I tried testing a movie from my home server in plex through firefox and repeatedly got this message, even after reloading.
I knew that they had paywalled the apps on mobile and streaming from outside the network but now they have also blocked watching your own movies through your own hardware.
I do get the point that making software should be able to sustain people but I dont see the move of plex as a fair thing to do. Yes, they have made great software but taking your home server hostage feels like the wrong move.
Even a pop up that says "we need you to donate please" would have been fine. make it pop up before every movie, play donation ads before any movie but straight up disabling the app is kinda cruel.
Anyway, i have switched to jellyfin and it is insanely good. please give it a try. you can run it alongside plex with not issues (at least i had none) and compare the two.
In any case, good luck. Let me know if you need help.
I've never been a Plex user. Always been with Jellyfin. I've heard that plexamp is a killer app but finamp has always been sufficient for my pretty basic needs. But I have a question for you (meant in good faith). You say,
If Plex needs a sustainable business model, asking for donations isn't enough. So what is the move for them? What do they do to both fulfill their need for a sustainable business and also not upset their userbase? (I'm not defending Plex or this move of taking your server hostage, in any way.)
I'm genuinely curious how, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, they should have played this or at a minimum, made better moves than they did.
Very glad you're with jellyfin btw. You can check out some cool plugins at awesome-jellyfin.
From my view, a sustainable business model is very different from the way things are done lately. I built and managed multiple successful businesses and making them sustainable is doable without fucking over your customers.
They could absolutely have done a lot better things to gain more income. The important base question here is "how much do they need?" Because software does not have huge ongoing costs but massive initial costs and lower sustaining costs. Of course, large changes or complete makeorvers will be intense but they are not needed in every company.
Once that is clear, they could have started with better public relations, engaging people about the need for a specific sum or recurring revenue. They could have gamified it by selling badges, additional functions, tiers, restrictions on new installations, etc. But they didnt. They chose to paywall existing functions. one. After. The. Other.
Dick move.
So yeah, building a business is no joke but thats not for me.
Saying software does not have huge ongoing costs shows you’ve never worked on any huge software system. My works ongoing costs for hosting/scaling/storing data are millions of dollars a year.
You're both right and wrong.
Its like saying "saying a company is easy to run shows you have never run an huge company."
Both are false dychotomies. The amount of hosting costs, manpower, etc does not come from the project but how it is set up.
If you have to run servers for a software at all determines the cost for hosting for example. Same for every other aspect.
Linux is a huge software project I'm working on. Yet the cost of it is a joke compared to its size. It has way more users than plex.
You were the one that made the claim that “software doesn’t have huge ongoing costs”, which is what I said is wrong. Lots of software does, as you now agree.
Plex has a two-pronged VOD service. They have ad-supported "live television" and they have content to rent.
I don't know if that's enough to sustain them but I don't really care. I've been a PlexPass owner for over ten years. I have only asked that they resolve bugs and made requests for things like proper organization of classical music (which they've explicitly stated they will not consider).
You do bring to light something I hadn't considered; that they see Plex as a business model. From my perspective, I want to buy a fully developed product with the expectation of bug fixes and security patches etc over time. I genuinely can not think of a single thing the developers have added to the service that I've used in the past ten years.
So, what kind of business model charges money to do things that don't have an apparent impact on the user experience?
Plex has been one of my most used applications in the past decade. However, it has its limitations and they are actively imposing more limitations on the experience in favor of "a sustainable business model".
The issue is that their sustainable business model is interrupting the users' sustained use of a platform they've already paid for. I've had to go through all of my devices and disable all auto-updates to ensure I do not get the "New Plex Experience".
What we should be asking is why "selling a product" is no longer a business model.
Because they're not selling a product, they're selling an ongoing service. They run the relay servers, and those cost money every month.
I bought a media management and consumption platform running on my own server using my own clients. For what reason do I need a relay service to watch content in my house on my server?
What media management and consumption platform did you buy?