[jacintech.fire]

There is a thread, started in 2013, that proposes such a thing. I think it is worth considering, given that as of now, each Kodi/XBMC and MB3 seems to be two incomplete halves of a complete whole...


Edit: As explained by @ned Scott, for a variety of reasons, the most relevant of which is the .NET nature of MB3, merging these two projects is impractical at this time...

[helta]

Spidey senses tingling............

[jacintech.fire]

I think it's worth considering. It cannot hurt. And the resulting product would be unbeatable...

[nickr]

They work together now.

[jacintech.fire]

Quite right...
And Elan Feingold just made another million...

Think about the fresh ideas and possibilities that such a merge would bring...can you even imagine...

[Prof Yaffle]

For the benefit of the uninitiated... this would give what, precisely? What does Mediabrowser bring to the party?

I'm not criticising, I genuinely don't know and it isn't immediately obvious from their website.

[jacintech.fire]

@yaffle,
A bit of background: XBMC/Kodi is a media player. That is a piece of software that takes a media file as input and plays it back. Granted, in practice is does much more, as it organizes your media, and presents is a clean and clear way, plus much, much, much more.
Plex, Media Browser, and a few others are Media Streaming Servers. They take a media file as input, transcode it, then stream it to remote devices (TV, HTPC, Smartphones, Tablet,etc). Because they transcode the source, they can adjust the bitrate of the stream to accomodate they remote device and the network bandwith, so that in theory, the media plays smoothly regardless of the device used to view it. So with a streaming server, you can access your media anywhere, on any device.
XBMC will play media whose codec is supported, as-is. And although possible, playing a remote source on XBMC is rather difficult and the results will vary. For best results, XBMC is best deployed on a gigabit LAN...
Having a centralized server, allows you to update your library without the need of having a client running at all times. It also allows you enjoy your library anywhere you are. It is like having your very own netflix, spottify and youtube.
Plex is the most popular of these, but it is closed sourced. Media browser 3 is open, but lacks the maturity of XBMC. By merging XBMC and MB3 you get all the new functionality of a streaming server, coupled with XBMC client functionality...

My fear is that as plex and mb3 become more popular and feature rich, new users will flock to these solutions and will never try other alternatives, namely XBMC/Kodi. This would be bad as it would further marginalize XBMC/Kodi

[Ned Scott]

Quite right...
And Elan Feingold just made another million...

Think about the fresh ideas and possibilities that such a merge would bring...can you even imagine...

The Media Browser guys have already made an excellent XBMC/Kodi add-on, and are continuing to evolve it. Even as it is today it does what you are describing, including transcoding.

[nickr]

Quite right...
And Elan Feingold just made another million...

Think about the fresh ideas and possibilities that such a merge would bring...can you even imagine...

The Media Browser guys have already made an excellent XBMC/Kodi add-on, and are continuing to evolve it. Even as it is today it does what you are describing, including transcoding.

That's kind of what I was alluding to in post #4.

[jjd-uk]

My fear is that as plex and mb3 become more popular and feature rich, new users will flock to these solutions and will never try other alternatives, namely XBMC/Kodi. This would be bad as it would further marginalize XBMC/Kodi

I very much doubt that will ever happen while we remain free and they persist with their subscription Plex Pass model in order to take advantage of their latest features.

[jacintech.fire]

@jjd-uk,
Not to beat a dead horse, but I MUST point out the obvious. The XBMC/Kodi team is one of the greatest collectives of software engineers working on an Open Source project. No questions...
But you guys are woefully ignorant when it comes to marketing and consumer psycology: The fact that XBMC/Kodi is free is NOT what will guarantee its viability. It is how convenient it is in addressing a consumer (user need). User will gradly pay for convenience (itunes vs napster) and sometimes even trade features for convenience (tablets vs laptops).
I have (and will continue to) use XBMC/Kodi, I've tried both MB3 and plex and I can tell you with absolute certainty that a new user who is introduced to plex WILL NOT abandon plex for either MB3 or XBMC/Kodi...even if the cost is $149.99 for a lifetime pass...
The list of examples is far too long, but remember: Windows, iTunes, VHS, BluyRay, mp3, Facebook, Google Search, and on, and on...
But here is the thing: A unified, simplified hybrid of MB3/XBMC would blow plex out of the water (specially if the XBMC/Kodi team is the senior partner in the union)...

---

Quite right...
And Elan Feingold just made another million...

Think about the fresh ideas and possibilities that such a merge would bring...can you even imagine...

The Media Browser guys have already made an excellent XBMC/Kodi add-on, and are continuing to evolve it. Even as it is today it does what you are describing, including transcoding.

But why stop there...? Why not merge the code base...? It is obvious XBMC/Kodi needs a server/transcoder...as it is obvious MB3 could use a better client...it's a match made in heavens...

[helta]

memories of this thread.

[Ned Scott]

Quite right...
And Elan Feingold just made another million...

Think about the fresh ideas and possibilities that such a merge would bring...can you even imagine...

The Media Browser guys have already made an excellent XBMC/Kodi add-on, and are continuing to evolve it. Even as it is today it does what you are describing, including transcoding.

But why stop there...? Why not merge the code base...? It is obvious XBMC/Kodi needs a server/transcoder...as it is obvious MB3 could use a better client...it's a match made in heavens...

That would give no functional benefit to the end user, and would just be insane from a development standpoint. What is there to merge if MB3 is working on a server/client setup? MB3 server is a separate application to the client, which would be XBMC/Kodi in this case. There would literally be nothing to merge.

MB3 requires the .NET framework. That's simply a no-go for XBMC/Kodi because of our multi-platform support. MB3 can run on Mac and Linux using Mono, but that's not a viable option for XBMC/Kodi itself, and it would mean that merging the code would be impractical. It would be far easier to make something from scratch if all you needed was transcoding.

Which leads to the bigger issue for those who want "built-in" server abilities, which is not finding transcoding code, but just finding someone who wants to add it XBMC/Kodi. It doesn't matter if it's from merging an existing project or making something semi-new, it still requires someone to do it. We've had devs in the past start on the project (and the code is available for those who wish to continue), and we even have devs who have shown interest in doing their own attempt and said it wouldn't be too hard, but it requires time to work on.

[jacintech.fire]

@ned,
"...MB3 requires the .NET framework. That's simply a no-go for XBMC/Kodi because of our multi-platform support. MB3 can run on Mac and Linux using Mono, but that's not a viable option for XBMC/Kodi itself, and it would mean that merging the code would be impractical. It would be far easier to make something from scratch if all you needed was transcoding.

Which leads to the bigger issue for those who want "built-in" server abilities, which is not finding transcoding code, but just finding someone who wants to add it XBMC/Kodi. It doesn't matter if it's from merging an existing project or making something semi-new, it still requires someone to do it. We've had devs in the past start on the project (and the code is available for those who wish to continue), and we even have devs who have shown interest in doing their own attempt and said it wouldn't be too hard, but it requires time to work on..."
This is factual, intelligent response. This I understand. Thank you
But the idea that XBMC/Kodi will continue to be a viable project as JUST a media player is laughable...
"...We've had devs in the past start on the project (and the code is available for those who wish to continue)..."
Do you have any links to that specific fork...?

---

memories of this thread.

@helta,
Don't you start nothin' ya hear!!!

[Ned Scott]

But the idea that XBMC/Kodi will continue to be a viable project as JUST a media player is laughable...

Well, I guess it's a good thing I didn't say that. But fine, I'll take the troll bait, simply because of how stupid a statement like that is.

I'll let Apple, Google, Amazon, and Roku know that things that play videos are no longer viable if they are not transcoding servers for mobile phones at the same time. My TV doesn't stream to other TVs, but that doesn't mean it stops working as a TV. XBMC is primarily an exit point for your media, because other things exist and work better to share the files themselves. Why would you think this when you yourself have massive NAS storage that shouldn't need to run XBMC just to deliver the content to whatever device you are using, be it an XBMC client or otherwise?

As for as how useful this is, it's neat and can really come in handy, but heaven forbid you stop staring at a tiny screen while you leave the house.

You have this narrow minded view of how something should work, and even when people point out that it already does that you disregard it because it isn't the exact implementation in your head.

This is a program designed for your living room. Every thread you make is about how XBMC doesn't fit your needs. Guess what, it doesn't have to. Different tools for different situations. Different users have different needs. I myself have used transcoding servers with other players while on the go, and my XBMC usage never decreased because of it. Just because someone uses a different player on their phone doesn't mean the living room HTPC suddenly stops existing. I don't even use XBMC on my desktop unless I'm testing or using add-on content, because I don't need a living room interface on my desktop when I'm 2 feet in front of it. I don't stop buying cups because I own a water bottle.

But all of that doesn't matter, because XBMC today works wonderfully with transcoding options that already exist. Even if you were correct, which is laughable, it's not an issue. Our own developers are very interested in adding a built-in transcoding server to XBMC in the future.

So what more is there to say? Why do you continue to try to argue for the supposed sake of XBMC/Kodi's future? No one is saying we shouldn't have this added, even though some might disagree about how important or useful the feature would be. For someone who demands that people be open minded, you sure are quick to reject any viewpoint that isn't your own.