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."
They used Excel to calculate the first set of figures
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
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.
I have a theory that even if Linux users outnumbered Windows users, Game companies and Media companies would continue to do whatever they could to make Games and Media incompatible making the majority of people criminals so that they could stay in control of their content no matter what.
Despite all the trolling that everyone says how horrible Linux is because companies produce broken hardware that don't support it, plays musical chairs with chip sets, Linux is turning into one of the greatest OSes the world has ever seen. Lets make sure 2008 is not the last year of Linux. Lets make sure Linux does not go quietly into the night,
English to metric conversion?
Right, so where is the 64-bit version of Flash?
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
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!
Can't we just rent a partion of Storm Worm botnet to do this... ohhh wait....
Does this have anything to do with the "Intergalactic missing mass" in the other story? Perhaps the astronomers and the BBC should get together and compare notes. Maybe they'd find enough mass to account for the formation of galaxies and locate all those missing Linux visitors in one easy step.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
> > Install the 'flashplugin-nonfree package'.
:p
> Gaa! Move the quote mark one word to the left.
What? "Install 'the flashplugin-nonfree package'"?
That doesn't work either.
Max.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Maybe they counted the wide variety of Linux flavours rather than individual users.
Ever hear of Gnash?
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.
Simple, one is before being slashdotted, and one is after.
Table-ized A.I.
how many Commodore-64 visitors?
Table-ized A.I.
What about the BLINK tag. Just as annoying as flash, carries just as much useful content as most flash but less resource intensive all around.
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.
The BBC is not state run or state owned. If you think the BBC is biased in favour of the Labour government you aught to read some of the recent history between the two. Sure the BBC has a bias but it is one all of its own and compared to the other companies you mention it as close to impartial as makes no difference.
Ever hear of Gnash?
No, I hadn't. Thanks for the info. Now what we need is a Flash Professional (you know, the Flash editor/maker) equivalent for Linux.
It's interesting in the interview how Highfield denys that he and the BBC is in league with the devil (his words not mine). How then do you explain press releases like "BBC and Microsoft sign memorandum of understanding as BBC seeks new strategic partnerships to underpin creative future" - http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2006/09_september/28/microsoft.shtml?
The BBC was actually developing its own codec called DIRAC for the iPlayer project but its demise coincided with the hiring of former senior Microsoft executives to Future Media and Technology team (e.g. Erik Huggers, the MS director responsible for Windows Media Player in Europe).
This is a classic corporate 'coup d'état' by the Monopolist. A coup that has resulted in ~£100m (~$200m) of taxpayers money going to finance a media product that deliberately excludes large numbers of the UK public and is, as it happens, horribly broken.
All this is at a time that the BBC is shedding 12% of it workforce, cutting back of its world-renowned R&D efforts and selling off its landmark buildings in west London.
As the Free Software Foundation put it, the BBC now stands for "Bill's Corrupted Corporation".
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
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!
Linked from TFA is a BBC produced podcast interview (available in Ogg Vorbis format, CC Attr-NC-SA) with Ashley Highfield which is extremely enlightening.
Rather than the very lightweight interviews I've read with him lately (I don't care if he has an iPod!), this is pretty in depth, and Mr Highfield comes across as having quite a lot of clue. It's well worth listening to.
To make a few of the points from the interview:
All in all, a very interesting listen.
psr --History is ending.