Slashdot Mirror
BBC Backpedals On Linux Audience Figures
6031769 writes "After recently claiming that only 400 to 600 Linux users visit the BBC website, the BBC's Ashley Highfield has now admitted that they got their numbers wrong. The new estimate is between 36,600 and 97,600 according to his blog post. He stops short of describing how Auntie arrives at these two widely different sets of numbers and how their initial estimate is two orders of magnitude out."
Also, given the Linux-unfriendly nature of the BBC's site, how many Linux users either don't visit it purely because of the Linux-unfriendly nature of the site, or set their user-agent to look like Windows?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
By that logic, how is mac a priority for anyone either?
The Farewell Tour II
I would assume that the BBC did not invent its own method of measuring web traffic, but uses some package or service. If this got the number of Linux users so drastically wrong, how many other site's estimates of Linux users incorrect too? Could a lot more people be using Linux than we are told?
The guy doesn't have a clue. He looks at Linux as BBC's nuisance. In reality, the nuisance to everyone, BBC included, is that BBC has apparently ignored openly published industry standards. Adhere to the simple and straight-forward standards rather than locking self in to working with MS, and you're automatically compatible with viewers on [b]any[/b] operating system. Do that and you don't even have to think about that obnoxious OS created by hacker nobodies.
If they really want a cross-platform solution that doesn't rely on the goodwill of browser makers to support the standards, they ought to simply implement the site using Flash. Ehm no. Your suggestion to use Flash is about the worst thing they could do. It would greatly reduce the accessibility of the site, because not all browsers support Flash.
Let's see: Flash does not allow text-based browsers to access the site. Or search engines. Or WAP phones. Or text-reading browsers for the blind. And that has nothing to do with the goodwill of the browser makers.
The ONLY way to get a truly cross-platform site is to start by a plain text site, then add layers of gracefully degrading markup, or even gracefully degrading Javascript on top of it, making sure the site never depends on any additional layer of functionality on top of it, making sure only to use the standards that *are* properly supported.
And let's not forget that *any* web application depends on standards: TCP/IP for starters, then HTTP, then HTML. If the browser manufacturers fail to adhere to these standards and the sites break because of it, those manufacturers should get their act together and fix that. But going for some obscure third-party technology is hardly a solution, especially when that 'solution' causes more problems than it solves. As someone who also does professional web development, though, I think the BBC also should get their act together and hire some designers that *do* know how to make the site accessible regardless of browser or platform. It is possible to do that- the standards in vigor are actually quite well-designed. And fortunately, there are workarounds for most of the problems that certain browsers cause by not following those standards.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
I think that media companies are going to fight until the bitter end to supress Linux users because so much of their DRM technology just doesn't work. Microsoft will play ball with DRM Media companies, Linux users are much more likely to fight.
Thing is that DRM is unworkable on any platform. It's especially pointless in the BBC case, since all the material in question has previously been broadcast (to all of the UK together with parts of Eire, France, Belgium and The Netherlands).
As a few people point out on the BBC site discussion, no one is asking the BBC to support Linux. What we are asking is that they don't lock us out by selecting a closed protocol, especially one from a company openly hostile to free software.
We're quite happy to organise our own support, thank you. All we ask is that the beeb picks a format where we can do so legally. I really don't see how they can justify any other course of action.
Do you?
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
The government always moans about the BBC, whatever the current flavour of government. The Tories moaned, now Labour are moaning. The BBC is obviously doing their job reasonably well.
"It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
Instead of doing this they engineered some bizarro Windows-only, IE-only, WMP-only solution consisting of server side sniffers, activex controls, 3rd party controls and proprietary JS & HTML which is not only horrifically complicated but doesn't even work properly from one Windows OS to the next, or one IE version to the next, or one WMP to the next. Use Vista? Screw you. Use XP with IE7? Screw you. Use XP with Firefox? Screw you.
Even DRM seems like a weak excuse for using WMP. Why not tie content to a TV licence by watermarking it? The user might have to register for the service and login but that's the only inconvenience. Afterwards let them do what they like with the content since its H264. It's not like the market for Eastenders episodes is massive anyway, and if by chance someone did abuse the service you can use the watermark to trace and prosecute them.
It seems like someone in the BBC is desperately trying to justify a very bad decision by marginalising the critics as unimportant. In reality the BBC ignored a great chance to develop a cross-platform solution and hopped in bed with Microsoft. Now they're wondering why nobody including the few people who got iPlayer to work are happy with piece of crap that produced.
I dunno... how about the Andrew Gilligan/David Kelly flap? Or the recent hoo-hah over phone-in lines. Hell, right now, BBC production staff can't even override a poll to choose the name of a kitten without heads having to roll. And that's just off the top of my head.
I don't see any way in which the commercial channels are accountable to me or any other member of the public. If I don't like some decision by ITV, the answer is going to be, "you're not an advertiser, so we don't care". At least the BBC are supposed to be accountable to the British public.
Which of course is why the debate is happening at all, as opposed to us just being told to get lost, which is what would happen if this was a commercial broadcaster.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!