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?
No, this is what I'd expect the BBC to do. It serves the public when market-based squabbles over alternative technological platforms don't happen, and everyone just gets on with innovating atop a good-enough platform, rather than frittering away consumers' time and money by playing platform argy-bargy. Of course, this makes other broadcaster's jobs easier, but that's a good thing; the harder it is for them to develop something, the more they'll want to control what they developed. Relieving them of that burden is to everyone's benefit, not just theirs.
It's unlikely such a wide group of companies would ever reach a consensus otherwise without the BBC.
Exactly. Markets aren't very good at arriving at a new platform from a standing start, largely due to company boards treating technological platforms as a strategic asset when they get the chance. Hence, HD-DVD versus Blu-Ray, VHS versus Betamax, or, for those old enough to remember, AC mains versus DC mains, or broad gauge versus standard gauge. As Joel Birnbaum (former HP Labs director) noted: standardizing the mains socket enables enormous innovations on either side of it, rather than constant arguing about what shape the pins should be. If the BBC can help take the debate about a platform's 'shape' off the table, it allows everyone to concentrate on building stuff on that platform, which can only be a service to the public. -- Frank Wales [[email protected]] - 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]/
