317
People who are staying on Plex, have you tried Jellyfin? What about it do you not prefer? (real question) (discuss.online)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
457 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Honest question, because I know multiple people who are not looking to jump ship since they already have the Plex Pass.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

The part I quoted is the fallacy. You wrote you will stop using it when it is unusable, not when it is inferior to Jellyfin. Maybe you were thinking something different, but we can't read your mind. We can only read what you wrote and what you wrote is a sunk cost fallacy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    Sunk cost fallacy does not require continued investment. No idea where you got that from. It just requires considering a sunk cost in your decision making.

    The difference between unusable and inferior was never the cusp of this argument to begin with.

    Literally quoted the inferior part in my original response and specifically mentioned you should just consider both on their merit without considering the sunk cost:

    The logical way to think of this is: You already paid for Plex so both are free for you. Since both are free, just pick the better one.

    Never said you should switch. Just because you seems to lack reading comprehension skills and misread my comment does not mean I am moving the goalpost. You are using a straw man argument: pretending I argued something I didn't and debunking that nonexistent argument instead of my real argument.

    One valid complaint is that I did ignore switching costs in my shortened explanation. This is a mistake on my part, though it does not affect whether your statement as written is a fallacy. It is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent