Maybe? But I'll pick paid with a nice UI over ugly/cli-only almost every time if it's something I'll use regularly. I'm not the target market for this specific tool but I pay for a number of tools that I can technically do on my own because I like looking at nice things. Sue me. I get joy from well designed and clean UIs. I can always use more joy in my life.
Polish and ease of use are important to me when using software. Don't get me wrong, I spent a ton of time in the terminal and using less than pretty tools but when possible I like nice tools that do a task well.
Then again if all you see is a "simplistic ffmpeg frontend" then I don't know if I can make you understand the value in accepting less overall functionality in favor of a tool optimized for your specific workflow. And some people, not saying you, take a pride in using the lowest-level, most featureful, more obscure tool. They wear it as a badge of pride and chide anything else as a "toy" or "simplistic". I find this mindset absurd. I all for going to the lower level when needed but people that have this attitude best be writing assembly by hand or they are just cosplaying being "smarter". There is always a lower level, just because someone goes to an arbitrarily lower level doesn't make them "better" but that's the feeling I often get from people like this. Reminds of the "Four Yorkshiremen" sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue7wM0QC5LE
Yeah. From the first glance I see a lot of missing details being glossed over. Like what encoder is being used? Output format "mp4" is a container format, so is webm. Knowing the codec is important to decide whether the file is appropriate for where I want to play it. What if my TV doesn't have HEVC support and you are using it inadvertently? Also, what does each quality setting mean? Or the tradeoff between CPU usage and efficiency? Asking ChatGPT to come up with an ffmpeg command has none of these problems as all the details are exposed to you.
These questions make sense to someone technically inclined, but something like the linked app which makes reasonable assumptions (e.g. assuming the user wants the format that is most widely hardware accelerated) is probably a better fit for your average user.
Polish and ease of use are important to me when using software. Don't get me wrong, I spent a ton of time in the terminal and using less than pretty tools but when possible I like nice tools that do a task well.
Then again if all you see is a "simplistic ffmpeg frontend" then I don't know if I can make you understand the value in accepting less overall functionality in favor of a tool optimized for your specific workflow. And some people, not saying you, take a pride in using the lowest-level, most featureful, more obscure tool. They wear it as a badge of pride and chide anything else as a "toy" or "simplistic". I find this mindset absurd. I all for going to the lower level when needed but people that have this attitude best be writing assembly by hand or they are just cosplaying being "smarter". There is always a lower level, just because someone goes to an arbitrarily lower level doesn't make them "better" but that's the feeling I often get from people like this. Reminds of the "Four Yorkshiremen" sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue7wM0QC5LE