Slashdot Mirror


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.'"

25 of 232 comments (clear)

  1. Platforms by Hwatzu · · Score: 5, Funny

    Of course it'll be multiplatform. Why, you can run it on XP *and* Vista!

  2. Re:Every six months? by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You're kidding right?

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  3. Only measuring, not enforcement by ktappe · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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

    --
    "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    1. Re:Only measuring, not enforcement by dwater · · Score: 4, Funny

      you forgot to turn your cleese mode off.

      --
      Max.
  4. BULLSHIT by Quietlife2k · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you read the article and related items you will fin that this is NOT NEWS. The prime minster has simply said that it is already being taken care of by the BBC TRUST and that the UK government need take NO ACTION. "They will measure the BBC's progress on this every six months and publish the findings." They being the BBC TRUST not the government. AND it a REVIEW not a "in 6 months we will have a cross platform player", its a promise to look to see if anything has been done - no word on any actions that can be taken to force the production of any such player in the likely event of it's non-existence. In short : Convicted Fellon (Microsoft) 1 : License Payers 0 Disclaimer I'm from the UK and this really hacks me off.

  5. Re:Are petitions fun? by Quietlife2k · · Score: 4, Informative

    The BBC (Microsoft) player wraps everything in Microsoft DRM - VLC CANNOT PLAY IT.

  6. Re:Opensource Freeloaders by Quietlife2k · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Every six months? by RuBLed · · Score: 5, Funny

    Here's how it works:

    Month 1

    Week 1: Debate which OS/Distro to develop on.
    Week 2: Submit recommendations/analysis to superiors.
    Week 3: Wait
    Week 4: Submission was going to be revised. Resubmit. Hope that it is okay this time.

    Month 2

    Week 1: Accepted. Determine the priority of the modules to port.
    Week 2: Make new test scenarios with regards to the target environment.
    Week 3: Buy development pc/server, install the target OS/distro. set it up.
    Week 4: Manager decides to do team building at the beach.

    Month 3

    Week 1: Start to port the code to the new environment.
    Week 2: same as Week 1
    Week 3: Employees all got common cold.
    Week 4: Coding Finished.

    Month 4

    Week 1: Run Tests and modify code as necessary.
    Week 2: Continue testing and make initial builds.
    Week 3: Install initail build on test server and demo it.
    Week 4: Continue the iterations until an acceptable build was made.

    Month 5

    Week 1: Had the QA run the build on their tests.
    Week 2: QA tests the build and determines if the video would no longer play after a few weeks.
    Week 3: QA waiting for the two week expiration of video. CEO resigns.
    Week 4: QA test completed, bugs logged, dev goes into cramming.

    Month 6

    Week 1: QA runs tests as necessary.
    Week 2: Management determines product is good even with active bugs.
    Week 3: Marketing announces the launch date of the product.
    Week 4: Dev copies the exe from his bin...

    Month 7 ...

  8. Re:VLC CANNOT PLAY IT by Quietlife2k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  9. Open source by tsa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --

    -- Cheers!

  10. Re:It's really amusing... by stranger_to_himself · · Score: 3, Informative

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

  11. Re:Convicted Felon vs License Payers by cheater512 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Please get a clue before posting. This is a *big* issue and your showing your inability to read.

    Everyone in the UK pays TV tax. Said tax goes to the BBC.
    See the problem? The BBC has to provide people with the content.

    This isnt your standard DRM case.

  12. Sadly more truth than joke. by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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

    1. Re:Sadly more truth than joke. by lukas84 · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      Give me one good reason why Vista *shouldnt* be their top priority.

    2. Re:Sadly more truth than joke. by FireFury03 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Sadly more truth than joke. by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Informative
      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 format that is integrated into the "most popular operating system" and can't easily (and possibly not legally) be used on anything else.

    4. Re:Sadly more truth than joke. by NickFortune · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    5. Re:Sadly more truth than joke. by Winckle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Perhaps, but the BBC content is free. The DRM exists just to expire the content. Not tat it works, I just crack it with fairuse4wm.

    6. Re:Sadly more truth than joke. by FireFury03 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:Sadly more truth than joke. by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    8. Re:Sadly more truth than joke. by Serious+Callers+Only · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    9. Re:Sadly more truth than joke. by FireFury03 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  13. Re:Every six months? by Insane_Homer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Rather simply the platyer is tied to MS. At the moment the DRM is Microsoft and the player only works with Internet Explorer so cross platform is going to require a complete overhaul and re-write. To be honest I registered, downloaded and try to use and it was a process I care not to go through again. the hoops you are made to jump through make no sense at all. After about a 48 hour turn around from registering, downloading and installing the application. the 1st and only pro gramme I downloaded was 220MB and then refused to play due to DRM license being missing and the KB solution was to delete it and download it again. At that point I un-installed the rubbish. This player is in Alpha as far as I'm concerned, most people won't put up with the hassle that I went through to not watch something. A complete an utter disappointment, but that's what I come to expect that at the end of the day is government driven. Nice to know my TV tax is being well spent as usual.

  14. Re:BULLSHIT.... even more disturbing! by jkrise · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Let's see a bit more of the quoted response:
    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....

    So, if the BBC Trust's conditions have not been met by the BBC, why is this service being allowed to operate at all? There is no need to measure 'progress' on a commitment; it is just a YES or a NO.

    What if only a few distros that accept DRM in the form of proprietary drivers from some select video cards.. are able to participate in this new thingy? Will that be measured as 'available on Linux'?

    It's sad to see the BBC disobeying the BBC Trust, and getting away with this nonsense. While we get to read such nice articles on... yes, the same BBC!!
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6325353.stm

    The freedoms built in to the net are under attack like never before, argues regular columnist Bill Thompson. ...

    While Bill Thompson was talking about Windows Vista, he might have as well been referring to his own employer, the BBC. Sad state of affairs, really.

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
  15. In response to multiple threads... by itsdapead · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A: You only pay the TV license if you own TV reception equipment - whether or not that makes it a "tax" is up for debate, but it is more-or-less ring fenced for broadcasting, and doesn't (e.g.) just disappear into the Inland Revenue coffers with your income tax. (There's a side-issue with convincing the TV license stormtroopers that you don't have TV reception equipment, but that's incompetence, not the law). Actually, I'd predict that as soon as media convergence "matures" this system will collapse - I don't think extending the definition of TV reception equipment to PCs and Internet would be tolerated - big media and comms. companies are already hostile towards this system and would roll out the astroturf like mad. In a sense, by pursuing online TV in any form, the BBC turkeys are voting for Christmas.

    B: The BBC is not "run" by the government - lots of effort has been made to ensure that the management from the BBC is apolitical. Of course, this is totally immune from political appointments and back-room arm twisting - not!!! - but the thought is there. Like all journalists, the BBC news service is in the business of telling ripping yarns that get the viewers in, with accuracy and objectivity distinctly optional (e.g. the recent documentary on how nasty WiFi radiation fries kids brains, in which a tinfoil-hat salesman was given an uncritical platform) and this occasionally gets mistaken for political bias.

    C: As far as I am aware, the BBC has no Royal Exemption from copyright and contract law and they have to deal with rights holders - much of their content is outsourced, bought in, involves card-carrying actors or is sold overseas (with various guarantees of exclusivity).

    OTOH, this is all a bit nuts, since if you bung a DVB-T (terrestrial broadcast digital TV) card in your PC you can grab Dr Who, Torchwood and Heroes in ad-free wide-screen unencrypted MPEG2 goodness anyway (and 'Who is on continual re-run on BBC3 so you can't miss it!).

    --
    In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.