You thinking it’s an “obvious fallacy” is what should be irking you, cause you’re wrong lol

It's ok bud. You misattributed the sunk cost fallacy. It happens. I've done it before too... No worries.

A sunk cost fallacy requires a continued investment in a lost cause. I financially have contributed no extra to Plex after my initial investment. I've nothing to lose now. No sunk cost. Is time or effort a sunk cost? Possibly? But I already invested that time and effort. My maintenance is also zero, same as my future financial investment. Switching to jellyfin increases my cost in time and effort that I already invested in Plex. Why bail unless necessary? It's illogical.

The difference between unusable and inferior was never the cusp of this argument to begin with. The distinction of "unusable" vs "inferior" can clearly be acertained by the context of my first full reply. Interestingly enough, your reubuttle is a textbook use of the informal fallacy known as "moving the goalposts"

One again, it's all good. Don't worry. My point that Plex is still superior for my use case and I have the incentive to continue using it, still stands. Your use of the sunk cost falacy is disproven on the merit of, that's not a real example of sunk cost, and also using additional fallacies to defend your position render your point invalid.

I rest my case.

The sunk cost fallacy is when you keep sinking more money into something because of how much you have already sunk into it. It doesn’t apply when you simply make a one-off purchase and then don’t ever spend another cent.