The Boxee Box: too free to live?
The Boxee Box is based on the Boxee software which, in turn, is based on the XBMC media player. It gained an enthusiastic early following as the result of its open-source roots and the device's plugin infrastructure. The Boxee Box handled a wide variety of media types from the outset; in places where it fell short, others could easily provide plugins to fill in the gaps. So the Boxee Box became known as a device that could play almost anything.
Boxee Box users lost some of their enthusiasm over time. Early versions could be "unboxed" and made to run arbitrary software, but the company closed that hole in 2010 and it does not appear that anybody has figured out how to break newer versions. Bug fixes and improvements from Boxee slowed down over time, leading to user frustration. And now those users, the people who have supported Boxee to this point, have been informed that Boxee is abandoning the device in favor of its upcoming, USA-only "Boxee TV" product.
One can maybe understand a company that feels the need to declare end-of-life for a two-year-old consumer electronics product; such offerings often don't last anywhere near that long. But Boxee has not just left a product behind; it also left the entire community that had embraced that product. The new "Boxee TV" is a clear step backward in a number of regards: no plugin support, no support for arbitrary file formats, and a highly proprietary architecture throughout. It now features a new deal with US cable provider Comcast (ensuring that Boxee will not be blocked by the just-allowed encryption of basic cable content in the US) and features designed to warm the entertainment industry's heart. This article in The Verge describes the situation clearly:
What has happened here is clear: Boxee has gone from trying to make its customers happy to making the entertainment industry happy instead. If that meant dumping its old customers and the development community that had built itself around the older product, then so be it. As XBMC developer Nathan Betzen put it, Boxee has moved from trying to expand its users' rights under copyright law to actively restricting those rights. In a sense, Boxee is telling us that we cannot have a box with plugin support and the ability to play "weird video files" — much less a truly open system — under the current copyright regime.
Boxee has also driven home a lesson we've heard many times before: just putting free software onto a device does not make the device free. Most of what is in the Boxee Box is freely licensed, but, without the ability to replace the software, the Boxee Box itself is not under its owner's control. It can have features taken away, contain evil software, or be turned into an obsolete, unsupported paperweight at a corporation's whim. Purchasing such a device may or may not be a rational decision, depending on what the purchaser's goals are. Developing for this kind of device seems like a mistake; one is working to improve an edifice whose foundation can be yanked out at any time.
Suitably skilled users who are aware of these issues will, of course, have avoided a device like the Boxee Box from the outset. It is certainly possible to put XBMC onto a properly equipped computer and have a truly free device to feed one's video consumption habits. That option has not gone away, but the world has still gotten a little worse; from Nathan's post again:
Without an off-the-shelf open system, most viewers are going to be stuck with whatever the entertainment industry is willing to let them to have. Those who want something more flexible will need to build their own systems, run into all kinds of issues trying to access content that is rightfully available to them, and live under the assumption that their primary motivation is piracy.
Version 3 of the GPL will not save us here; manufacturers have shown every sign of being willing to dump software when its licensing gets in the way of their business objectives. Boxee went from being "passionate about open source software" to embracing a fully proprietary solution even without the extra requirements found in GPLv3 to worry about. Solutions to this problem, if they exist, will have to come from elsewhere.
What is needed is a combination of truly
free alternatives, a willingness among buyers to insist on free devices,
and copyright reform. In the handset market, buyers have begun to
understand how nice it is to have alternatives like CyanogenMod — and to
not have to go through a scary "jailbreaking" process to install it. As
the content industry tries to tighten its grip on what our systems can do,
awareness of the value of freedom may grow in this market as well. But it
will be too late for Boxee Box owners who are now discovering that they
lack the freedom to improve a device after its manufacturer has lost
interest.
Posted Oct 20, 2012 19:04 UTC (Sat)
by smoogen (subscriber, #97)
[Link]
Many of the times what I run into is that people want X but they want it cheap or don't want to know why an open version costs more.. they see the other product costs 30% less and don't know that they are paying for it with invisible freedom. As they say "Freedom is never free."
Posted Oct 20, 2012 19:55 UTC (Sat)
by spaetz (guest, #32870)
[Link] (21 responses)
Posted Oct 20, 2012 20:00 UTC (Sat)
by arekm (guest, #4846)
[Link] (20 responses)
No idea about Boxee Box but above problems make raspberry pi not that good for "beautiful xbmc box".
Posted Oct 20, 2012 20:41 UTC (Sat)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (16 responses)
Also, did your tests use the hardware accelerated video?
It will also be interesting to see what difference the added memory of the new version will make. Since most xbmc distros allocate 128M for video, this takes the memory available for the rest of the system from 128M to 384M.
It's nice to see what economies of scale can do for the costs of components :-)
Posted Oct 20, 2012 20:51 UTC (Sat)
by arekm (guest, #4846)
[Link] (15 responses)
I guess I should test it again.
Posted Oct 20, 2012 22:28 UTC (Sat)
by arekm (guest, #4846)
[Link] (14 responses)
Posted Oct 21, 2012 16:41 UTC (Sun)
by man_ls (guest, #15091)
[Link] (8 responses)
Posted Oct 21, 2012 16:47 UTC (Sun)
by arekm (guest, #4846)
[Link] (7 responses)
Format : Matroska
Video
Audio
Posted Oct 21, 2012 16:56 UTC (Sun)
by GhePeU (subscriber, #56133)
[Link] (6 responses)
Latest Raspbmc should already use hard-float, so probably you'll need to overclock, which is now officially supported: http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/2008
Posted Oct 21, 2012 17:40 UTC (Sun)
by arekm (guest, #4846)
[Link] (5 responses)
I don't want to overclock pi. If I had to then it would be another reason to say that raspberry pi isn't good solution for home video player.
My popcornhour C-200 works much better (in terms of 'user experience') than xbmc on raspberry pi. The price range is very different though.
Posted Oct 21, 2012 21:28 UTC (Sun)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (4 responses)
Overclocking beyond the manufacturers spec is a problem.
But the manufacturers have said that as long as the temp doesn't get too high, these clock rates are safe.
At that point, what's the difference between "overclocking" and the "turbo mode" that the latest Intel chips have where they can shut down some cores to run other cores at a higher clock rate and still keep within the thermal limits?
XBian mildly overclocks the pi in this safe, manufacturer approved way, and is significantly snappier than raspbmc.
That said, even Raspbmc is not significantly less responsive than my DVR when navigating around. I haven't tried doing so while a video is playing.
Posted Oct 21, 2012 21:35 UTC (Sun)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (3 responses)
what's the difference between the two?
Posted Oct 22, 2012 18:34 UTC (Mon)
by cmccabe (guest, #60281)
[Link] (2 responses)
Overclocking is by definition not supported by the manufacturer.
I freely admit that I have not done any research on it, but just based on your comment, it sounds like the pi folks were having thermal dissipation issues at the higher frequencies. You can feel free to second-guess the engineers, but only at the risk of significant problems-- like melting the device, starting a fire, etc.
Posted Oct 22, 2012 18:48 UTC (Mon)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link]
This is supported by the manufacturer
http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/2008
Introducing turbo mode: up to 50% more performance for free
Since launch, we’ve supported overclocking and overvolting your Raspberry Pi by editing config.txt. Overvolting provided more overclocking headroom, but voided your warranty because we were concerned it would decrease the lifetime of the SoC; we set a sticky bit inside BCM2835 to allow us to spot boards which have been overvolted.
We’ve been doing a lot of work to understand the impact of voltage and temperature on lifetime, and are now able to offer a “turbo mode”, which dynamically enables overclock and overvolt under the control of a cpufreq driver, without affecting your warranty. We are happy that the combination of only applying turbo when busy, and limiting turbo when the BCM2835′s internal temperature reaches 85°C, means there will be no measurable reduction in the lifetime of your Raspberry Pi.
You can now choose from one of five overclock presets in raspi-config, the highest of which runs the ARM at 1GHz. The level of stable overclock you can achieve will depend on your specific Pi and on the quality of your power supply; we suggest that Quake 3 is a good stress test for checking if a particular level is completely stable. If you choose too high an overclock, your Pi may fail to boot, in which case holding down the shift key during boot up will disable the overclock for that boot, allowing you to select a lower level.
What does this mean? Comparing the new image with 1GHz turbo enabled, against the previous image at 700MHz, nbench reports 52% faster on integer, 64% faster on floating point and 55% faster on memory.
Posted Oct 23, 2012 22:51 UTC (Tue)
by Lennie (subscriber, #49641)
[Link]
Posted Oct 22, 2012 15:35 UTC (Mon)
by dashesy (guest, #74652)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Oct 22, 2012 19:00 UTC (Mon)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (3 responses)
600MHz Cortex A8 chip
Raspberry Pi $35
700-1000MHz ARM6 chip
are you sure the beagleboard is 'much more powerful' than the pi?
it's possible that the video acceleration of the beagleboard is better than the pi. I don't know a good way to look that up.
Posted Oct 22, 2012 19:30 UTC (Mon)
by dashesy (guest, #74652)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Oct 22, 2012 20:26 UTC (Mon)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link]
Unfortunantly this does require a binary blob driver loaded by the boot process to work, but while this isn't good, it's no worse than anything else in the space.
Posted Oct 22, 2012 20:06 UTC (Mon)
by GhePeU (subscriber, #56133)
[Link]
1 GHz Cortex A8
And it still doesn't support 1080p video, at best it can do 720p.
A Pandaboard ES can play 1080p video (I've got one on my desktop now), but it costs ~180USD. It's a wholly different board, however, dual-core Cortex A9 1.2GHz with 1 GB LP-DDR2, 802.11 b/g/n, 10/100 Ethernet, Bluetooth v2.1 EDR, HDMI, DVI-D... it's also very well supported for now, the latest drivers release supports Wayland (!).
The Odroid-X is another alternative, it costs about 50 USD less than a Pandaboard (no WiFi or Bluetooth however) and has a quad-core Exynos4412 Cortex A9 1.4 GHz, but I don't think HD video acceleration is working on Linux at the moment.
Posted Oct 21, 2012 8:08 UTC (Sun)
by spaetz (guest, #32870)
[Link]
Posted Oct 22, 2012 5:11 UTC (Mon)
by eru (subscriber, #2753)
[Link] (1 responses)
Actually I found, after buying a Canon compact that shoots HD, that even my few-years old Pentium D@3.4Ghz, (video: Radeon 9200) was not able to smoothly play 1080p with common F/OSS players. So I took to shooting 720p, which looks about as good, at least when shot by that not-so-high-end camera, and the files are smaller.
I wonder where the problem was. Nonoptimal codecs? Display? How much does modern 1080p playing rely on the video card smarts?
Posted Oct 22, 2012 10:18 UTC (Mon)
by etienne (guest, #25256)
[Link]
Posted Oct 23, 2012 9:01 UTC (Tue)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
Good article. But the funny line there is: Boxee has gone from trying to make its customers happy to making the entertainment industry happy instead. Of course nothing like this happened. Companies which abandons customers don't survive. They just compared number of customers who want to view torrent-downloaded files and number of customers who want to see Comcast-provided shows and found that (at least in US) most customers prefer Comcast. Which nicely shows that torrents are not such a huge deal as MPAA likes to portray. At least in US.
Posted Oct 25, 2012 8:56 UTC (Thu)
by ortalo (guest, #4654)
[Link]
Yes, ok, building an entire production/distribution/display system for a nice small catalogue of four 10 min. movies content may sound silly for a while but let's face it: maybe shortcutting the entire entertainment industry altogether is the most *sensible* thing to do from the technical, legal and economical point of view.
Posted Oct 25, 2012 9:55 UTC (Thu)
by rwmj (subscriber, #5474)
[Link] (1 responses)
Boxee have dropped one product and developed (from scratch?) a completely different product. It's their prerogative to do that. No one who cares about freedom will want to use the replacement product. All the original software exists and can be run quite easily on cheap and readily available ARM and x86 hardware, and if that is too hard to set up maybe an entrepreneur can fill the gap in the market vacated by Boxee?
Rich.
Posted Oct 27, 2012 18:31 UTC (Sat)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link]
Now, many people believe in situations like this Boxee has no moral obligation to provide those services to them, so there would be no cause for anger. But it's apparent that many others don't see it that way. I know this because I see the angry rants when e.g. the cable company decides to stop providing analog cable service.
Another reason to be angry is at being misled into believing you would have something for years to come only to have it taken away after two. I don't know if that's happened, or is at all reasonable, in this case, but I come back to another TV cable analogy, and remember a guy ranting about the evil cable company taking away all his HD channels and demanding more money to get them back. He had never paid for them, but until recently, the cable company didn't have the means to disable them. So this "I was used to it and you took it away" effect does exist.
The Boxee Box: too free to live?
The Boxee Box: too free to live?
The Boxee Box: too free to live?
The Boxee Box: too free to live?
The Boxee Box: too free to live?
The Boxee Box: too free to live?
Is that for Blu-ray movies? To be honest, my monitor doesn't have 1080 vertical pixels anyway (it's 1680x1050).
Full HD
Full HD
Format version : Version 2
File size : 8.74 GiB
Duration : 1h 37mn
Overall bit rate : 12.8 Mbp
ID : 1
Format : AVC
Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile : High@L4.1
Format settings, CABAC : Yes
Format settings, ReFrames : 5 frames
Codec ID : V_MPEG4/ISO/AVC
Duration : 1h 37mn
Bit rate : 11.3 Mbps
Width : 1 920 pixels
Height : 816 pixels
ID : 2
Format : DTS
Format/Info : Digital Theater Systems
Codec ID : A_DTS
Duration : 1h 37mn
Bit rate mode : Constant
Bit rate : 1 510 Kbps
Channel(s) : 6 channels
Channel positions : Front: L C R, Side: L R, LFE
Sampling rate : 48.0 KHz
Bit depth : 24 bits
Full HD
Full HD
Full HD
Full HD
Full HD
Full HD
Posted on September 19, 2012 by eben
Full HD
The Boxee Box: too free to live?
The Boxee Box: too free to live?
128M ram
256M flash
SD card
512M ram (new version, old one was 256M)
SD card storage
The Boxee Box: too free to live?
TMS320C64x+ DSP for accelerated video and audio decoding, and an Imagination Technologies PowerVR SGX530 GPU. It also says (520 MHz up to 720p @30 fps) for DSP but then a combination of CPU+DSP maybe able to handle higher resolutions.
The Boxee Box: too free to live?
The Boxee Box: too free to live?
512 MB LP-DDR
microSD card storage
C64x+ DSP
The Boxee Box: too free to live?
1080p requirements
1080p requirements
Depending on compression, you can have a wide range of bit rates for the same definition, I have an old/cheap camcorder which does 25 Mbps/s at 1080p in its maximum setting (at 60 images/seconds).
Not a lot of PC can play 25 Mbps/s (whatever the OS), even set-top box and MPEG4 hand-held video player have major problems...
The Boxee Box: too free to live?
The Boxee Box: too free to live?
The Boxee Box: too free to live?
You're supposed to be angry that Boxee will no longer provide fixes, enhancements, and other support for a product you want. It will cost you more (perhaps in your own time) to do that yourself. And you shouldn't expect any entrepreneur to take over, because he would find the same unprofitability Boxee did.
The Boxee Box: too free to live?