On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 19:27, Nick Reynolds-FM&T <[email protected]> wrote: > "glossing over details which might not seem important but are" > > What does or does not seem important is a matter of interpretation and > is in the eye of the beholder...
Not really... "What does this mean for consumers in real terms?" is pretty important -- that's why I wrote "the guardian article" (can't think of a better way to refer to that piece, sorry). I'm not sure that's particularly subjective, given that most of the questions being posed were along those lines, most of the misunderstandings (which came about as a result of it not being clearly explained _prior_ to anybody else having a stab at it) were in that area, and there was still stuff that -- unless you already knew the technology well -- was completely non-obvious (for example, compatibility with TVs which didn't support HDCP). The *big* thing people wanted to know from the outset was how it would affect them -- whether they'd have to replace bits of their equipment, whether they'd even want to, what things would stop working and what things wouldn't -- most people couldn't care less if Tom Watson or Cory Doctorow was wrong, because even being wrong they were saying more that was substantive and along the right lines than the BBC were. People didn't really *want* "Oh, Tom got it all wrong in his blog post", they wanted "Tom got it all wrong in his blog post, we're sorry we didn't post this sooner, these are the things you need to know". M. - 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]/
