Slashdot Mirror
BBC iPlayer Welcomes Linux (and Macs)
h4rm0ny writes "After previously limiting their iPlayer to only the Windows platform (as we discussed earlier here and here), the BBC's content is now available to UK-based users of Linux and Mac OS X. From their site: 'From today we are pleased to announce that streaming is now available on BBC iPlayer. This means that Windows, Mac and Linux users can stream programs on iPlayer as long as their computer has the latest version of Flash. Another change is that you do not have to register or sign in any more to download programs ...' It seems that the BBC have listened to people who petitioned them for broader support and an open format. Well, Flash isn't exactly open, but its a lot more ubiquitous than Windows Media and Real Player formats."
For the purposes of just quickly catching up with a programme you've missed, in my (admittedly brief) testing since it went live, it's much more convenient to use the live streaming than have to go through all the fuss and bother of the proper Windows-based download client.
Even if there were a Mac/Linux version available, I think I'd still lean more towards the Flash service for the odd times I need it since the downloadable version will get torpedoed after seven days anyway.
It's a Unix system - I know this.
i use iplayer on windows, and while there are programmes i want to see that aren't in the catelog, i think they've done an awesome job of tv on demand given the current infrastructure of the internet.
...and does
mplayer -dumpstream -dumpfile $outfile.ra $thestream
rip the stream like what the Real stream can be ripped? (Yes I'm talking radio, it's Radio Four Boy here and without being able to rip I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue, as I've been doing for the last few years, having migrated from the Mark II Compact Cassette Tape that worked so well throughout the 80s and 90s, life ain't gonna be worth living.) Samantha agrees - the wow and flutter of older technology is a real turn-off, although she does enjoy flicking through some favourite flash videos.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
http://www.opensourceconsortium.org/content/view/80/55/
This is *not* the BBC making iPlayer available for non-Windows platforms. They are only providing a *streaming* service, instead of the ability to download programs, which is what they are using DRM for.
I have a BBC Master 512k - that is a _BBC_ Master 512k. And -I- cannot watch these _BBC_ shows on my _BBC_ computer... I can download the file just fine using the 2400 modem, but then I can't play it back! They should support open content such as MPEG1 so that everybody should be able to view the content!
Yes, this is sarcasm. There's going to be some place where they have to draw the line, and currently that line lays with whatever support Flash (sorry to hear the FLOSS coders haven't gotten to 64bit yet for Flash - maybe if somebody paid them to do the work, I wonder) and without any registration needs (which is funny, because now every British license payer is paying for Ngomo over there in Nigeria watching that show. Awesome!)... which is a line drawn quite a bit further than I would have expected, myself.
instead of moaning about it
can you suggest an open source solution that the BBC can use instead of iPlayer that is not proprietary and works on Windows/Mac and Linux???
"I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
Exactly. Flash is probably on at least 95% of PC's, and probably 99% of the people who don't have flash can install it with a few clicks. The BBC could have used something like Ogg Theora, but then 95% of users would have had to download and install something to play it.
The thing that always gets me about open source zealots who complain "Flash is proprietary" is that they offer no solution. There's Gnash, which is a re-implementation of Flash, but people complain about disseminating documents in MS Office formats even though they can read them with open source suites, so I can't imagine Gnash being full featured would stop the complaints about Flash. If people in the open source community want to complain about websites using flash for various reasons, they need to offer up an alternative that would be acceptable to them.
For what it's worth, I'm a Linux user and avoid proprietary software wherever possible, but I've been taught not to look a gift horse in the mouth, and not to complain when you can't offer an alternative.
Quit with the bullshit formats and half assed attempts. If you are really that desperate to protect your precious from the Evil consumers then get it on iTunes and be done with it. I am sick of having to go to random websites and having to use the half-assed players you guys think are acceptable.
If you must have DRM in it, then have your crap in iTunes. if you are one of the few smart companies and dont care about DRM, then a podcast with a format that plays on an iPod will do nicely.
This will get the largest possible market for your video. and 320X240 is acceptable on a ipod and not desired o be traded by pirates (yarr! It's low res, off to greener lands me matyes! yarr!)
As a consumer that is interested in actually watching TV the way it should be here in 2007/2008 I dont want your website, I want it in a way I can download it and play it on my ipod or phone, not your crappy website.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I think it comes down to pragmatism vs. idealism here. A Windows only client blocks a significant minority of users (Mac, Linux, BSD as well as various embedded devices such as phones or dedicated web terminals). A flash client is not ideal - it is still non-free and non-open as well as blocking a very small number of users - but is still probably the simplest and most widely usable streaming system using currently established technology.
It's not a gift horse. Access is restricted (at least in theory) to UK citizens, who have already paid for this service through their TV licence fees.
I wasn't about to install kontiki based software on any of my machines, even the ones with Windows on them.
Flash will suit me fine. Almost every device I have can play it in some form (except the iphone, but hopefully that's coming one day).
Many people in the UK are subject to transfer limits, and certain periods of the day when they can transfer as much as they like without this contributing to their quota. Example: I am limited to 20GB of transfers each month, but can download without restriction between midnight and 8am. With the Windows client, it is (relatively) easy to set up a schedule to start and stop the program at the appropriate times. With the streaming content, it is much more of a pain.
Just one reason amongst many why I hope this is not the end of the BBC's plan to open up the iPlayer content to other platforms, although I expect that it probably is.
can you suggest an open source solution that the BBC can use instead of iPlayer that is not proprietary and works on Windows/Mac and Linux??? Just don't suggest any TV professional to use Ogg Theora format. They have given up VP3 (the actual format) some years ago.
There are 3 issues here:
1) Allergy to Real Networks who produces a media player down to AIX. Even after they opened entire source excluding codecs.l
2) Apple's Allergy to Linux/BSD and not producing Quicktime for those platforms.
3) Open Source Linux users allergy to closed source since Apple will want to keep Quicktime closed source binary.
So it is Flash. Flash container became standard and now people want Plan 9 support
Given that they only let you watch downloaded programmes on your computer anyway it doesn't make much difference to me whether they're stored locally or streamed. As for watching them later, they self-destruct in a few days anyway, so it's still a moot point as far as I'm concerned.
Obviously the ideal is to have a downloadable version that can be watched anywhere for any length of time, but that's not happening any time soon.
It's a Unix system - I know this.
This isn't really comparable to MPAA-type restrictions. In the UK there is a TV licence fee that goes to fund the BBC, this means that if you pay the fee then you have already payed to view the content. In this case the BBC is making the content available to its 'subscribers' via a different route - that's all. People overseas haven't paid the fee, so therefore the BBC doesn't feel obliged to provide access to the content (not to mention the money eventually made through global licensing agreements). The BBC also persecutes people in the UK who it feels may be 'stealing' their content (even though they may not have a TV).
So that meant I was denied access from my 8 track simply because they refused to supply the broadcasts on it! Boy, was I mad! How was this TV service supposed to be free if they make you buy certain equipment first?!
And now they're demanding that I go out of my way to download a free software package! Their thoughtless arrogance knows no bounds!
Why on earth BBC makes a system to be used from UK only ?!
"Can I download programmes from outside the UK?
The BBC uses Geo-IP technology to identify where your are based on the location of your internet service provider (ISP). This ensures that only internet users in the UK can enjoy programmes on BBC iPlayer.
If you download a programme to your laptop or a portable hard drive, you can watch this wherever you are in the world. However, you will only be able to download new programmes once you return to the UK.
Why do I need to be in the UK to use BBC iPlayer?
Rights agreements mean that BBC iPlayer is only available to users in the UK. However, BBC Worldwide is working on an international version, which we will make available as soon as possible."
For video:
theora (not recommended. not ready yet)
x.263
x.264
whatever realplayer uses.
For audio:
vorbis (recommended. free, open, patent license is free for all)
mp3 (almost everybody has it on their computers already. I prefer vorbis over mp3, but mp3 over flash)
flac (much too big for downloads. just saying it is there)
aac
The real problem is DRM. The BBC does not want you to be able to keep the file on your computer. If they would forgo that requirement, then they could just use AV files, rather than using an intentionally limiting solution.
Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
Now that they are using flash, wouldn't it be possible to use one of the many flash movie downloaders so that you could store the video and watch it whenever you want. Mind you, flash doesn't provide the best video quality, but it would be good enough for watching on an iPod.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I read your comment. What the devil are you drivelling about? MPAA? Clue: That last "A" stands for "America," which, last I looked, was several thousand miles West of here and getting further away all the time thanks to the mid-Atlantic ridge. Torrents? Honestly, do you even know what the iPlayer (with its associated Kontiki P2P back-end) and the associated Flash site are for? It's a catch-up service with a hidden agenda. Missed Eastenders? I've never missed it in my life. They could cancel it and I'd be blissfully ignorant of the loss of my ability to peer into the lives of fictional characters whose vocabulary seems to consist of the words "bloody," "fancy a shag?" "pint" and "caaa!" (cockney for cow, I'm led to believe) but should you be of that bent, you can watch it online.
The BBC have done this for one reason and ONLY one reason: To back up their ridiculous stance that anyone with a 'net connection in the UK needs a TV licence. Wouldn't want the OSS hippies to find a loophole in that, now, would we? That's it. Nothing to see here besides another money grab on the back of new media and shared resources. The reason you're not getting iPlayer if you're a "Johnny Foreigner" is because you don't pay the Beeb tax. Congratulations. I wish I didn't either.
Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
There is no way possible to download Flash Internet videos.
And there are especially no Firefox plugins to download them with one easy click.
That's not entirely accurate - a lot of it depends on the codecs you use.
I have a demo I like to do where I decode and play back 1080p HD using CoreAVC, on a 1GHz laptop (downclocked - it's hard to find a PC with a native resolution of 1920x1200 and a clock speed of 1GHz). Yes, it drops some frames, but it's quite watchable.
I also do 320x[240-320] H.264 (full screen) playback on a Treo 650. It's got a 312MHz ARM processor, and 32MB of RAM (~24 available).
None of this is hardware accelerated.
BenchMarks here. This is an older benchmark; CoreAVC is better now.
German ZDF [1] uses flash only for its front page due to ill-advised web design and utilizes windows media player, quicktime or vlc browser plugins for video content. so much for actual consumer friendly solutions.
[1] http://mediathek.zdf.de/
>The BBC could have used something like Ogg Theora, but then 95% of users would have had to
>download and install something to play it.
>The thing that always gets me about open source zealots who complain "Flash is proprietary"
>is that they offer no solution.
Theora (or something like it) was indeed the right solution, or at least the foundation for one. If anyone could make that happen, the BBC could. They certainly had the budget and the staff. The BBC could then have made a browser plugin available, much like the plugin one must download to play Flash media.
This would have been a quite viable approach, and so meets your demand for a "solution".
But, instead of an open solution the BBC intend to deliver content using at least two proprietary formats. The owners of those formats must be jumping for joy having received such a gift (a billion dollar value!) from the BBC - at licence payers expense.
You DO NOT need to have solutions to see the shortcomings of something. It is valid and very necessary that people complain when something is less than perfect. They do NOT need to offer solutions. I don't need to be an engineer to know something isn't working, but I probably do need to be one to fix the problem. Raising quality or performance or defect issues is essential, this opens debate which in turn leads to the search for the best solution.
Flash sucks, this is a common opinion. I cannot build a better version. But until enough people complain no-one will. People need to complain. People need to complain more. Things can be better than they are if the right people try harder.
Nigel: You see, most blokes will be playing at 10. Youre on 10, all the way up, all the way up...Where can you go from there? Nowhere. What we do, is if we need that extra push over the cliff...Eleven. One louder.
DiBergi: Why dont you just make 10 louder and make 10 be the top number, and make that a little louder?
(small pause)
Nigel: These go to 11.
Flash is proprietary. On Linux, there was a bug in Flash 9 on some window managers where only the first click on the flash pane after it had received focus registered as a click. You had to click outside the pane in between every click, which made playing games quite difficult and annoying. They have fixed this bug in a later release, however I as a user was powerless to correct this, as control over the software lay with Adobe.
Flash is a pretty good piece of software. There are some performance issues, but it's ubiquitous and provides a single platform, and is pretty flexible. Your accolades of the software are justified. However, these technical aspects do not affect the legal status of the software.
How dare you be so modest!! You conceited bastard!!
Flash's SWF file format is documented well enough that several other products and open source projects can produce it and some are capable of playing it back. The FLA unpublished save format is basically a memory dump of how the Flash program works with the project, so it's considerably harder to develop outside software to save or load that format.
I know ActionScript, but I prefer to write what little Flash stuff I do in HaXe, for example. There are also Rebol Flash dialect (RSWF), an ActionScript virtual machine assembler called flasm, swfmill, Laszlo, and more.
There are also other graphical programs for Flash publishing. Everything from the Zmag web app to SWF Quicker by SoThink and their SWF Easy.
For players, there's at least Gnash, Swfdec, SWF.max, Eltima's SWF and FLV Player, and IrfanView (which is what I use to play Flash games without opening a big memory-hogging browser).
Hell, Adobe's own Flex authoring suite for Flash is supposed to be MPL within a few months. How much more open do you people want?