Hacker News Reader

Comment by port11 | Hacker News Reader

Or, you know, invest the money and try to become more self-sufficient over time, safeguarding development in the future.

View on HN

I'm struggling to think of a use for the money that doesn't result in becoming dependent on the money and thus less self-sufficient long term. What did you have in mind with this comment?

The genesis of jellyfin is as a fork of Emby by part of the developper who saw the need for finance of Emby to start driving choices being made in the project rather than user and technical needs and merits.

Part of the team needed it, part of it saw that as something that shouldn't go that way, so they did what you're supposed to do in open source and forked.

So it's not really a surprise they don't go that way.

Classic HN user take. While $600 is obviously a pisspoor budget, they do incredible work compared to closed source solution companies like Plex. Not everything needs to be capitalistic, in fact the product pretty much sells and safeguards itself based on being freeware with pretty quality UX. Who will replace them?

"Capitalistic" is, I'm sure, meant derogatorily. I disagree with the sentiment, and I think the Jellyfin maintainers deserve at least a living wage for their time and efforts.

The Jellyfin devs have chosen for it to be a community/hobby project in order to avoid perverse incentives. That's a completely valid choice. There's a reason JF is the only mainstream media server solution that's continuously improved without any signs of enshittification, and personally I'm inclined to agree with the devs that keeping it completely non-profit has been a boon to its ongoing health and popularity.

Agreed! To clarify: I think they deserve a wage for their work and have previously donated, and that 'capitalizing' on their work is more than justifiable. I also think it's fine that they don't care!

> deserve at least a living wage for their time and efforts

I agree with the sentiment

However,

> $24000 in the bank

I assume there are multiple developers. If the developers are based on North America or Europe that money does not guarantee a living wage for more than.. some months?

It's not a failing of society for someone to have a hobby they enjoy which does not pay them a living wage nor is it derogatory to say not everything in society need be done for capitalistic reasons.

I consider myself a general fan of capitalism as driver behind our primary incomes but I do wish there would be some more room left for the other parts of our lives to be driven by passion, community, or pure enjoyment without it being considered a tragedy to leave them that way.

I'm happy to pay for passion, for community commons, and I'm happy to compensate people for the work they do for pure enjoyment if I want it.

Trade and exchange are natural and human and friendly and cooperative and loving parts of the human experience. To think they're some artificial bolt-on is the derogatory implication.

I don’t disagree with you and I’ve just learned they specifically avoid monetisation to keep their incentives aligned with the community’s. Thanks everyone for pointing that out.

(…but you couldn’t call me capitalistic, that really doesn’t suit me.)

I just hope they can continue to develop the product, because I’m using it daily and don’t want it to go away.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com