6 ms·

Some very-well-requested features/clients have gotten no traction at all, with no one coming in willing to start/help developing them. We've had to abandon some

Some very-well-requested features/clients have gotten no traction at all, with no one coming in willing to start/help developing them. We've had to abandon some (like Chromecast for a while, though it's getting new life in the last few weeks) because of this. We're aware that probably the biggest complaints about Jellyfin are about the lack of client support, and the rough edges/lack of polish. We do hear you. We do want this to improve this just as much as you do. But we need people to help us do so. We need more volunteers who can help make the code better, write new code, document, and generally improve things. We need your help to push past what I call the Development Bystander Problem, get some new blood into the project, and especially, help to make it better! https://jellyfin.org/posts/a-call-for-developers/ It's noble to want to be a 100% volunteer force but it's frustrating that they know they have issues and a big pot of money but won't solve them. Even without paying for development, money could be spent to improve the developer experience and attract new devs. They have acknowledged client development is an issue in the OP and the link above. Could they not support client devs with hardware, licences, costs, etc...

IshKebab 2y ago
I don't understand why they even care about not paying for development. Is paying for development somehow immoral? Of course not!
- wccrawford 2y ago
  Not immoral, but it's a huge HR headache. Once people get paid, you have to deal with what people are worth. And everyone thinks everyone (including themselves) is worth different amounts. Coming to a consensus about that is a huge hassle, and will still end up with hurt feelings. Bad moral is bad for code. If you have enough money, you can swallow that pill and push through. If you don't, it will make things worse. They have enough money for what they do, but they haven't got nearly enough income (donations) to pay everyone market wages.
  - n3m4c 2y ago
    Could they go the tinygrad route and post bounties like "$1000 for fixing this major bug"
    - ori_b 2y ago
      That's not nearly enough to sustain a competent developer, but it is enough to make a project feel like work to a hobbyist.
      - InsomniacL 2y ago
        > That's not nearly enough to sustain a competent developer It doesn't have to be enough to sustain a developer, only enough to attract a developer who would have otherwise not bothered. > but it is enough to make a project feel like work to a hobbyist I really don't see how anyone would do something but then decide not to once they found out there is a reward.
        ori_b 2y ago
        > I really don't see how anyone would do something but then decide not to once they found out there is a reward. The people who can realistically claim the reward realistically can get better rewards elsewhere. Once you shift the thought process from considering how much fun you have hacking into accounting how much you can make, people start spending time in a way to that will optimize earning potential. You start losing. How many people paint for fun? Do you think they'd do it if it was a job that paid $3/hour?
        InsomniacL 2y ago
        > The people who can realistically claim the reward realistically can get better rewards elsewhere. Yes, but why does that mean someone who was going to do something no longer would. Or that someone who was tempted but wouldn't, still won't now there is more incentive. > Once you shift the thought process from ... how much you can make... I'm talking about a reward / incentive, not employment. JellyFin has a merch store, offer contributors some merch via vouchers or something! > How many people paint for fun? Do you think they'd do it if it was a job that paid $3/hour? Do you think that if everyone automatically received $3/hour for all hobby painting they did that nobody would paint anymore? I think they'd get a coffee with it and take a moment to look back on their work.
- lolinder 2y ago
  They're the FOSS entrant in the category dominated by Plex, which has a history of monetization strategies that upset the community. Jellyfin probably wants to stay completely clear of even the appearance of being a paid project because the main reason someone would choose them over Plex is to get away from the influence of monetary incentives.
  - djbon2112 2y ago
    This is exactly why. When I (and the other original folks) decided to fork Emby to make Jellyfin, we had seen exactly what trajectory other projects in this space had been taking: 1. Start off small and FLOSS. 2. Attract a userbase. 3. Start requesting more and more money. 4. Start "paying full-time developers" or similar. 5. Add nagscreens, premium features, and the like to "increase revenue". 6. Go proprietary. My extremely hardline stance on this has been to nip this trend in the bud right at steps 3 and 4 by taking ALL money out of the development process. What we use donations for is a very small list, as mentioned on the OpenCollective page: 1. Paying for Infrastructure. Domains, VPSes, etc. 2. Each team member (contributors who are distinguished and invited into the org) gets a single one-time $300 USD credit for buying a client device to help them work on the project. And that's it. This is why I made this post, to basically say - in many more words - "hey, we have enough runway for a few years. Donate to individual people or other projects instead".
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- michaelt 2y ago
  They make a 'free software media solution that puts you in control and respects your privacy' and if they're not naive, they probably suspect a decent portion of their users are playing pirated movies. So from a certain perspective, saying "no-one gets paid" is more consistent than saying "us developers get paid, those anime studios don't". For another thing, if you pay for the upfront development of software, it still needs ongoing support. And that support commitment comes with a funding commitment; you don't just pay $x0,000 for an eastern european developer to spend a year adding smart TV support - to keep the developer around and the feature working, you've now got to raise that money every year, forever.
cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago
Yeah. I didn’t know this before, and I’m now beginning to see why Jellyfin never comes close to satisfying me whenever I use it, when compared to Plex. What they’re trying to do is really hard. As much great work as they’re putting into it, they’re really treading water with what they’re currently able to muster with people that are willing to volunteer their time. There’s obviously a lot of people that want to put money toward the effort.
3np 2y ago
Why should distributing surplus funds fall on them, though? That's work, and it's not fun. Setting up a wider Jellyfin-ecosystem-donation-fund (or your favorite FLOSS project) is something anyone can do. Maybe someone reading this comment will get the motivation to step up? (And no, we don't need another platform, just plain honest human volunteering)

IshKebab 2y ago

I don't understand why they even care about not paying for development. Is paying for development somehow immoral? Of course not!

wccrawford 2y ago
Not immoral, but it's a huge HR headache. Once people get paid, you have to deal with what people are worth. And everyone thinks everyone (including themselves) is worth different amounts. Coming to a consensus about that is a huge hassle, and will still end up with hurt feelings. Bad moral is bad for code. If you have enough money, you can swallow that pill and push through. If you don't, it will make things worse. They have enough money for what they do, but they haven't got nearly enough income (donations) to pay everyone market wages.
- n3m4c 2y ago
  Could they go the tinygrad route and post bounties like "$1000 for fixing this major bug"
  - ori_b 2y ago
    That's not nearly enough to sustain a competent developer, but it is enough to make a project feel like work to a hobbyist.
    - InsomniacL 2y ago
      > That's not nearly enough to sustain a competent developer It doesn't have to be enough to sustain a developer, only enough to attract a developer who would have otherwise not bothered. > but it is enough to make a project feel like work to a hobbyist I really don't see how anyone would do something but then decide not to once they found out there is a reward.
      - ori_b 2y ago
        > I really don't see how anyone would do something but then decide not to once they found out there is a reward. The people who can realistically claim the reward realistically can get better rewards elsewhere. Once you shift the thought process from considering how much fun you have hacking into accounting how much you can make, people start spending time in a way to that will optimize earning potential. You start losing. How many people paint for fun? Do you think they'd do it if it was a job that paid $3/hour?
        InsomniacL 2y ago
        > The people who can realistically claim the reward realistically can get better rewards elsewhere. Yes, but why does that mean someone who was going to do something no longer would. Or that someone who was tempted but wouldn't, still won't now there is more incentive. > Once you shift the thought process from ... how much you can make... I'm talking about a reward / incentive, not employment. JellyFin has a merch store, offer contributors some merch via vouchers or something! > How many people paint for fun? Do you think they'd do it if it was a job that paid $3/hour? Do you think that if everyone automatically received $3/hour for all hobby painting they did that nobody would paint anymore? I think they'd get a coffee with it and take a moment to look back on their work.
lolinder 2y ago
They're the FOSS entrant in the category dominated by Plex, which has a history of monetization strategies that upset the community. Jellyfin probably wants to stay completely clear of even the appearance of being a paid project because the main reason someone would choose them over Plex is to get away from the influence of monetary incentives.
- djbon2112 2y ago
  This is exactly why. When I (and the other original folks) decided to fork Emby to make Jellyfin, we had seen exactly what trajectory other projects in this space had been taking: 1. Start off small and FLOSS. 2. Attract a userbase. 3. Start requesting more and more money. 4. Start "paying full-time developers" or similar. 5. Add nagscreens, premium features, and the like to "increase revenue". 6. Go proprietary. My extremely hardline stance on this has been to nip this trend in the bud right at steps 3 and 4 by taking ALL money out of the development process. What we use donations for is a very small list, as mentioned on the OpenCollective page: 1. Paying for Infrastructure. Domains, VPSes, etc. 2. Each team member (contributors who are distinguished and invited into the org) gets a single one-time $300 USD credit for buying a client device to help them work on the project. And that's it. This is why I made this post, to basically say - in many more words - "hey, we have enough runway for a few years. Donate to individual people or other projects instead".
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
michaelt 2y ago
They make a 'free software media solution that puts you in control and respects your privacy' and if they're not naive, they probably suspect a decent portion of their users are playing pirated movies. So from a certain perspective, saying "no-one gets paid" is more consistent than saying "us developers get paid, those anime studios don't". For another thing, if you pay for the upfront development of software, it still needs ongoing support. And that support commitment comes with a funding commitment; you don't just pay $x0,000 for an eastern european developer to spend a year adding smart TV support - to keep the developer around and the feature working, you've now got to raise that money every year, forever.

cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago

Yeah. I didn’t know this before, and I’m now beginning to see why Jellyfin never comes close to satisfying me whenever I use it, when compared to Plex. What they’re trying to do is really hard. As much great work as they’re putting into it, they’re really treading water with what they’re currently able to muster with people that are willing to volunteer their time. There’s obviously a lot of people that want to put money toward the effort.

3np 2y ago

Why should distributing surplus funds fall on them, though? That's work, and it's not fun. Setting up a wider Jellyfin-ecosystem-donation-fund (or your favorite FLOSS project) is something anyone can do. Maybe someone reading this comment will get the motivation to step up? (And no, we don't need another platform, just plain honest human volunteering)