Pros of XBMC

• More mature and feature-rich media center software
• Supports a wider range of platforms, including desktop operating systems
• Larger community and ecosystem of add-ons

Cons of XBMC

• Heavier resource usage, potentially less suitable for low-end devices
• More complex codebase, which may be harder to contribute to or modify
• Slower development cycle due to its larger scope

Code Comparison

XBMC (C++):

bool CVideoPlayer::OpenDemuxStream()
{
  if (m_pDemuxer)
  {
    m_pDemuxer->Open(m_item.GetDemuxResource());
    return true;
  }
  return false;
}

Jellyfin Android (Kotlin):

override fun onCreateView(inflater: LayoutInflater, container: ViewGroup?, savedInstanceState: Bundle?): View? {
    _binding = FragmentPlayerBinding.inflate(inflater, container, false)
    return binding.root
}

The code snippets show different aspects of the projects. XBMC's C++ code deals with demuxing video streams, while Jellyfin Android's Kotlin code focuses on creating the player UI fragment. This reflects the different scopes and focuses of the two projects, with XBMC handling more low-level media processing and Jellyfin Android primarily concerned with the Android-specific user interface.

Pros of NewPipe

• Lightweight and resource-efficient
• Supports background playback and picture-in-picture mode
• Allows downloading of videos and audio

Cons of NewPipe

• Limited to YouTube content only
• No account integration or syncing features
• May require more frequent updates due to YouTube API changes

Code Comparison

NewPipe (Java):

@Override
protected void onLoadFinished() {
    super.onLoadFinished();
    showContentWithAnimation(scrollToTop);
    if (currentInfo != null) {
        setInitialData(currentInfo);
    }
}

Jellyfin Android (Kotlin):

override fun onCreateView(inflater: LayoutInflater, container: ViewGroup?, savedInstanceState: Bundle?): View? {
    _binding = FragmentHomeBinding.inflate(inflater, container, false)
    return binding.root
}

Summary

NewPipe is a lightweight YouTube client with features like background playback and downloads, but it's limited to YouTube content. Jellyfin Android is a more comprehensive media streaming client that supports various content types and server integration. NewPipe is written in Java, while Jellyfin Android uses Kotlin. Both projects are open-source and actively maintained, catering to different user needs in the media consumption space.

Pros of SmartTube

• Ad-blocking functionality built-in, enhancing user experience
• Customizable playback features like sponsorblock and SponsorBlock integration
• Lightweight and optimized for Android TV devices

Cons of SmartTube

• Limited to YouTube content, unlike Jellyfin's support for various media types
• Potential legal concerns due to ad-blocking and content modification
• Less active development community compared to Jellyfin

Code Comparison

SmartTube (Kotlin):

override fun onCreate(savedInstanceState: Bundle?) {
    super.onCreate(savedInstanceState)
    setContentView(R.layout.activity_main)
    initPlayer()
}

Jellyfin Android (Java):

@Override
protected void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
    super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);
    setContentView(R.layout.activity_main);
    initializeToolbar();
}

Both projects use similar Android lifecycle methods, but SmartTube is written in Kotlin while Jellyfin Android uses Java. SmartTube focuses on initializing its custom player, while Jellyfin Android sets up a more general-purpose interface with a toolbar.

Pros of VLC-Android

• Extensive codec support and ability to play a wide variety of media formats
• Standalone media player with no server requirements
• Mature project with a large user base and active development

Cons of VLC-Android

• Lacks centralized media management and library features
• Not designed for streaming from a personal media server
• User interface can be complex for some users

Code Comparison

VLC-Android (Java):

@Override
public void onPlaybackStateChanged(int state) {
    switch (state) {
        case PlaybackStateCompat.STATE_PLAYING:
            mHandler.sendEmptyMessage(START_PLAYBACK);
            break;
        case PlaybackStateCompat.STATE_PAUSED:
            mHandler.sendEmptyMessage(PAUSE_PLAYBACK);
            break;
    }
}

Jellyfin-Android (Kotlin):

override fun onPlaybackStateChanged(state: Int) {
    when (state) {
        PlaybackStateCompat.STATE_PLAYING -> startPlayback()
        PlaybackStateCompat.STATE_PAUSED -> pausePlayback()
    }
}

Summary

VLC-Android is a versatile standalone media player with broad format support, while Jellyfin-Android is designed as a client for the Jellyfin media server. VLC-Android offers more flexibility in playing local files, but Jellyfin-Android provides better integration with a centralized media library and streaming capabilities. The code comparison shows VLC-Android using Java with a message handler approach, while Jellyfin-Android uses Kotlin with more concise syntax and direct function calls.

Pros of Seal

• More lightweight and focused on YouTube video/audio downloading
• Offers a modern Material You design
• Supports background playback and picture-in-picture mode

Cons of Seal

• Limited to YouTube content, unlike Jellyfin's broader media server capabilities
• Lacks the extensive library management features of Jellyfin
• May face potential legal issues due to YouTube's terms of service

Code Comparison

Seal (Kotlin):

private fun downloadVideo(videoInfo: VideoInfo) {
    val downloadRequest = DownloadRequest.Builder(videoInfo.id, videoInfo.title)
        .setMimeType(videoInfo.mimeType)
        .setOutputFileName(videoInfo.fileName)
        .build()
    downloadManager.enqueue(downloadRequest)
}

Jellyfin Android (Java):

private void playMedia(BaseItemDto item) {
    PlaybackHelper.retrieveAndPlay(item, false, this);
    Intent intent = new Intent(this, PlaybackActivity.class);
    startActivity(intent);
}

The code snippets highlight the different focus of each app: Seal emphasizes downloading YouTube content, while Jellyfin Android focuses on playback from a media server. Seal uses Kotlin, which is more modern and concise, while Jellyfin Android uses Java. The Jellyfin code also shows integration with a broader ecosystem of media playback components.