Pros of Shuttle

• More active development with recent updates and commits
• Larger community with more contributors and stars on GitHub
• Supports a wider range of audio formats and streaming services

Cons of Shuttle

• Larger codebase, potentially more complex to maintain
• May have higher system requirements due to additional features
• Some users report occasional stability issues

Code Comparison

Shuttle uses Kotlin extensively, while Phonograph primarily uses Java. Here's a brief comparison of how they handle audio focus:

Shuttle (Kotlin):

override fun onAudioFocusChange(focusChange: Int) {
    when (focusChange) {
        AudioManager.AUDIOFOCUS_LOSS -> pause(true)
        AudioManager.AUDIOFOCUS_LOSS_TRANSIENT -> pause(false)
        AudioManager.AUDIOFOCUS_GAIN -> play()
    }
}

Phonograph (Java):

public void onAudioFocusChange(final int focusChange) {
    switch (focusChange) {
        case AudioManager.AUDIOFOCUS_LOSS:
            pause();
            break;
        case AudioManager.AUDIOFOCUS_LOSS_TRANSIENT:
            pauseTemporarily();
            break;
        case AudioManager.AUDIOFOCUS_GAIN:
            play();
            break;
    }
}

Both implementations handle audio focus changes similarly, but Shuttle's Kotlin code is more concise and uses modern language features.

Pros of Music-Player-GO

• Lightweight and minimalist design, focusing on simplicity and performance
• Actively maintained with frequent updates and bug fixes
• Supports Android 12+ features like Material You theming

Cons of Music-Player-GO

• Limited advanced features compared to Phonograph
• Smaller community and fewer contributors
• Less customization options for UI and functionality

Code Comparison

Music-Player-GO (Kotlin):

private fun loadMusic() {
    viewModelScope.launch(Dispatchers.Default) {
        musicRepository.getSongs().collect { songs ->
            _uiState.update { it.copy(songs = songs) }
        }
    }
}

Phonograph (Java):

public void loadSongs() {
    disposables.add(
        Observable.fromCallable(() -> getSongs())
            .subscribeOn(Schedulers.io())
            .observeOn(AndroidSchedulers.mainThread())
            .subscribe(songs -> {
                songList.clear();
                songList.addAll(songs);
                notifyDataSetChanged();
            })
    );
}

The code comparison shows that Music-Player-GO uses Kotlin coroutines for asynchronous operations, while Phonograph relies on RxJava for similar functionality. Music-Player-GO's approach is more modern and concise, aligning with current Android development practices.

Pros of NewPipe

• Offers streaming capabilities from YouTube and other platforms
• Supports background playback and picture-in-picture mode
• Open-source and ad-free, with no Google framework dependencies

Cons of NewPipe

• Lacks local music playback functionality
• May require more frequent updates due to changes in streaming platforms
• Limited integration with device's native music library

Code Comparison

NewPipe (YouTube video extraction):

private static void extractVideoId(String videoUrl) throws ParsingException {
    try {
        URL url = new URL(videoUrl);
        String path = url.getPath();
        String id = path.substring(path.indexOf("/watch/") + 7);
        return id;
    } catch (MalformedURLException e) {
        throw new ParsingException("Invalid video URL", e);
    }
}

Phonograph (Audio focus handling):

private void requestFocus() {
    if (Build.VERSION.SDK_INT >= Build.VERSION_CODES.O) {
        audioManager.requestAudioFocus(focusRequest);
    } else {
        audioManager.requestAudioFocus(this, AudioManager.STREAM_MUSIC, AudioManager.AUDIOFOCUS_GAIN);
    }
}

NewPipe focuses on streaming functionality, while Phonograph is designed for local music playback. The code snippets highlight their different purposes: NewPipe extracts video IDs for streaming, while Phonograph manages audio focus for local playback.