LibreTube

Pros of NewPipe

• Longer development history and more established user base
• Supports a wider range of features, including SoundCloud integration
• More frequent updates and active community contributions

Cons of NewPipe

• Less modern user interface compared to LibreTube
• Slightly more complex setup process for new users
• May have more stability issues due to its broader feature set

Code Comparison

NewPipe:

override fun onCreateInitialState() = ViewState(
    showPlaylistButton = true,
    showAddToPlaylistButton = true,
    showRenamePlaylistButton = true,
    showDeletePlaylistButton = true
)

LibreTube:

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

Both projects use Kotlin for Android development, but their code structures differ slightly. NewPipe's example shows a more feature-rich approach to playlist management, while LibreTube's code snippet demonstrates a simpler view creation process.

NewPipe offers a more comprehensive set of features and a larger community, but LibreTube provides a more modern interface and potentially better stability due to its focused approach. The choice between the two depends on user preferences for features versus simplicity and design.

Pros of SmartTube

• Designed specifically for Android TV, offering a more tailored experience for large screens
• Includes advanced features like SponsorBlock integration and custom video speed controls
• Supports background playback and picture-in-picture mode

Cons of SmartTube

• Not available on Google Play Store, requiring manual installation
• Limited to Android TV devices, not supporting mobile phones or tablets
• May have potential legal issues due to ad-blocking features

Code Comparison

SmartTube (Java):

@Override
public void onViewCreated(View view, Bundle savedInstanceState) {
    super.onViewCreated(view, savedInstanceState);
    mOverlayRootView = view.findViewById(R.id.overlay_root);
    mContentRootView = view.findViewById(R.id.content_root);
}

LibreTube (Kotlin):

override fun onViewCreated(view: View, savedInstanceState: Bundle?) {
    super.onViewCreated(view, savedInstanceState)
    binding = FragmentPlayerBinding.bind(view)
    setupVideoPlayer()
    setupGestureDetector()
}

Both projects use similar Android lifecycle methods, but LibreTube utilizes Kotlin and view binding for a more concise and null-safe approach.

Pros of Invidious

• Server-side application, accessible through any web browser
• Supports multiple instances, enhancing privacy and reducing single point of failure
• Offers additional features like video downloading and API access

Cons of Invidious

• Requires server setup and maintenance
• May experience slower performance due to server-side processing
• Limited mobile app support compared to native applications

Code Comparison

Invidious (Crystal)

def fetch_video_info(id : String, region : String?)
  params = HTTP::Params.encode({
    "v"      => id,
    "hl"     => region || "en-US",
    "c"      => "WEB",
    "cver"   => "2.20210622.10.00",
    "html5"  => "1",
  })
  # ... (additional code)
end

LibreTube (Kotlin)

suspend fun getVideoInfo(videoId: String): VideoInfo {
    val response = httpClient.get("$BASE_URL/api/v1/videos/$videoId")
    return Json.decodeFromString(response.bodyAsText())
}

The code snippets show different approaches to fetching video information. Invidious uses Crystal and constructs a detailed parameter set, while LibreTube uses Kotlin with a simpler API call structure. This reflects the server-side vs. client-side nature of the two projects.