BBC's iPlayer To Be Crossplatform

craig1709 writes "10 Downing Street has responded to the petition to open up iPlayer access for those on other operating systems. While the wording is confusing, near as I can tell, they say they will make the iPlayer available to users of those operating systems. 'The BBC Trust made it a condition of approval for the BBC's on-demand services that the iPlayer is available to users of a range of operating systems, and has given a commitment that it will ensure that the BBC meets this demand as soon as possible. They will measure the BBC's progress on this every six months and publish the findings.'"

Comments

Every six months?

[nacturation]

Wouldn't every six weeks be more appropriate? How long does it take to make a player cross-platform?

Re:Every six months?

[QuantumG]

You're kidding right?

Re:Every six months?

[Fizzl]

Flamebait? What the fuck?

These kids at /. just have no clue how true pofessionals work.
On the first 6 month reporting time I would ask for extra two weeks to prepare my report!

Re:Every six months?

[bateleur]

that's what I come to expect that at the end of the day is government driven

The UK government certainly are absolutely awful where IT projects are concerned, but in this case it's not really fair to blame them since the BBC is autonomous in this respect.

Only measuring, not enforcement

[ktappe]

With only measurement and not enforcement being dictated, one might expect the chronology of events to go something like:

[John Cleese mode=on]

6 months: "Not done yet? Carry on."

12 months: "Still not cross platform? Jolly good."

18 months: "What, no Linux so far? You chaps are putting on a fine show."

And so on

Re:Opensource Freeloaders

[Quietlife2k]

I suspect that you are NOT from the UK.

The BBC unlike most other broadcasters if funded by UK residents paying an annual license fee.

What I object to is the misuse of OUR funding by paying a convicted felon for what is essentially a MONOPOLY lock into their technology.

What was it Microsoft were convicted TWICE for (once in the USA and once in the EU) ?

Ahhh yes being a monopoly.

You also fail to cover MAC users - cross platform is not just about linux.

Re:VLC CANNOT PLAY IT

[Quietlife2k]

The BBC does not own ALL of the rights for it's programming. A lot of it is produced FOR the BBC by outside parties.

As a UK citizen I acknowledge that the BBC is restricted as to what it CAN provide by those who in turn supply it.

What I do not accept is the "Use Microsoft watch BBC" "Use linux/mac and you are shit out of luck".

Essentially HANDING microsoft a FREE selling point - "You can't watch the BBC on anything else", AND PAYING THEM OUT OF OUR LICENSEE FEE.

Convicted Felon (Microsoft) : 1
License Payers : 0

Open source

[tsa]

I guess since the software AND the content it plays are paid with public money the right thing to do is make everything open source.

Re:Convicted Felon vs License Payers

[Quietlife2k]

I'll gladly explain.

Each household with a TV HAS to pay a license fee - it is illegal not to.

This funding is the passed onto the BBC (with additional government/public funding).

The actions of the BBC are regulated by the BBC Trust on "OUR" behalf.

They have been informed that a Microsoft lock in is unacceptable by US and are refusing to do anything concrete.

The PM was petitioned to step in and tell the BBC / the BBC Trust to solve the cross platform issue.

The response - The BBC Trust is on the case I (the PM) don't need to do anything.

Problem - the trusts proposal is to LAUNCH with Microsoft ONLY, and then REVIEW the cross platform issue every six months.

This is a REVIEW with NO "or else" attached, in other words there is NO commitment by ANY of the parties (BBC / BBC Trust / Government) to DO ANYTHING AT ALL!

The BBC is supposed to be "run for the people by the people" and this is simple NOT HAPPENING.

They know it's an issue that we the people care about - they just don't plan on doing sod all about it.

Sadly more truth than joke.

[Chrisq]

Sadly this joke has a lot of truth in it. From http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayerbeta/

Timelines for other platforms

There will be a Vista version of BBC iPlayer available this year. We are actively working on Mac and cross platform support.

It shows where their priority is

Re:Sadly more truth than joke.

[FireFury03]

You think it's wrong to support the current version of the most popular operating system first?

I think it's wrong to use a propriatory format. If they used an open format for the system, producing a "iplayer" application for each OS wouldn't be important.

Re:Sadly more truth than joke.

[NickFortune]

You think it's wrong to support the current version of the most popular operating system first?

And here I was thinking that Vista was a whole new operating system. I'm sure that's what the nice people at Redmond have been saying.

I can understand them wanting to support XP first, certainly. Describing Vista as "popular" however would seem to be a bit of a stretch. You might just about get away with "probably going to become widely deployed OS, someday". Not exactly a reason to prioritise support however.

Especially seeing as - as has been pointed out elsewhere, if they'd used an open format the problem would not have arisen. It's a bit like cutting off a fellow's leg, and then telling him there are people ahead of him in the queue for prosthetic limbs.

Re:Sadly more truth than joke.

[FireFury03]

You don't think it's important that everyday people can actually listen/watch the material? How strange.

I do think it's important... how would using an open format prevent everyday people from using the material? Seems to me it would enable _more_ everyday people to use the material by allowing them to use whatever player they are already familiar with rather than having to learn a propriatory one.

Re:Sadly more truth than joke.

[Simon Brooke]

You don't think it's important that everyday people can actually listen/watch the material? How strange.

If you want to troll, don't be so obvious about it. Don't write something that everyone can instantly see is an Aunt Sally. Make it at least seem as if you're making a reasonable point.

Using an open format wouldn't stop 'everyday people' from watching or listening to the material. It would make it easier for them. They could use either the BBC's own player, or a range of other players from other providers. They could watch the material not just on their Windows computer running the BBC's software, but also on their phone, their MP3 player, their television via a set-top box.

This isn't just a win for strange nerdy people who want to roll their own media player, or Un-American[1] traitors who choose not to run Windows. It's a win for 'everyday people'.

1: Yes, of course I'm un-American. I'm Scots.

Re:Sadly more truth than joke.

[Serious Callers Only]

The problem is that Kontiki (the platform forced upon the BBC as the only off-the-shelf system available that handled all the drm and p2p side of things) only runs on Windows (and evidently the version the beeb uses only works on XP). The BBC are beholden to them wrt other platforms.
I suspect some of the bright people at BBC research are working on their own system for the other platforms (maybe even to replace kontiki). It really wouldn't be an insurmountable problem (it's not as if Kontiki is Rocket Science - it's a p2p distribution platform that leverages Windows Media DRM), build in a bittorrent client, maybe license FairPlay for the Macs and look into developing some sort of close-source playback system for Linux and they're onto a winner. They could then sell it to the other media companies who want to offer a cross-platform content-delivery system.

As some other posters have pointed out, this entire debate is framed incorrectly - they're asking the wrong questions.

NEWSFLASH to the BBC from the world

• We don't want to have to wonder which of our devices will play this content because the BBC deigns to produce a player.
  
• We don't want the Internet to turn into the TV - time-limited, time-shifted, restricted content that is controlled by someone else.
  
• We don't want files that expire, ever.
  
• We don't want Kontiki, PlaysForSure, FairPlay etc.
  
• We don't want yet another bittorrent client that chews up our bandwidth whenever it's open.
  
• We don't want iPlayer; we want your content available on the internet, worldwide. If it's good, people might even pay for it.
  

The BBC shouldn't be trying to make the Internet into broadcast television, but turning from broadcast television and using the Internet to distribute, via the channels already available - (XBox, unbox, iTMS, YouTube etc). The future for the BBC is not in broadcasting, but in content production. Unfortunately the BBC Trust has no fucking idea about the internet, and the BBC is not enlightening them. Why not? The BBC doesn't even depend on advertising, this should be a perfect situation for them to lead the way. Instead they're leading everyone in precisely the wrong direction, egged on by the Trust.

People would gladly pay for these shows in the right format. If you don't have the licensing rights to sell online, get them; you seem to manage to for DVDs.

Re:Sadly more truth than joke.

[FireFury03]

But using a format for which a player is not available on the platforms used by everyday people would.

Most open formats have players already available for all the major platforms (and quite a few minor ones), so it seems your fear is unfounded.

Maybe you meant that it would be bad to use a format for which there is no *preinstalled* player - well AFAIK you can't play the BBC's iPlayer content with any preinstalled player anyway, that requires you install the iPlayer so they are already breaking this part of your argument.

I don't object to using an open format, I object to your implication that doing so automatically means players will be available for people to listen/view material in that format.

That implication was not my intention. What I meant was that if they used an open format they can go and develop their own player (as they are doing anyway), but those people who are using platforms not supported by that player (or who think the BBC's player sucks) can go write their own player.

In any case, as mentioned above, most of the _current_ open formats *do* have players available for the major platforms. If they released their content using Theora, for example, you could use VLC, mplayer, xine, totem, and any number of other players which are already capable of playing Theora.

Should the BBC provide the content in a format for which players are available for at least Windows? Windows and Mac? Windows, Mac and Linux? Windows, Mac, Linux and FreeBSD? All of the above and a 10-year-old system running OS/2?

The availability of current players is not the issue. The BBC are already developing their own player and I'm not suggesting they stop doing this. What I am suggesting is that they stop dicking around with propriatory stuff and use an open format which would allow third parties to write players too. Third party players are a Good Thing because it means the consumer gets a choice (maybe the BBC player doesn't do everything they want?) and there is a possibility of being able to play content on a platform the BBC doesn't want to write software for themselves.

If players aren't already available for all of the important platforms, should the BBC invest money in developing the missing ones?

But this is exactly what they are having to do _because_ they are using a propriatory system. If they were using an open format then anyone _could_ write a player for any platform. As it is they have prevented third parties from writing a player which means the BBC *must* write their own for each platform or deny a subset of users from using the service.

My point is simply that this is not a straightforward question, and a flippant but oh-so-Slashdot assumption that if we just use a free format then all the problems will go away is naive.

It seems a pretty straightforward question to me. They are using open formats on their other broadcasts (PAL, DVB-T, DVB-S, DVB-C, DAB, FM, AM) which has allowed a large market of receivers to develop. Why must content delivered over IP be treated so differently?

Sure, using an open format doesn't solve *all* the problems, but it does solve a hell of a lot of them.

I am a licence fee payer, and yet they have imposed artificial technical measures for no good reason which prevent me from accessing this service, that my licence fee has paid for. Since the BBC has a mandate to be platform agnostic, why are they allowed to spend my licence fee in this way? Why can't I get a discount since they are intentionally locking me out of the service?

Re:Sadly more truth than joke.

[FireFury03]

However, this comes into conflict with another requirement here, which is that the BBC's other commitments mean it can't just stick Ogg files of all its programmes on a web site for anyone to download.

I have yet to see any reasonable explanation as to why content delivered over IP needs to be DRM'd whilst the same content delivered over PAL, DVB-T, DVB-C and DVB-S can be delivered unencrypted (and the BBC have actively pushed for this).

it dramatically reduces the market for BBC shows abroad.

This is completely bogus - the BBC can filter by IP address to restrict the downloads to UK residents which would lead to a similar state of affairs as their free to air broadcasts.

Firstly, you already pay the licence fee for the existing facilities. It's not going up significantly to support the new offerings, so you're not losing out.

The money doesn't magically appear from somewhere - this is being funded by licence fee money and that means either the licence will need to be increased or the funds are being diverted away from existing facilities.

I should also point out that the licence fee _has_ increased significantly over the past decade, in part to pay for new services such as the digital channels, increased web content, etc.

Secondly, even if you do, it's not intentional. The BBC distributes vast amounts of content in many media, and almost no-one benefits from all of it. Where do you draw the line on how far they must go to be making a reasonable attempt to allow access to those entitled to it?

No, you're right, I don't access all the BBC's content. However, I *could* if I wanted, without being required to buy specific software to do so. The BBC does not artificially prevent certain groups of people from accessing their other content.

it's not your licence fee that is paying for the content. Licence fees represent a surprisingly small part of the BBC's income.

In that case the BBC won't mind if we abolish the licence fee.

(Note: I'm actually pro-licence fee, but if you're going to claim my licence fee doesn't pay for anything then there seems to be no reason for me to pay it)

If you significantly undermine that revenue stream, we won't need to have this conversation in five years

Noone is suggesting the BBC undermine their revenue stream. All I am suggesting is that they provide the content _to the british public_ in an open format over IP. This really is no different to what they are already doing, which is providing the content in an open format over PAL, DVB, DAB, FM and AM.

copyright exists for a reason

Noone is discussing copyright here. The discussion is regarding DRM. If you have DRM you don't need copyright and if you have copyright you don't need DRM.

some other proportionate incentive to support the system instead of screwing it.

How about the content producers not trying to screw over the consumers all the time. At the moment, illegally copied material is _higher quality_ than the legitimately paid for material, because you don't have to deal with DRM, region controls, unskippable content accusing you of being a criminal, etc. Is it any wonder people infringe the copyright?

But the main problem with copyright infringement on-line isn't the hardcore geeks who can circumvent DRM in their sleep, it's the casual copiers.

I think that assertion is just plain wrong. The geeks crack the DRM and post the un-DRM'd versions on bittorrent trackers. You don't need to be a geek to use a torrent client. If you make the average user jump through hoops, you won't do anything to stop the geeks posting the content in unDRM'd format, but you will push the masses to getting the illegal un-DRM'd version instead of the official one.

Re:Rant: then END FLASH.

[cliffski]

spoken by someone who presumably does not work in the content-production industry, and maybe not even a British licence fee payer, so in short, you are swearing and ranting about how the work of thousands of people should be given to you for free, on your terms.
What is it with people on slashdot thinking the world owes them everything?
If the BBC was american, they would probably ban foreigners from even accessing their site, let alone watching their content.

Re:It's really amusing...

[FireFury03]

The BBC isn't the rights holder to most of the stuff it broadcasts, so it isn't really up to them.

Sure it's up to them - they negotiate the distribution rights when they negotiate the contracts with the content producers. They already negotiate for un-DRM'd PAL distribution in the UK, un-DRM'd DVB-S distribution in the UK, un-DRM'd DVB-T distribution in the UK and un-DRM'd DVB-C distribution in the UK. Why can't they negotiate for un-DRM'd IP distribution in the UK too?

Also, they are insisting on DRMing all content, even stuff they _do_ own the rights to.