On 27/06/2010 20:53, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
> Does anyone else see this as the BBC effectively "bailing out" other
> broadcasters by providing a common platform backed with licence fee funded
> content and development?
>
> It's unlikely such a wide group of companies would ever reach a consensus
> otherwise without the BBC. Anything similar would probably take many more
> years to develop because of all the wrangling or even be homebrew or
> developed by an outsider (e.g. Boxee). The DRM and payment model is
> standardised and presumably reasonably secure which reduces the duplicate
> work required by other broadcasters and makes the user-experience better (one
> payment gateway, one box etc.).
As a user I want just a single garden, I don't want to have vary bits of
software with varying levels of brokenness for my choice of platforms. A
single platform is good for the user it allows everyone to build to a
single standard.
It also potentially allows new content providers into the same
distribution space without the problem of finding transmission frequencies.
So bailing out is not the way I look at it personally. The cost of
building the platform in comparison to say electricity & overheads to
drive transmitters is minimal, based on a back of the envelope
calculation on figures from a few years ago.
f
-
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]/
