days ago | ||||||||||||||||
At least in the case of a music player, self-hosting simply isn't good enough for me. I'm not willing to accept a single second of added latency or buffering or downtime because I don't have multimillion dollar server farms. The fact is that the vast majority of us don't have the resources to self-host a Jellyfin instance that can provide near-instantaneous access anywhere in the world to every song ever made at 320kbps. And that's the bar for music. I can deal with a little added latency vs. Netflix on a Plex server or something. But I'm not willing to compromise with music. This isn't even to mention the numerous features that Spotify has which are difficult or impossible to replicate on self-hosting. The "radio" feature, song recommendations, the DJ, AI playlists, stations, automatic playlist enhancement, social features, Canvas... the list goes on. And of course I never have to worry about managing a library of mp3 files. When an artist I like drops a new album, it'll be on Spotify at 12:00am exactly and work perfectly. This isn't possible with self-hosting. When you look at it this way, the chance to pay 6 bucks a month to get all these extra features and ignore the headache of self-hosting is a no-brainer. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | jjulius 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
>I'm not willing to accept a single second of added latency or buffering or downtime... >... near-instantaneous access anywhere in the world to every song ever... Nobody needs this. You think you do, but nobody needs everything everywhere all at once. If being wholly unwilling to wait "a single second" isn't sarcasm, then... yeesh. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | bigstrat2003 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
> The fact is that the vast majority of us don't have the resources to self-host a Jellyfin instance that can provide near-instantaneous access anywhere in the world to every song ever made at 320kbps. The fact also is that the vast majority of us don't have a requirement to be able to access our media from anywhere in the world. Most people aren't traveling the world on a regular basis, they stay in one area except for maybe an occasional vacation. > And of course I never have to worry about managing a library of mp3 files. When an artist I like drops a new album, it'll be on Spotify at 12:00am exactly and work perfectly. This isn't possible with self-hosting. If that's important to you, then indeed self-hosting will never be able to match it. But for me at least, my music listening has been 95% static since about 20 years ago. On occasion I hear something new that I add to the collection, but for the most part I listen to the same music I did some time ago. Paying $6/mo to Spotify just to listen to the same things I already have in my collection would be a gross waste of money. So for me it's the exact opposite: self hosting is a no-brainer because I simply would not get any value for my $6/mo. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | PhilipRoman 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
I'm a bit confused, why would you have problems with latency for music? This is not real time sound mixing where you need millisecond latencies, the client can just download the whole thing and play it. Even high quality audio files are tiny (unless you're listening to 4 hour classical operas). | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | udev4096 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
It's no-brainer for people who do not care about freedom or file preservation. Spotify can pull the plug on whatever your favorite song is and there is NOTHING you can do about it. Then again, spotify has hundreds of millions of clueless subscribers, such as yourself, who will willfully consume the most crappy audio codec and praise them for it | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||