I feel so bad for the Kodi project. They've done amazing work over the years and their reputation is being destroyed so quickly by people taking their open source work, adding a bunch of piracy addons, and selling a set top box.
I have no idea what they can do to combat this. I don't see how they can distance themselves from this any more than they have.
Equally sad as the existence of the terrible Kodi piracy boxes is that the legitimate set top box/"smart TV" industry is completely ignoring it. I'm not aware of any TV manufacturer building Kodi into their product, instead they invent their own junk, which is usually much worse.
Does anyone know why the consumer electronics industry is ignoring Kodi?
Does anyone know why the consumer electronics industry is ignoring Kodi?
I really don't think the audience for Kodi is that big. It requires you to have DRM-less, local copies of any TV or movie you want to watch, and how many people - legally - have that? Not many. I know because I'm one of those people, and use Plex, despite its faults.
Also, last I used Kodi it was one (very big) codebase. Plex is split out into server components and client apps, which is essential for Smart TV usage. You're never going to get a full instance of Kodi running on a Roku box, you'll need some kind of client that connects to a remote server holding all your videos. There's nothing stopping the Kodi team from making that Roku app, incidentally.
What I was thinking of is using Kodi as the base for an open smart TV platform. It already has good integration of live broadcast TV (including EPG etc) and many add-ons for streaming services. Of course, to make consumers happy, there needs to be a way to support DRM, otherwise there won't be Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc. But Kodi announced last year that they're discussing about allowing DRM add-ons to talk with the application: https://kodi.tv/article/dev-journal-kodi-and-drm
Unless Kodi has changed substantially, even though it exposes an interface for live TV, it provides no mechanism for tuning, capturing a stream, or writing it to disc/DVR. That’s all passed off to a third-party backend like MythTV.
> I really don't think the audience for Kodi is that big. It requires you to have DRM-less, local copies of any TV or movie you want to watch, and how many people - legally - have that?
This is partially true. While all the "questionable" boxes come with pre-installed plugins connect to servers that restream copyrighted content (including live content), there are also plugins that connect to legit content streamers as well.
The company I work for creates STB software, and while we do use a large number of open source components the message from above is to avoid GPL where possible. Any use of GPLv2 must be signed off after review, GPLv3 is simply banned.
Unfortunately most companies in the sector, from hardware manufacturers to integrators, have equivalent, if not worse open-source policies. They are willing to take the hard work of others where it will accelerate development, but view sharing back as a loss of control and competitive advantage.
This is in part due to pressure from operators and content providers, who are very fearful of losing control over distribution and tend to view anything open with deep suspicion.
but view sharing back as a loss of control and competitive advantage.
I’ve never understood this mentality (disclaimer: I’ve worked on set top box software). The competitive concern would only be valid if the company’s closed source software was any good. Every closed source set top box software I’ve ever seen was beyond awful, at least compared to open source alternatives. Who on earth would gain any competitive advantage from even looking at the code, let alone using it in a competing product?
The original Xbox was way ahead of the other media centers I knew of at the time (2004-2010,roughly):
* CD/DVD player
* upgradeable HDD
* 1080i output (though I mostly used RCA connectors, and I don't think you can decode 720p+ with it)
* quite cheap compared to a fully fledged computer
* trough XBMC, integrated games library management, with native and emulated titles
* and of course, the plethora of add-ons and protocols Kodi supports to this day
And though it was big and heavy, it had an integrated PSU.
This was before raspberry pi was a thing, mind you. The alternatives were expensive (~€200) hard disk enclosures that couldn't do a fourth of this. I would have kept on using if it wasn't for its inability to cope with HD formats, and wouldn't be surprised to learn that it helped to promote the console quite a bit.
Even that is ok.
I even found a App that used Ghostscript that way (a bigger one) And the Ghostscript guys said it's ok. You can basically just replace the Transcoder with newer versions by just putting a new dll/exe there, which makes it gpl compliant.
Plex took an existing project available for use under license and modified it into a proprietary branch. If you have ever studied the history of Unix you will realize that this is extremely common. If you take an existing invention and improve it, its a new invention.
Dell, HP, and Apple all manufacture devices (laptops) used extensively, even primarily by many, for pirating movies and games, and even facilitate the piracy of games on other platforms (console flash carts etc).
I don't think Kodi's reputation should suffer any more than Apple's does, but at the same time, I know that it will.
I thought about having the software auto auto-rebrand itself when a non authorized addon is installed. It's a pain I know, now kodi addon developers need to sign addons. But I'm sure they can automate it somehow.
Require addons and kodi itself not to hardcode the Kodi name/brand (even in logos/addons titles, etc.), if an unauthorized addon is installed kodi replaces all the kodi brand with a generic name, the harder to google the better, something like "Media Player" sounds generic enough.
But I'm sure these box sellers would just "create" custom skins/addons and put the kodi brand there just to spite the developers.
Kodi pirates did not destroy their reputation. Every semi-open platform has pirate users. Those that created piracy boxes and put the kodi logo right next to pirate services and legit services that addons enabled the piracy of probably contributed though. But most, if not all these boxes run kodi on top of Android, and their reputation hasn't been sullied from this.
I think Kodi could partially mitigate this issue by selling clean kodi boxes. I still don't know where I can buy one.
So the main[1] reason they changed the name was because they "have never had any sort of legal control over the use of its name". Clearly, based on the issue at hand, the name change hasn't helped.
[1] I don't buy that they needed to change the name because "XBMC" didn't make sense anymore. "Kodi" is just as nonsensical as "XBMC", if not more so.
Google omitting from auto-complete isn't relevant.
I disagree. They wanted legal control of their name, yet now they have it and Google considers it a piracy search term. Microsoft speculation aside, they didn't gain anything because pirate-box makers don't care about legal action to begin with.
I don't know if they could somehow enforce autocompletion legally, but they probably could've prevented the reason Google is dropping them: With legal control of the name they could have sued people selling piracy boxes. A headache, yes, but it seems that that was exactly why they did change the name (Though it also improves recognizability, imo)
Kodi wasn't able to run Kodi18 on the Xbox One unless they rebranded. Furthermore, while they technically have more control over their trademark now, they dabble in the business of piracy so good luck with enforcing that on the limited budget they have. Frankly, I think they were sick of being under the Xbox shadow as it was holding back their branding
Comments
I feel so bad for the Kodi project. They've done amazing work over the years and their reputation is being destroyed so quickly by people taking their open source work, adding a bunch of piracy addons, and selling a set top box.
I have no idea what they can do to combat this. I don't see how they can distance themselves from this any more than they have.
Equally sad as the existence of the terrible Kodi piracy boxes is that the legitimate set top box/"smart TV" industry is completely ignoring it. I'm not aware of any TV manufacturer building Kodi into their product, instead they invent their own junk, which is usually much worse.
Does anyone know why the consumer electronics industry is ignoring Kodi?
I really don't think the audience for Kodi is that big. It requires you to have DRM-less, local copies of any TV or movie you want to watch, and how many people - legally - have that? Not many. I know because I'm one of those people, and use Plex, despite its faults.
Also, last I used Kodi it was one (very big) codebase. Plex is split out into server components and client apps, which is essential for Smart TV usage. You're never going to get a full instance of Kodi running on a Roku box, you'll need some kind of client that connects to a remote server holding all your videos. There's nothing stopping the Kodi team from making that Roku app, incidentally.
What I was thinking of is using Kodi as the base for an open smart TV platform. It already has good integration of live broadcast TV (including EPG etc) and many add-ons for streaming services. Of course, to make consumers happy, there needs to be a way to support DRM, otherwise there won't be Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc. But Kodi announced last year that they're discussing about allowing DRM add-ons to talk with the application: https://kodi.tv/article/dev-journal-kodi-and-drm
Unless Kodi has changed substantially, even though it exposes an interface for live TV, it provides no mechanism for tuning, capturing a stream, or writing it to disc/DVR. That’s all passed off to a third-party backend like MythTV.
The latest version of Kodi can play Netflix and Amazon using plugins they are working on drm management for official stream apps.
This is partially true. While all the "questionable" boxes come with pre-installed plugins connect to servers that restream copyrighted content (including live content), there are also plugins that connect to legit content streamers as well.
Latest version which is currently in alpha supports drm which could bring the change needed for kodi to go mainstream
The company I work for creates STB software, and while we do use a large number of open source components the message from above is to avoid GPL where possible. Any use of GPLv2 must be signed off after review, GPLv3 is simply banned.
Unfortunately most companies in the sector, from hardware manufacturers to integrators, have equivalent, if not worse open-source policies. They are willing to take the hard work of others where it will accelerate development, but view sharing back as a loss of control and competitive advantage.
This is in part due to pressure from operators and content providers, who are very fearful of losing control over distribution and tend to view anything open with deep suspicion.
I’ve never understood this mentality (disclaimer: I’ve worked on set top box software). The competitive concern would only be valid if the company’s closed source software was any good. Every closed source set top box software I’ve ever seen was beyond awful, at least compared to open source alternatives. Who on earth would gain any competitive advantage from even looking at the code, let alone using it in a competing product?
Because Plex actively courted the Roku's and the Amazon's of the world while Kodi was content to just make great, free software.
To boot, Plex began as a fork of XBMC (Kodi's name at the time). Which, given Kodi's GPLv2 license, probably puts Plex out of compliance.
Ah, XBMC... I still have an original Xbox that I modded to specifically run XBMC collecting dust in my spare room. It definitely has come a long way.
The original Xbox was way ahead of the other media centers I knew of at the time (2004-2010,roughly): * CD/DVD player * upgradeable HDD * 1080i output (though I mostly used RCA connectors, and I don't think you can decode 720p+ with it) * quite cheap compared to a fully fledged computer * trough XBMC, integrated games library management, with native and emulated titles * and of course, the plethora of add-ons and protocols Kodi supports to this day
And though it was big and heavy, it had an integrated PSU.
This was before raspberry pi was a thing, mind you. The alternatives were expensive (~€200) hard disk enclosures that couldn't do a fourth of this. I would have kept on using if it wasn't for its inability to cope with HD formats, and wouldn't be surprised to learn that it helped to promote the console quite a bit.
It was noisy as hell (from the fan) too.
Those were the days. I discovered my passion for computers by modding that console and unlocking its hidden potential. Modern day magic.
Looks fine to me: https://github.com/plexinc/plex-home-theater-public
My mistake, I was getting it confused with their use of FFMPEG:
https://forums.plex.tv/discussion/141186/possible-gpl-violat...
https://forums.plex.tv/discussion/141186/possible-gpl-violat...
Even that is ok. I even found a App that used Ghostscript that way (a bigger one) And the Ghostscript guys said it's ok. You can basically just replace the Transcoder with newer versions by just putting a new dll/exe there, which makes it gpl compliant.
Plex Home Theater (a client) was/is a fork of XBMC. I'm not aware of the server having it's roots in XBMC but I could be wrong.
Plex began by pirating XBMC, and now has the gumption to charge me $5 a month to share my pirated media with the internet at large.
Plex took an existing project available for use under license and modified it into a proprietary branch. If you have ever studied the history of Unix you will realize that this is extremely common. If you take an existing invention and improve it, its a new invention.
Actually there was Boxee. Which made a fork of XBMC which was used in the Boxee Box made by D-Link.
The fact that know one even remember it besides me seems to point out why not a lot of others have followed.
I used to have a Boxee years ago. It was an awesome little device.
They don't have a business model and product that is designed to spy on their customers, which makes them a turd in the toilet bowl.
Because the GPL is cancer. It's bad, and it spreads and ruins everything it touches.
Could you please not post unsubstantive comments to HN?
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
Dell, HP, and Apple all manufacture devices (laptops) used extensively, even primarily by many, for pirating movies and games, and even facilitate the piracy of games on other platforms (console flash carts etc).
I don't think Kodi's reputation should suffer any more than Apple's does, but at the same time, I know that it will.
I thought about having the software auto auto-rebrand itself when a non authorized addon is installed. It's a pain I know, now kodi addon developers need to sign addons. But I'm sure they can automate it somehow.
Require addons and kodi itself not to hardcode the Kodi name/brand (even in logos/addons titles, etc.), if an unauthorized addon is installed kodi replaces all the kodi brand with a generic name, the harder to google the better, something like "Media Player" sounds generic enough.
But I'm sure these box sellers would just "create" custom skins/addons and put the kodi brand there just to spite the developers.
I don't think the box vendors would care. I find your proposal interesting.
Kodi pirates did not destroy their reputation. Every semi-open platform has pirate users. Those that created piracy boxes and put the kodi logo right next to pirate services and legit services that addons enabled the piracy of probably contributed though. But most, if not all these boxes run kodi on top of Android, and their reputation hasn't been sullied from this.
I think Kodi could partially mitigate this issue by selling clean kodi boxes. I still don't know where I can buy one.
They could change their name back to XBMC.
pretty sure the reasons they changed the name are still valid and outweigh what they'd gain
https://kodi.tv/article/xbmc-getting-new-name-introducing-ko...
So the main[1] reason they changed the name was because they "have never had any sort of legal control over the use of its name". Clearly, based on the issue at hand, the name change hasn't helped.
[1] I don't buy that they needed to change the name because "XBMC" didn't make sense anymore. "Kodi" is just as nonsensical as "XBMC", if not more so.
They were only referring to ability to sue over misuse (say I make a KodiBox and sell it). Google omitting from auto-complete isn't relevant.
I think main reason wasn't that however, but was to prevent legal activity from Microsoft. (I suspect there were undisclosed related conversations)
I disagree. They wanted legal control of their name, yet now they have it and Google considers it a piracy search term. Microsoft speculation aside, they didn't gain anything because pirate-box makers don't care about legal action to begin with.
I don't know if they could somehow enforce autocompletion legally, but they probably could've prevented the reason Google is dropping them: With legal control of the name they could have sued people selling piracy boxes. A headache, yes, but it seems that that was exactly why they did change the name (Though it also improves recognizability, imo)
Kodi wasn't able to run Kodi18 on the Xbox One unless they rebranded. Furthermore, while they technically have more control over their trademark now, they dabble in the business of piracy so good luck with enforcing that on the limited budget they have. Frankly, I think they were sick of being under the Xbox shadow as it was holding back their branding
Since no one will ever find Kodi now that they have to type 4 letters instead of 4, maybe the devs should look into working on a new search engine.