On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 16:59, Steve Jolly <st...@jollys.org> wrote:

> Scot McSweeney-Roberts wrote:
>
>> Neither. Having 3 URLs instead of 1 isn't going make much of a difference
>> from the consumers point of view (which is why I fail to see how Kangaroo
>> would have been more "damaging to competition" than 3 separate services).
>>
>
> Wasn't the point of Kangaroo that it would offer programmes for sale, after
> the time-window for iPlayer-style "catch-up" services had expired?
>

I'm not sure. I thought it was supposed to be some standard for IPTV set top
boxes, but all the reports make it out to be an extended version of iPlayer.
pcmag.co.uk quotes MIchael Grade saying it would have been free at point of
use --

"The disappointment over the prohibition of the service was echoed by ITV's
chief executive Michael Grade.
"We are surprised by this decision because we believed that the Kangaroo
joint venture, competing in a crowded online world against dominant global
brands, was an attractive UK consumer proposition, free at the point of
use," he said."

from http://www.pcmag.co.uk/computing/news/2235703/project-kangaroo-banned

Reply via email to