[Ned Scott]

Users are already expected to add their own sources for Videos and Music. How hard would it be for even a basic user to add a "source" for Addon zip files as well?

Actually, I'm trying to push for having the basic/common network sources added to XBMC by default. So there would be the general SMB, zeroconf, and UPnP browsers already added to Files by default. Common local sources are already added by default on most platforms,

It doesn't even have to be a new user situation. It would be nice to have additional easy install methods for any device, not just ones like the ATV2. I would use such a feature for the convenience factor alone.

[texaco]

Like I said, adding a source is already assumed to be the most basic knowledge, and adding a source for downloaded installation files would be at that level.

I can't see how the functionality (as I am understanding it right now) hits any sort of "sweet spot" or taps into a currently unreached demographic that doesn't understand how to install software but does know what a URL is and how to enter it.

It is easy to provide add-ons to the official repo, and the installation of non-repo add-ons isn't onerous. So I really doubt that adding some extra functionality is going to lead to a noticeable increase in development.

To illustrate this point, it is hard to imagine there is a single dev in the world who is thinking "I have the great idea for an XBMC addon, but the installation process isn't automatic, so I wont bother creating it."

Such a dev, one who is put off by the installation method, is unlikely to be that passionate about their idea so would be unlikely to see their idea through to completion or continue to support it. Like I said, it is hard to imagine there is a dev who is passionate about their idea and yet who would see the installation as such a barrier that they would forego the development.

Can you describe a specific, realistic use-case for the function?

Here is a scenario:

i would like to browse through addons by reading and looking at screenshots as i am a curious person and im always looking for new things to try out, even reading comments from other users would be great. Doing this within xbmc is not a elegant solution as navigating addons depend on the use of listview and little to no interaction in regards to screenshot/feedback. Depending on the forums on the side makes the experience less integrated.

Moving this navigation to a browser with a download-and-install button would better highlight addons and would attract developers to showcase their app (and motivate them to create even better apps). Even better: Think if he developers can independently create a webpage to showcase and download/installtheir app.

This would not change anything that exists in xbmc today, only extend and enhance the overall experience with addons.

Scenario #2:

My friend asks me to recommend a streaming app for music videos.
In todays solution i have to guide them through the interface, show them how to install, and then show them how to add the addons to the main menu

If this could be done by clicking on a link on a webpage that starts a wizard within XBMC that would be more easy and convenient.


It all boils down to reaching a critical mass: want creative addons? then expose addons more in XBMC.

[Karnagious]

I think I can see it now.

It seems that the ideal installation method would require something like Plex's online account syncing. Log into the site, click on the Install link and XBMC's server check will download and install the addon when it next runs.

[moneymaker]

I Don't like accounts synced with local XBMC (Still a nice idea ). There is no 100 % security for it, someone could hack the database and play with our systems. That's my opinion. Stop clouding me.

I like the idea from texaco. Since there is already a online browser for add-ons, it could be also possible to develop an app for smartphones.

Or a official XBMC add-on website (much better one, nice GUI like texaco mentioned), add-ons are tagged with numbers and to install a add-on you go to settings, type in number and installation begins (also smartphone app xbmc remote integration possible).

[da-anda]

there are plans to improve the addon manager in XBMC. If it was only me and I was able to code it, we'd already have a nice "app store" like addon manager, but unfortunately I can't code that.

[texaco]

I Don't like accounts synced with local XBMC (Still a nice idea ). There is no 100 % security for it, someone could hack the database and play with our systems. That's my opinion. Stop clouding me.

I like the idea from texaco. Since there is already a online browser for add-ons, it could be also possible to develop an app for smartphones.

Or a official XBMC add-on website (much better one, nice GUI like texaco mentioned), add-ons are tagged with numbers and to install a add-on you go to settings, type in number and installation begins (also smartphone app xbmc remote integration possible).

But then XBMC would need knowledge about what that number means, which means you will have a catch 22 when you want to install add-ons from a non-official repository.

What about making this as simple as possible: use a file extension that can be assosciated with XBMC and add the necessarry information in that file so that XBMC knows what to install from where when the user opens this file from the Operating System?

.xbmcrep for repositories
.xbmcapp for add-ons

(note: the files would not contain the whole add-on, just a reference through a url)

[Karnagious]

Wouldnt work from the AppleTV or Pi through OE or RaspBMC. There is no OS to speak of.

[texaco]

Wouldnt work from the AppleTV or Pi through OE or RaspBMC. There is no OS to speak of.

Well thats obvious but we are not talking about replacing todays functionality, but to extend it.
AppleTv and Pi will always be special cases in regards to other issues/features anyway

[Karnagious]

Wouldnt work from the AppleTV or Pi through OE or RaspBMC. There is no OS to speak of.

Well thats obvious but we are not talking about replacing todays functionality, but to extend it.
AppleTv and Pi will always be special cases in regards to other issues/features anyway

Basic users (ones who dont know what a zip file is) are more likely to be the ones using XBMC on an appliance in the future.

If they have an OS, they will be very likely to understand a file installation method.

[texaco]

Wouldnt work from the AppleTV or Pi through OE or RaspBMC. There is no OS to speak of.

Well thats obvious but we are not talking about replacing todays functionality, but to extend it.
AppleTv and Pi will always be special cases in regards to other issues/features anyway

Basic users (ones who dont know what a zip file is) are more likely to be the ones using XBMC on an appliance in the future.

If they have an OS, they will be very likely to understand a file installation method.

Thats not always the case. If you are talking about copying a file into a installation folder for a program then you have lost alot of people.
People can still use a computer and manage the os but almost never touch anything installed in "Program files" as this is something users are actually told not do to because that borderlines tweaking/tampering. All i try to suggest is an idea of having XBMC work better without users fiddling around with files and manually copying add-ons.

Also XBMC running on appliances really cant have every feature XBMC has. (ie skins, which add-ons work etc). I really would not like to see that development of XBMC is held back by these builds