Talk:Plex Inc.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

On 8 January 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved. The result of the discussion was Moved back to Plex (software).

Plan to Simplify

There is a lot of detail that was brought over from the XBMC article that is probably too much for an article. Examples include the Plex_(software)#Video_playback_in_detail, Plex_(software)#Audio_playback_in_detail, and Plex_(software)#Add-on_plugins_.28widgets.2Fgadgets.29_python_scripts sub-sections. There are others like these that are impenetrable to most people who are not programmers. My thought is to refer back to the XBMC article with a section that discussed the heritage, but not have this level of detail included. It's repetitive and frankly, I'm not sure how much of it is accurate since we don't have a source the directly connects it to Plex. Comments? Mattnad (talk) 13:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done It seems like the aforementioned changes have been applied. Such details are now absent of the article. Wget (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plex Home Theatre is open source

This article states in several places that Plex Home Theatre is closed-source proprietary software. I don't think that's the case: it's open-source and available on GitLab here: https://github.com/plexinc/plex-home-theater-public/blob/pht-frodo/README-BUILD-PLEX.md

I'm not updating the article myself in case I've misunderstood (eg. maybe only a portion of Plex Home Theatre is open-source, with some closed-source part).

(Note that the article is correct in that the back-end software - Plex Media Server - is closed-source.)

Done Indeed, it is now open source and completely deprecated in favour of the mpv-based player now called Plex Media Player. Wget (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plex client feature comparison

I noticed a request in the Plex forums for a comparison of features for each of the Plex clients applications.

Thought we could just create a regular tabular comparison chart. Any ideas if there is an existing comparison list we could build on?

Cheers 196.215.171.134 (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please link the forum thread you are talking about. On my side, the only thread I found was this one. But I think all player apps are on par with each others in term of features. Wget (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Plex (software). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090719021424/http://www.9to5mac.com:80/Plex-app-store to http://www.9to5mac.com/Plex-app-store

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Checked. Working on my side. Closing. Wget (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too much links

The article appears to go to great efforts to add as much text and links as possible. Remove, consolidate, unduplicate? The 'See also section lists List of video player software and Comparison of video player software, both low quality, both with somewhat similar content.

Issues with Rewrite

Glad to see some serious effort here, but I have two concerns: 1) There's significant dependency on primary, non-reliable sources (Plex site, forums) which raises issues of notability, and a related 2) this is highly detailed and technical, so much so it's gone beyond encyclopedic content. There are far to many sections/subsections with sometimes a little as a single sentence in each. I don't love the earlier version, but it's better than this one as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Thoughts?Mattnad (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, when rewriting my notes, I knew the "one source references" would be an issue. But these were the personal notes I made when I learned how to use Plex. But the statements I provided are easily verifiable. I just took the time to source from the official website, but plenty of third-party sources are available. Feel free to add them ;-) I however hope the notes about the DNS part will not be removed ;-). Emby has actually the same issue with SSL and this paragraph will avoid to reexplain the issue on that article. Wget (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality?

I feel like this article is deserving of some sort of disclaimer recommending cleanup. The voice of the article does not seem consistent with what I am accustomed to with Wikipedia or an Encyclopedia. While rich with content, IMHO it reads more like a blog than an Encyclopedia entry.

For example Plex is introduced as software, but there are large sections where the "they" pronoun is used to refer to it.

Another example is the uncited and direct assertion that it violates the GPL.

72.169.81.105 (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I completely agree with you with the lack of sourcing especially with the GPL violation. Since my complete rewrite in July 2016, several additional modifications have somewhat lowered the quality of the article, while correcting most of the typos I have made. Could you please give me recommendations wrt. the "they" usage? What would you recommend?

Also I was wondering which term I should use? Mac OS X, OS X or macOS? This operating system has changed its name several times and this is not consistent across the whole article. Should I use the OS name used at the time I describe the fact? e.g. OS X when they forked from XBMC, macOS when speaking of facts from end of 2016. What do you think?

I still have some commits to make, especially the part with Plex Cloud which is completely inaccurate. It's on my todo :) Wget (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I put an advert on this article. It needs a rewrite. It reads like a company ad. Chisme (talk) 04:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it really need a rewrite. My original version was quite good compared to what we had before. Do you have any idea how to make the article perceived less like an ad and more like a regula Wikipedia article? I have read the Wiki articles related to the warning you put on the article, but these do not bring much info and are more related to wikispam rather than providing good advices. What kind of content can I add to make the article great again wrt. Wikipedia principles? Wget (talk) 10:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could start by cutting the entire "Player Apps" section. It provides way to much detail and is the kind of thing that belongs on a company website, not an encyclopedia. Any objections to cutting it? Chisme (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pity because I spent a huge time gathering all of these pieces of info spread across several subposts, comments, etc. :-( Do you have some hints about how to determine whether a subject could belong to an encyclopedic article or rather be a developer/historic content? Wget (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can start by asking yourself, "Is this of interest to the general reader?" And, "Is this important enough to belong in an encyclopedia?" Wikipedia IS an encyclopedia, not a company directory or means of touting a company's products. I'd like to remove that section. Chisme (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)/////[reply]

It's five times too long. Inopinatus (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

simplfied GPL-Violation checklist:

   Is the copyright notice of the copyright holder included? NO
   Is the source code completely missing? YES
   Is there a written offer for source that's incomplete in some way? NO
   Is there a copy of the license included in the distribution? NO
   Is some of the source available? no

FFMpeg - https://www.ffmpeg.org/legal.html,
FreeImage - http://freeimage.sourceforge.net/license.html
cygwin - https://lwn.net/Articles/307918/
OpenSSl - https://www.openssl.org/source/license.html
libiconv - https://www.gnu.org/software/libiconv/
opencv - http://opencv.org/license.html
zlib = https://github.com/orlp/ed25519/blob/d4c1fa44ae1e07f7ad578032efa5d9d9959188b0/license.txt
that a list without even reverse engineering abit of the code which i dont have time to due right now it just from first install directory.last time i went threw plain text files there where 72 GPL-Violation
the only source code they even come close to acknowledging is python and that only in half compliance got source code but no license
even the Font there using  which has one of the easiest license there is right now MIT license permits reuse within proprietary software provided that all copies of the licensed software 
include a copy of the MIT License terms and the copyright notice.and they cant be bothered with that.
outside of using your own eyes you would need to admit that you reversed engineered the software while most of the code is made up of open source code which they fail to provide license or
source code as required by GPL and I would have to check but i believe a few require payment if used in a project like Plex (closed sourced),there may be some proprietary code which iam sure they would sue you.
You also only need to check dates on several DDL of alot of the open source software there using. you can see that it way out of date any many have put out security fixes.

As the article is basically a free whole page ad for them .it should be pointed out that the software has some issues

6thstreetfisherman (talk) 12:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forums changed to use Discourse

The Privacy section says that Plex changed their forums to use Vanilla forums instead, but currently (as of early March 2020) the forums are actually Discourse. Gwyneth Llewelyn (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything specific on this page that you are suggesting to change? If so, please provide the statement, citation, and where to add it. Robertmason1 (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

The opening sentence of this article seems extremely suspicious. I think there needs to be a source for the claim that plex is foremost a streaming service and not a media player. 2601:8A:500:57A1:C52E:A187:56F7:99A7 (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have added source [3], and in the body a new streaming section that has 3 more sources. Robertmason1 (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article reads like an advertisment

Hi everyone! I'd like to reopen the discussion regarding this page and the tone the article is written in. I still feel like the article sounds like a hidden advert. I don't feel knowledgeable enough to clean the article up, nor do I have time to at the moment. Unless there are any objections I would like to put the advert template back in. Please ping me in the discussion thread!

/VFD Very Fantastic Dude (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved back to Plex (software). I'm reading this as a revert of an undiscussed move, as there haven't been any arguments for moving. It does look like the article is definitely about the software and not the company. (closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE 15:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plex (company) → ? – this was renamed from "Plex (software)" to "Plex (company)" here. as it is currently, this feels wrong. either the article should be renamed to something more appropriate, or the lead should be rewritten to describe it as a company that makes a media player and a streaming service and the infobox updated appropriately as well. – alexia a (she/her) 13:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 17:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the company itself is Plex Inc., either the article should me moved back to Plex (software) or it should be heavily rewritten. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is any type of Plex movie rating earning

https://www.plexflim-movie.com There is any type Plexfilm movie rating earning money platform.please provide me is this a real platform because I'm invested huge amount is this plat form now my money was in hold.i was thinking it's a scam, please help me out. Senaakash01 (talk) 09:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]