[twelvebore]

Well it's been pretty clear for a couple of years now that this was where Boxee was going to end up. I said as much on their forums quite some time ago. The era of the set-top box is coming to an end.

I searched for boxee patens but there aren't any on that company. So samsung just bought some content deals (including a payment model to share revenue with the content provider), some copyrights and the workforce (with the knowledge of bringing GPL derivate software to embedded devices).

Shutting boxee down leaves integrating some of those functionalities in their own linux-based firmware. I think Samsung likes the way boxee did this.

Locking hardware and utilizing free software (while extending it with closed source software) is just to tempting...

They get know-how. Trade secrets, not patents.

[Robotica]

The era of the set-top box is coming to an end.

Then who is going to unifying content consumption regardless distribution pipe? No, everything is indeed getting locked down and integrated in TV's but thanks to XBMC we still have choices in how/what/where we consume content. You don't want to depend on the content-deals your provider offers you.

In this regard, XBMC is what separates a thinkerer from a clueless consumer, who buys his self a "SmartTV" with integrated ecosystem and replenishment demand.

[davilla]

I know I'm going to regret saying this to Robotica but
I would seriously doubt if Samsung has any interest in the older xbmc side of things even boxee ditched it a year ago. It is more likely that they have been purchased for the programming staff and assets (read patent type stuff) that they developed for the cloud dvr stuff and putting that and its streaming into Samsung products in the future.

I would be surprised if this has anything at all to do with anything xbmc related

I think we say the same thing... Do you know which patents boxee owns?

As I own two patents, I'll chime in there. Basically it takes 3-4 YEARS to obtain a patent. During that time, no one knows except the Patent Office and the person/company submitting the patent as patent applications and reviews are not public. Once the patent is granted, then and ONLY then is the public informed. Generally it is best to keep quiet during the patent application/review process. So Boxee could have patents in progress and those will not be known for another possible 3-4 years.

[davilla]

Well it's been pretty clear for a couple of years now that this was where Boxee was going to end up. I said as much on their forums quite some time ago. The era of the set-top box is coming to an end.

I searched for boxee patens but there aren't any on that company. So samsung just bought some content deals (including a payment model to share revenue with the content provider), some copyrights and the workforce (with the knowledge of bringing GPL derivate software to embedded devices).

Shutting boxee down leaves integrating some of those functionalities in their own linux-based firmware. I think Samsung likes the way boxee did this.

Locking hardware and utilizing free software (while extending it with closed source software) is just to tempting...

They get know-how. Trade secrets, not patents.

Not quit correct, Samsung bought Boxee's assets, intellectual property and employees. What exactly that contains is not public yet or might not ever be public.

[twelvebore]

Not quit correct, Samsung bought Boxee's assets, intellectual property and employees. What exactly that contains is not public yet or might not ever be public.

Well yes, sorry what I said was very terse and probably ambiguous.

What I said was in response to Roboticas phrase "So samsung just bought some content deals (including a payment model to share revenue with the content provider), some copyrights and the workforce (with the knowledge of bringing GPL derivate software to embedded devices)." Which to me sounds dismissive, like Samsung just bought a hill 'o' beans to paraphrase my US cousins.

There may or may not be patent applications in-flight, my point was that may not matter to Samsung because Boxee probably has other IP (know-how, trade secrets call it what you will) that they are willing to pay $30M for. Just because the patents aren't public yet, or even if there are no patents, it doesn't means that Samsung are idiots because IP is more than just patents.

[Ned Scott]

Samsung mentioned improving their GUI. To be fair, Boxee had some pretty slick UI ideas at one point. The merging of local and add-on content comes to mind, during their beta days. Still, 30 million, yikes. Is it really that hard for these companies to find good UI people?

[twelvebore]

Still, 30 million, yikes. Is it really that hard for these companies to find good UI people?

I own several Samsung TVs. Where several means more than four. I feel that I can unequivocally say that yes, for some reason Samsung struggle to get the UI right. Like most chaebols they are a bit schizophrenic. Maybe they're expanding the TV tuning/contrast/brightness GUI tech to meet the STB and on-line streaming. In any case, it's rubbish.

With Apple TV pending I can see why they might be concerned they're going to get out maneouvered again.

[artrafael]

$30 million is chump change for a company the size of Samsung. This gives them to immediate access to proven UI talent. Compare this to the $3 million Microsoft reportedly spent just for the rights to use a snippet of "Start Me Up" in their Windows 95 ads.

[matthuisman]

Would someone mind updating me on the Boxee history?
Last I thought they were using XBMC as a base and in-return sponsoring XBMC?
Sounds like their has been a "f-u" along the way?

http://wiki.xbmc.org/index.php?title=Thi...ives#Boxee still states they are a sponser?

[Jezz_X]

Would someone mind updating me on the Boxee history?
Last I thought they were using XBMC as a base and in-return sponsoring XBMC?
Sounds like their has been a "f-u" along the way?

http://wiki.xbmc.org/index.php?title=Thi...ives#Boxee still states they are a sponser?

There has been a big F-U to their users at least 3 times maybe 4

1) They stopped making a client for desktop pc's (the one based on xbmc) and told all their users they had to buy the boxee box hardware if they want updates or any changes
1.5) They bought out a tv tuner addon for the boxee box that got zero support for people who paid for it
2) They ditched the boxee box (in under 2 years) and said they would no longer support it or fix any of the bugs in it (there are many) and moved over to the Cloud DVR TV model
3) Samsung bought them and now they are shutting down the new Cloud DVR box (about 6 months after it went live) and anyone who got one now basically has a $100 paper weight and are having all of their recorded tv deleted

[Robotica]

Not quit correct, Samsung bought Boxee's assets, intellectual property and employees. What exactly that contains is not public yet or might not ever be public.

Well yes, sorry what I said was very terse and probably ambiguous.

What I said was in response to Roboticas phrase "So samsung just bought some content deals (including a payment model to share revenue with the content provider), some copyrights and the workforce (with the knowledge of bringing GPL derivate software to embedded devices)." Which to me sounds dismissive, like Samsung just bought a hill 'o' beans to paraphrase my US cousins.

There may or may not be patent applications in-flight, my point was that may not matter to Samsung because Boxee probably has other IP (know-how, trade secrets call it what you will) that they are willing to pay $30M for. Just because the patents aren't public yet, or even if there are no patents, it doesn't means that Samsung are idiots because IP is more than just patents.

You misread me: the disrespect is towards boxee and friends.

The value of boxee is pretty clear for me but the real value for Samsung is hard to tell.

Since boxee's business didn't work out and the cash is burned, Samsung gave the seeds a return for their money. Everybody happy..

If there was important IP, read patents since their products speaks for themselves, investors would have bargained themselves a better ROI.

So in this deal, boxer clearly wasn't selling a success but for Samsung it's a great addition. To quote myself:

I searched for boxee patens but there aren't any on that company. So samsung just bought some content deals (including a payment model to share revenue with the content provider), some copyrights and the workforce (with the knowledge of bringing GPL derivate software to embedded devices).

Shutting boxee down leaves integrating some of those functionalities in their own linux-based firmware. I think Samsung likes the way boxee did this.

Locking hardware and utilizing free software (while extending it with closed source software) is just to tempting...

@jezzx: i think he ment the attitude change of team xbmc towards boxer.

[natethomas]

Would someone mind updating me on the Boxee history?
Last I thought they were using XBMC as a base and in-return sponsoring XBMC?
Sounds like their has been a "f-u" along the way?

http://wiki.xbmc.org/index.php?title=Thi...ives#Boxee still states they are a sponser?

The best place to find out who our current sponsors are is to simply look at our sponsors page.

http://xbmc.org/xbmc-sponsor-page/

[Martijn]

adjusted the wiki page

[Ned Scott]

Whoops. That page was originally taken from Wikipedia's copy of the XBMC article, so I guess I should make sure that's updated too.

[Anastrophe]

I remember all the hints that we'd be able to run xbmc on the boxee box when the hardware was first announced - par for the course I guess