Slashdot Mirror
BBC Launches APIs
Stefan Magdalinski writes "The BBC is opening up a slew of APIs to its content and applications via a new site, backstage.bbc.co.uk, and actively encouraging users to remix, mashup, and otherwise play with their content to create new applications.
Already there's a few cool featured apps, my own BBC News wikipedizing proxy, and a del.icio.us-enabled version of BBC News
"Use our stuff to create your stuff" is their slogan. Could a commercial broadcaster ever take a step like this?"
1. Use our stuff to create your stuff
2. ???
3. Profit!!!!
Terms & Conditions:
4. The BBC may edit, amend or change the BBC Content that appears on the backstage.bbc.co.uk site at any time at its discretion. The BBC also reserves the right to modify or discontinue the backstage.bbc.co.uk site at any time.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
So what is the possibility that we could be converging on a universal streaming client? I know Microsoft and Real would like to see their systems become the ligua franca of streaming video, but the BBC has the advantage of a huge library of content.
Will content trump market penetration?
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
-truth
I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...
Sure, some people may bitch about having to pay a TV licence fee, but would this kind of thing ever happen if all broadcasters were only in the game for a profit?
Jolyon
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
Hopefully for the bbc profit = "wide distribution of knowledge", not that traditional profit = "massive bonuses for executives"
Customer: Excuse me, I would like to complain about this Windows Security Update what I downloaded just yesterday.
Shopkeeper: Oh yes, a great Windows Update! Beautiful plummage.
Customer: The plummage don't enter into it! The problem is that this Windows Security Update is dead.
Shopkeeper: No, it's just resting! It will hop up any minute and dance around destroying viruses.
Customer: This Windows Security Update would not dance around even if Linus Torvalds himself gave it CPR!
Crow T. Trollbot
...that the Beeb has got it right. In the media business, the focus should be on content generation and the flexibility of form in media. Who cares about market share or sales or ratings, when you are truly focused on creating content and sparking creativity amongst the viewers/readers/listeners, etc... This is why the quality of everything the BBC produces is of the highest caliber. The closest thing we have here in the states is the poorly underfunded PBS and NPR networks. The day that the Republicans decided to rip away government funding from PBS was a dark day indeed and we're still paying for it in every sense of the word. Discovery and TLC don't even come close to what PBS used to be able to offer when it got better governement funding. Kudos to the BBC for showing the rest of the world how good it could be.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Could a commercial broadcaster ever take a step like this?
Not likely, but what about PBS doing something similar to what the Beeb is doing? There are other non-commecial broadcasting entities around the world which could do similar things.
Stream getMovie(char* movieName)
getMovie returns a stream of data, if a movie called movieName exists, null otherwise.
Stream getAd()
getAd must be called before every call to getMovie. Otherwise, your computer explodes.
From time to time, a call to getMovie is forwarded to a call to getAd.
This is cool. If enough people use this to create cool stuff, and it generates enough publicity, maybe more companies will follow. If not, Grease monkey will let us most of this, but not as easily.
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
We should use the API's to generate automatic stories on slashdot.
Ofcourse, generated stories will be rejected if it does not contain certain keywords or dupes. So I propose combining this with Slashdot random story generator
Python script to convert photos into "artsy" portraits: http://p2pbridge.sf.net/pyPortrait/
Doesn't this violate wikipedia's trademark?
JLvM III
356@up-set.com
Does this mean that we will have to program in proper English with a stiff upper lip? Will we get a compiler error if we use American slang and/or spelling? As long as we don't have to program in Esperanto...
How long have you been saving that one?
I do like the comments attached to wikiproxy stating that it underlines links because links are meant to be underlined.
It's all well and good being standing up for these sorts of things, just so long as you adhere to those standards too.
Checking out the authors' website shows an abundance of links that are not underlined. Ah, the irony.
Kicking the BBC is too easy - you really don't come across as all that revolutionary by laughing and pointing at the mistakes they make. So let's give a huge *well done* to those at the BBC who no doubt slayed the dragons and fought tooth and nail to get this out of the door.
Still, nice way to claim some easy credit in all their hard work. Way to bask in the reflected glory!
There have been stories for a while that the BBC are putting all of their stuff online for download (for a price of course). Anyone heard any news on how that is progressing?
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Could you imagine? We'd have one continuous "pledge-break" to "cover the cost". Unless Microsoft provided an endowment... *gasp!*
1. Open PBS content
2. Get Microsoft to pay for it, with the concession that it only work with MS Media Player software.
3. PROFIT!
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
Obviously too long. It's expired, it's ceased to be...
Are they using OGG or their own codec?
(I recall stories about them developing one)
Monty Pythonize Ballmer and his monkey dance.
"I'm a whack-job and I'm OK
I jump all night and I scream all day..."
After all, who needs APIs for an 8-bit BBC Micro?
This inexplicable joke has certainly taken on the gravity of the SNL "you like-a de juice? juice is good?" sketch, so, I'm laughing, but, as an aside, is there any deeper meaning?
I've always found the BBC sexy. I used to think it was the accent, but I know I know it's a deeper love.
In Soviet Russia, asses suck this joke.
Be promiscuous. Looks like they're basically planning to take over the news world.
Deleted
Huh. Being an English man living in England, I have to pay a mandatory LICENCE to the BBC every year even if I don't watch BBC TV (I only need to be proved to have a 'machine' that can receive the transmissions).
So, this is pretty crap - using rip-off UK to pay for it all.
BTW, blind people get a rebate of 50%...
OK, looks like all the people who use big words when it comes to copyright are missing something here so I'll do it on behalf of all of them: Thank you BBC.
SUCKER.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Actually, I think I've seen some shows recieve funding from the "Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation," although that's of course completely different from what you're talking about.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
"Already there's a few cool featured apps, my own BBC News wikipedizing proxy, and a del.icio.us-enabled version of BBC News"
Wow, you recreated the BBC home page all by yourself. Congrats. Hvae a cookie. How on earth does that count as a "cool featured" app?
Could a commercial broadcaster ever take a step like this?"
As one who work in a commercial news website; nope. We offer simple feeds to private non-commercial sites that wants to have out 10 latest news headlines. But other than that, it would be like handing out gold over to the competition. Besies, we want people to visit our site. Not get all the goodies on other sites.
Now, a state-run actor can do this, because their mraginal loss is approx. zero. We have a state rune broadcaster in Norway and they SUCK. I hate them with a passion, because thei charge the license fee and give us crap back. If there was an option to pay to the BBC and only get BBC programming to my TV, I'd do it in a heartbeat. NRK (the state broadcaster) has so much crap, I don't have the concistence to pay for it. So I don't have a TV.
BBC is cool. they plan to make most of their archives available for the public free. Here we have out of copyright works DRMed in Windows Media DRM and published for a fee by the film board. How retarded is that? Do you want to see a clip from your state broadcaster produced comedy show that YOU financed through license fees? Cough up 5 dollars pr 1/2 hour, scumbag, and take this Media Player DRMed file.
God, I hate them. No wonder they fail misreably in the internet sector, even while having the HUGE advantage f bein a state broadcaster.
Hey you are troll because you criticized the licence fee you pay in England. And Slashdot does not tolerate any objection to the licence fee because Slashdot is made by Americans for Americans and we appreciate the English geek sense of humour that comes though the BBC at your expense. We are obsessed by Monty Python. It is so neat. We are Americans. With square jaws and big heads. And money. Our founding fathers like John Wayne taught us to never look a gift horse in the mouth. Especially an English one.
So, we the Slashdot team have written to the UK government insisting that that the UK licence fee is not enough to support the wonderful programmes that come out of the BBC and how they need more money. We at Slashdot think a 2-4 fold increase in the licence fee is fair to everyone. We have also written to our own government insisting immediately that we all pay a 'Google Tax' for the amazing service it is.
signed,
Slashdot abuse and licence fee troll team.
Programi en Esperanto estus facila, krom neniaj programlingvoj uzas la internacia lingvon! Ecx la latinaj parolantoj havas ilian programlingvon!
you don't need a license if you don't watch TV. even if you have a TV but only use it for watching videos you're fine.
plus it's not just a TV license, it's for radio too.
plus if you were really an "English man" you'd probably realise that it's one word.
It seems that Wikipedia becomes more and more integrated into the web. Regardless of what people say of its non-autoritativeness, it seems it's "good enough" for most. Most of my friends (even non-geek ones) know what "check the wiki" means, and it replaced the usual "google for it" in my vocabulary not long ago.
Could a commercial broadcaster ever take a step like this
Of course they could, if they could impose a mandatory tax on all owners of television sets, whether or not those people watch their network. It's very easy to give things away when your revenue stream is guaranteed by law.
It's only when I see comments on Slashdot (this shows the extent of my reading) that I come to appreciate what the BBC does and what my licence fee pays for. I have always been moaning about being forced to watch EastEnders by my wife, which is a realistic a portrayal of London as Friends is of New York.
;)
We do get a lot of American programs here and you start to think that the grass is greener. Then you actually watch an American channel and realise that most of the 40 minute program is made up of adverts. I was amazed the first time I saw an American channel. The titles started and then we went straight into an advert break. What!!. Talk about teasing you. You then watch 10 minutes of the actual program, which isn't bad, then you get the next ad break. You finally watch the last part of the program, which doesn't end with the titles but with another ad break. The titles then come after the ad break!?!
Any hoo. The BBC website is always my first port of call for news, sport etc...; after Slashdot of course
"Why take life seriously, you're not coming out of it alive anyway."
While BBC's announcement is still about offering RSS and RDF feeds, and their APIs are not yet available, their effort is in the right direction.
) .
Do you ever get the feeling that when a site finally puts up an RSS feed, they are saying 'Look, we now have a feed. Have at it folks. That's it on our end. No need to innovate further." In contrast, the BBC is not just giving out more feeds for RSS readers: they are giving components for creating applications.
I work at Serence, a company that for the last three years has been building a platform for deploying personal dashboards written in XML and JavaScript (http://www.serence.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=751
We've been thinking a lot about this question: what is next after RSS?
We think the next step beyond RSS is to create more intelligent clients, and we are trying to make it easier for people to do just that. Users want to have more control over their content. The BBC is realizing something that is counter-intuitive to many companies: give users more control over your content and it will increase adoption because each user can customize their awareness to their needs.
Wow, this may even make the BBC cool again.
Regards,... Fred
Life is NP-Complete
Have you watch PBS or listened to NPR in the last 10 years: they have ads for giant multinational coporations. Geez, and entire news segments are dedicated puff piece for the sponsors.
Crow T. Trollbot
Don't you mean Crówt, son of Trollbot, son of Thorgard, son of Geernon, son of Erik from Valdalesc, son of Arval Gristlebeard, son of Harken, who killed
[Error: Bandwidth limit exceeded]
Some top exec thought it was too hard to do his own R&D and so 'commissioned' a minion to create a website getting 'stupid Linux zealots' to do his work.
... damn!
When he has the killer apps he needs, he shuts the site [possibly leaves the BBC?] and patents the ideas.
Profit! Either from huge performance bonus (paid in part by me!) or by patent royalties (which I don't expect I'll see a penny of).
I'm getting _old_ and _cynical_
Interestingly enough, as part of the BBC's new service, they've provided a tagging system (associated with delicious).
For example, the tags for Malcolm Glazer's takeover of Manchester United football club are currently given as:
"utd wanker wanker asshat asshat utd beard"
It's actually a great idea, but perhaps a little more tweaking may be in order.
The point of the "gunpoint" metaphor is to drive home the essential diffence between civil society and government. The argument is that government ultimately enforces its prerogatives with force, and so voluntary civil solutions may be morally prefered where practicable.
Some claim that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has been a homogenizing force, squashing diversity in true grassroots broadcasting. How is it any better for the CPB to use its federal funding to monopolize community broadcasting than for a corporate welfare queen like Archer Daniels Midland to stamp out small farmers?
"Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries!"
Could a commercial broadcaster ever take a step like this?
.. and probably do more than anyone else to make americans jealous of british tv, are also members then, yes .. expect to see content from them soon.)
.. Channel 4 do have a kind of public charter to appeal to a more alternative/minority audience .. but are self funded through tv adverting etc.
This sounds like the creativearchive in all but name.
As Channel 4 who put out amazing programs/films/ documentaries
btw
Would be interesting to see outside of England though.
This UID is 7651 digits too high to subjectively infer IQ from.
> Would be interesting to see outside of England though
You can get channel 4 in Scotland.
target = find_target();
if (target)
Dalek_exterminate(target);
Instead of -1 Troll, this clown needs "-5 Bigoted jackass".
for reporting the truth?
lying to start a war ought not to be a misdemeanor.
in most civilized cultures, that's high treason.
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
Customer: Excuse me, I would like to complain about this Windows Security Update what I downloaded just yesterday.
Man behind desk: WHADDAYOU WANT?
Customer: Well, I was told outside that...
Man behind desk: DON'T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED HEAP OF PARROT DROPPINGS!
Customer: Look, I came here to complain about this Windows Security Update. I'm not just going to stand here...
Man behind desk: YOU FESTERING GOB, THIS IS ABUSE, DO YOU WANT THAT OR AN ARGUMENT...
>>>"why the quality of everything the BBC produces is of the highest caliber"
Now, I watch my share of telly including a lot of American shows, Friends, ER, Simpsons, StarTrek.
We get some good stuff from the BBC. But a lot of guff too.
Why-o-why did the BBC have to pay millions, for example, to get a sports show (Saturday night footie) when the same footie was already on TV on a commercial station.
Tell me how that sparks creativity - other than some £10 million footballer having to find creative ways to spend his oodles of cash??
BBC have some good points. But they often seem to think they are a commercial station - the management must be getting paid too much!
>>>"a realistic a portrayal of London as Friends is of New York"
Hmm, last I heard Friends was a comedy that was not supposed to be anything like real life and Eastenders was a "family drama serial" _supposed_ to portray a vaguely realistic life of an everyday neighbourhood.
But, what do I know?!
That's it, there is no other bit!
The BBC website in terms of content and contentmanagement already is one of the best sites on the internet as it is. This move will make it even better. I know a lot of Brits always agitate against the BBC, but being a neutral Dutchy married to an English wife I can say that BBC are absolutely ace compared to their 'competitors'
It's amazing how toddlers are developing so much faster in this modern age.
Must be the vitamins and protein-rich diet.
They can type almost intelligibly and post their views in Slashdot.
What a prodigy.
It may seem like their perogative to do so, but the BBC is a public service organisation, and they are supposed to be working for the good of society, just like, in fact, all organisations should be.
The problem is that they have contributed to society, but in a way that makes society more dependant on them. It's basically the difference between giving someone Free Software, or giving them a free trial that may popup a dialogue asking for unreachable fees any day now in order to continue working.
Now, as for them wanting to continuing playing with their stuff... that is a simple matter of releasing beta APIs that are subject to change, the way all software is. There's no need for such sweeping disclaimers to cover that. In most cases, it would be easy and natural to leave the old APIs, at least for a useful amount of time, when moving on to a new and better one.
Don't get me wrong, I think the BBC are pretty great, and this is a bold move which I really respect and admire, but a few more guarantees would make it much more useful and reliable.
No, it's a licence (that's why it's called a licence) to receive broadcasts, that's a large funding stream for the BBC here (IMHO much preferable to having perfectly good programmes broken up every few minutes with inane advertising). You can own a TV in the UK without a TV licence. It's possible to argue that you only use your TV as a video / DVD monitor, I know some people who have successfully argued it - in at least one case legitimately (video editing suite). So it's not a compulsory tax.
Actually, they do get a share of the TV licence.
Would be interesting to see outside of England though.
It's available in all parts of Britain, not just England.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Could a commercial broadcaster ever take a step like this?
Remember, the BBC can do this because they collect on every household owning a TV in the UK, many of them against their will.
Could a commercial broadcaster force you to pay ~$20 every month whether you watch their content or not, and then show you propaganda masquerading as news?
I'd like to see the Beeb actually compete in the marketplace instead of thrive on handouts.
Go somewhere random
but are self funded through tv adverting etc.
Actually, they do get a share of the TV licence.
Umm, no C4 don't get any money from the license fee. While they're a public organization like the BBC and unlike ITV and C5, they have to survive solely on commercial revenue.
This wasn't always the case however - in the past C4 was subsidized by ITV - if C4 made losses then the ITV companies would make up for the losses, but that link was severed several years ago. But at no time did C4 ever recieve license fee money.
This might change in the future though - with the current charter review, the government are looking at giving the commercial broadcasters some of the licence fee money to make public service programmes.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
This was an issue several years ago, with commercial magazine publishers complaining that the BBC was effectively advertising the Radio Times on its TV channels in opposition to the publishers' own listings mags (RT is a BBC-published listings magazine. As its name suggests, it pre-dates television; and for many years it was virtually the only listings magazine available in the UK).
These and other similar complaints are the reason that when an ad for RT appears nowadays, the words: "other listings magazines (or "cookery books", or whatever as appropriate) are also available" appear in tiny letters at the bottom of the screen.
Oh, and revenues from the BBC's commercial activities do go back into funding production, I believe.
And Jonathan Ross's show is an arse-licking extravaganza, which is a shame because Ross himself can be a funny and edgy presenter and he also hosts an excellent film review show in which he is regularly a great deal less flattering about some of the very same films whose stars he fawns over on his talk show.
Also, like several other shows which mine the same seam, his non-Hollywood guests are drawn from a very small pool. So you can pretty much guarantee that e.g. Johnny Vegas, Eddie Izzard, Peter Kay and Ricky Gervais are all going to get the gig at least once per series. Nothing against any of those guys, but they might as well come on wearing tee-shirts emblazoned "New Comedy Establishment" on the front and "Friend of Jonathan" on the back.
If only they'd launched this a couple of months ago, then I wouldn't have had to spend so much time mangling the html the old-fashioned way. ;-)
"Pokey, are you drunk on love?" "Yes. Also whiskey. But mostly love... and whiskey."
The Beeb can be divided into three parts.
1) The BBC home service, paid for by the license fee. This aims to give independant quality broadcasting to the public in the UK - and only there. See also http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/running/ and http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/ It is based in Broadcasting House.
2) The BBC World Service is a free, separate organisation that broadcasts to the rest of the world (theoretically not - as far as I remember - to the UK). It has its own news organisation and was previously based in Bush House, although it has recently moved. It is funded only by government grant, not licensing fees.
3) The commercial branch of the BBC is self-supporting. They make shows and sell them, and have various other activities.
(I'm afraid I can't point out links to everything in this comment, most of it coming from family members who worked in the BBC)
macdo10
No, he means Crowt von Trollbotsthorgardergeernonvanerikzuvaldalescsberga rvalgemachtgristlebeerdeharkennen of Ulm.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
sadly it was only avaiable for Win 3.1 :(
It came with the "Monty Python's Complete Waste of Time" game CD. Damn that was cool!
need a free COBOL editor for Windows?
Sorry, you're right. C4 asked for license fee funding in November and I thought they'd got it. Apparently no decision has been taken.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"