Um - that wasn't me. My line was: "No real technical details, more a re-hashed press release, but an interesting idea nontheless."
That was the end of my contribution on this. You've mistaken someone else's quote for me. No problem, but just putting the record straight. :-) Cheers, Rich. On 11/27/07, Nick Reynolds-A&Mi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You really need to be careful with your language Richard > > BBC management did not "refuse to comply" with the Trust's previous > "ruling" > > Both management and the Trust have agreed that the Player will be platform > neutral (indeed the management's position has always been that the Player > will be platform neutral) - the only question is how and when > > Kangaroo is a commercial proposition from BBC Worldwide - and these > usually don't take as long to approve > > ________________________________ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Andy > Sent: Tue 11/27/2007 2:29 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [backstage] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service > > > > On 27/11/2007, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No real technical details, more a re-hashed press release, but an > > interesting idea nontheless. > > How can this possible go live in a few months? (2008 starts in a few > weeks if I am not much mistaken). > > The trust haven't even approved it. And the BBC has refused to comply > with it's previous ruling. Need I remind you the BBC Trust said you > must be "Platform Neutral"? > > So will Kangaroo* be "Platform Neutral"? If not it looks unlikely the > trust will sign off on it given their previous comments about the > iPlayer (was there ever a huger waste of money? Except maybe the > Dome). > > Is it going to be standards based (only way to actually be platform > neutral as some platform consist mainly of custom designed hardware > which need to know the precise operating details to get high > performance.)? > > Are we going to be allowed to improve it, bug fix it, security scan > it, verify it's not a trojan etc.? > > Nice to see a complete lack of detail though, now where did I put my > document on making an FOI request, (technically a written request here > would most likely count, after all it's written, has a name and has an > address.) > > > (Waits for this news to descend into "DRM-Bad, Free-Good!!" ranting...) > > I see no mention of DRM in either article, neither do I see the term > "Digital Rights Management". > > Helpfully the BBC have made sure to hide every single even slightly > technical detail from view. What precisely are you hiding? > > The only vaguely technical detail appears to be that it is designed to > work over broadband, wow I couldn't have guessed that! > > What platforms are we talking about? Is it going to be truly platform > neutral or is the BBC going to have to rewrite the old iPlayer to > comply with your regulator (or as appears to be the intended plan > refuse to comply with the regulator) > > What protocols and formats will be used? > > Will it be as awfully as 4OD and iPlayer, using up peoples bandwidth > with no control what-so-ever (BitTorrent clients have supported > throttling for years)? Odd how the BBC can have such a huge > development time, such a huge spending and still end up with a vastly > inferior product when compared to free alternatives. > > Will it permit user written extensions? > > Will it support third party access via Open API's? > > Andy > > * Is the name Kangaroo meant to be some joke about bouncing back after > the disaster that was the first offerings? > -- > Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if you open > windows. > -- Adam Heath > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please > visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial > list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > > > -- SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073 Registered address: 4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX
