4 ms·

Plex is just an application. My start, back when it was still Mac-only, was to run it on my Macbook Pro. When the drive got full, I deleted content that I'd alr

by tbyehl 7y ago

Plex is just an application. My start, back when it was still Mac-only, was to run it on my Macbook Pro. When the drive got full, I deleted content that I'd already watched. For a decade now, Plex runs on any Windows / Mac / Linux device. It'll run on a Raspberry Pi. NVIDIA Shield. Western Digital's My Cloud NAS products (from $139 w/ 2TB). QNAP. Synology. The main obstacle for "average" people is just knowing that Plex exists.

untog 7y ago
It isn’t just an application, it’s an application that runs on your always-on computer. Which most people don’t have. Nor do they have a Raspberry Pi, QNAP or Synology NAS. Knowing that Plex exists is certainly one thing. But you still need to run it somewhere.
- tbyehl 7y ago
  What's the argument here, that average people are too dumb to know that their computer needs to be on to access something running on it? That they're too dumb and poor to find and buy another device to run their Plex server if they don't want to use their PC? I think you underestimate people a bit too much.
  - untog 7y ago
    "Too dumb" feels overly emotive. But yes, I'm saying there is a significant gulf between the average user's current setup (a Roku, Apple TV, whatever) and a server that costs several hundred dollars (if you want anything approaching plug and play) and has to be on all the time, both financial and tech knowledge wise. It's not that users are "too dumb" to do it, it's that it is an inconvenience people are more than willing to pay to avoid. "You use your remote to choose the show you want to watch, and you watch it" is worth $10-15 a month to people when it's compared to "You buy a server, plug it in and leave it on all the time, maybe be responsible for software updates on a regular basis, and also set up some kind of torrenting system to request the shows you want in advance".
    - tbyehl 7y ago
      My experience around average income non-tech-enthusiast parents is they have a binder stuffed with $2 pirated DVDs and a USB drive full of stuff they've torrented / exchanged with friends. Running Plex with whatever computer they've got isn't a stretch.

by tbyehl 7y ago

untog 7y ago

It isn’t just an application, it’s an application that runs on your always-on computer. Which most people don’t have. Nor do they have a Raspberry Pi, QNAP or Synology NAS. Knowing that Plex exists is certainly one thing. But you still need to run it somewhere.

tbyehl 7y ago
What's the argument here, that average people are too dumb to know that their computer needs to be on to access something running on it? That they're too dumb and poor to find and buy another device to run their Plex server if they don't want to use their PC? I think you underestimate people a bit too much.
- untog 7y ago
  "Too dumb" feels overly emotive. But yes, I'm saying there is a significant gulf between the average user's current setup (a Roku, Apple TV, whatever) and a server that costs several hundred dollars (if you want anything approaching plug and play) and has to be on all the time, both financial and tech knowledge wise. It's not that users are "too dumb" to do it, it's that it is an inconvenience people are more than willing to pay to avoid. "You use your remote to choose the show you want to watch, and you watch it" is worth $10-15 a month to people when it's compared to "You buy a server, plug it in and leave it on all the time, maybe be responsible for software updates on a regular basis, and also set up some kind of torrenting system to request the shows you want in advance".
  - tbyehl 7y ago
    My experience around average income non-tech-enthusiast parents is they have a binder stuffed with $2 pirated DVDs and a USB drive full of stuff they've torrented / exchanged with friends. Running Plex with whatever computer they've got isn't a stretch.