Re: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting
robl wrote: Not that I'm condoning the choice, personally I'll always prefer an agnostic system, but, well, maybe the BBC were just realists when it came to the practicalities of development cost versus ROI from creating versions for (EXTREMELY) minority OSes? I mean, come on, hands up who here on the list uses Linux as their primary OS. Me - Me Too! - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting
The BBC was set up up so that we had a broadcaster who was not tied to such commercial pressures, evidently the BBC is disregarding the reason it was created! The British Broadcasting Company become the British Broadcasting Corporation by Royal Charter for that reason and others (another was independence). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bbc I wonder why the BBC does not contribute as much to the Internet and Open Source as it did to TV and radio engineering in the past. http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/ Current projects? DIRAC? http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/dirac/ Gordo -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting
On 02/08/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: secondly who buys a PVR that DRMs your recording?! My friends tell me that their Sky+ boxes are highly restrictive. Again, who (that is assuming sanity) buys the ridiculously overpriced monstrosity that is Sky+ ? On that note, what type of Pirate (Arrgh, me hearties) downloads DRMed Music? People are often falling foul of FairPlay DRM because they want to have more/different devices than Apple deem necessary. That's a regrettable side effect though; the people that the restrictions attack are the novice users doing friend-to-friend copying, and one of the friends in that case is 'downloading.' I don't even own an iPod (over-priced junk for people who care about style over substance; a bit like the iPhone), and I know how to remove FairPlay DRM. I expect that everyone else on this list does aswell. Personally I think that' s a deliberate move by apple in order to please rights holders, whilst annoying consumers as little as possible. And seeing as iTunes has started selling DRM free music with EMI, I think that there is no point targeting apple over DRM; as much as I dislike their products. If your anti-DRM targets are bittorrent and PVRs you're aiming in the wrong direction. Savvy users will have no problem getting unrestricted files; no one is debating that (any more) - but its important to defend novice users, who are the victims here. And Savvy programmers will create one click programs that will strip MS DRM from the BBCs On Demand content for everyone else within a few months, maximum. Vijay.
Re: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting
On 8/2/07, Christopher Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Calm down dear, it's only a mailing list. What's wrong with discussing the (faint) possibility that it may happen (though most likely won't) in the future? Sorry, I forgot to add a smiley face. I agree with you. It makes more sense to use DRM when you want to charge for programmes which aren't already available without DRM. (Assuming you think DRM is effective, which it isn't). The BBC is restricted to certain cable stations in the US. Given that, you could say that DRM for UK citizens isn't pandering to The Rights Holders, but to future income streams in other markets. Pay-per-play over the Internet would increase the potential US market, for example. It at least makes some kind of logical sense. Encrypting and restricting programmes in the UK which travel over 2.4GHz (wi-fi), but not those via 800 MHz (tv), doesn't. DRM restricts a UK citizen from downloading a programme using iPlayer and uploading it to YouTube so that a non-licence payer can watch it without paying. But a UK citizen doesn't have to use iPlayer. They could use a DVD recorder, a PVR, a USB tv receiver, etc. All cheap, available and familiar devices. Your mom can do this. Cracking the DRM isn't necessary (although that will be done too). -Original Message- From: Stephen Deasey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 August 2007 23:28 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting On 8/1/07, Christopher Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With regards to worldwide takeup, I too thought the iPlayer was a UK-only thing, but I've heard rumblings about it becoming a paid-for service outside our borders in the future (I know of no ETA though). Don't know as to the authenticity of that, maybe a BBC bod could give me the partyline on that? What are you, some kind of conspiracy nut? Just because it makes no sense to wrap programmes in junk-DRM when higher quality, unencrypted, unrestricted versions are beamed directly to convenient digital recording devices in houses throughout Britain, don't get confused and think it's just a scheme for bbcamerica.com to expand their VOD market using the web. Because it's not! - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting
Again, who (that is assuming sanity) buys the ridiculously overpriced monstrosity that is Sky+ ? As is often the case on this list we seem to be leaps and bounds ahead of the general learning curve of the general public. Sky+ might not make sense to the sane people here, but they have shifted a not inconsiderable 2.37m units of it - around 25% of their subscriber base have opted for it. That's the thing - most people just like technology that works, and don't care about _how_ it works, or what it _will_ or _won't_ let them do, or the philosophy behind that, because they just use the product 'as is' all the best, martin - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 04:26:21AM +0100, Christopher Woods wrote: The quality was abysmal though, and RealVideo? Urgh. The simile employed in the DbD article is a little inaccurate, the more I think about it; the BBC's choice of MS-based systems for its iPlayer platform is more like their choice to broadcast in PAL - more or less an international industry standard, Not really. Any company could make TVs that implemented the PAL standard. With the iPlayer they are tying themselves to one particular company's product. But it isn't just that which is a problem - by tying themselves to a single OS they may well distort the market in computer OSes themselves. Having Windows installed on most of the computers around the world makes it a good starting point for common ground, Well firstly the BBC should be considering the market in the UK not computers around the world. iPlayer is a domestic product AFAIK. Secondly, on launch it seems that the iPlayer does not work for Vista. Microsoft's latest and greatest version of Windows. Many of the people with new computers aren't able to use iPlayer at the moment. Yes, I know this is going to be fixed, but it does give rise to what does happen when MS upgrades Windows. Will similar periods of not-working occur? Thirdly, the above shows no foresight at all. What about a few years time when you might want your set-top box to interface with the iPlayer server as well as taking the normal OTA transmissions? What about future usage on mobile devices? (EXTREMELY) minority OSes? I mean, come on, hands up who here on the list uses Linux as their primary OS. Me! -- Andy Leighton = [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_ - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting
Not that I'm condoning the choice, personally I'll always prefer an agnostic system, but, well, maybe the BBC were just realists when it came to the practicalities of development cost versus ROI from creating versions for (EXTREMELY) minority OSes? I mean, come on, hands up who here on the list uses Linux as their primary OS. Me - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting
(EXTREMELY) minority OSes? I mean, come on, hands up who here on the list uses Linux as their primary OS. And me. And as such I just accept that if I want to watch any channel's output on-demand, there's a box in my living room that will capture it for me with the minimum of configuration. It's an old-fangled piece of tech called a video recorder. But that's just me S. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of robl Sent: 01 August 2007 09:39 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting Not that I'm condoning the choice, personally I'll always prefer an agnostic system, but, well, maybe the BBC were just realists when it came to the practicalities of development cost versus ROI from creating versions for (EXTREMELY) minority OSes? I mean, come on, hands up who here on the list uses Linux as their primary OS. Me - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting
Christopher Woods wrote: I mean, come on, hands up who here on the list uses Linux as their primary OS. Me. And (FWIW) my wife (her choice). I'm three years sober ;) David PS We can't even dual-boot anymore. - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting
Me too! On 01/08/07, robl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not that I'm condoning the choice, personally I'll always prefer an agnostic system, but, well, maybe the BBC were just realists when it came to the practicalities of development cost versus ROI from creating versions for (EXTREMELY) minority OSes? I mean, come on, hands up who here on the list uses Linux as their primary OS. Me - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Richard B. McMillan
Re: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting
On 1 Aug 2007, at 12:40, David Greaves wrote: Christopher Woods wrote: | I mean, come on, hands up who here on the list | uses Linux as their primary OS. I use Linux and OSX (also unsupported as of now). I have a Vista box which is connected in an office, where I wouldn't want to use it, but I can't even use that! Taking into account that there are many DVRs out there running Linux (including home-built MythTV boxes) or OSX (such as the AppleTV), it seems silly to rely on the Microsoft DRM system when it is not a *standard* that can be freely implemented by all. I would *love* the BBC to take a stand and trust it's customers with the content without DRM at all, but I believe there are circumstances that do not allow that, which are not to do with the content but a possible threat of complaint from other broadcasters with their own DRM systems. If someone wants to copy BBC content that is DRM encumbered, they're going to do it - in the same way you can remove the DRM on iTunes, on WMA, and so on. DRM prevents casual copying - it does not prevent pirates (those who sell on duplicates) who are the people spoiling the industry. Just my two penneth, Matthew Walster - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting
And me! It's a fatally flawed argument to suggest that because the majority of computers now are Windows based, then the BBC can make a good case for using a Microsoft system for distribution. With the Vista bugs being a case in point, the BBC isn't tying itself to a standard, it's tying itself to a product. The PAL argument is just wrong. And as a licence fee payer, I would have thought that the BBC would have considered the options. There are systems out there that allow content to be distributed in the way they would want that are open. The choice of the BBC not to use these is almost certainly because of the ability to hack them. Imagine if they released a system based on something open and it got hacked within 3 days? Then the BBC is playing catch up, and essentially all their content is free to everyone, and a large percentage of people will start to use the free/unfettered/illegal version pretty much immediately. The commercial considerations for the BBC's content come into this quite strongly, and so using an open standard is quite plainly a risky strategy and probably a bad idea. What would have been sensible, and probably much more commercially viable (in terms of licencing across the world), is for the BBC to have created a version of their own software, created a licencing model so that anyone that wished could build a *commercial* client for the software, and then released that. It wouldn't have taken long for someone to release either a free or nearly free version of a player for linux. There are many examples of cut down players with pro features removed that this model could have been eminently suitable for this purpose. My gripe about iPlayer is the forcing of the use of a software product, and not necessarily that it's an MS based piece of kit or that it's a complex platform that needs certain software to run it. There are times when I think that the Linux community expects everything for nothing, and if it's not forthcoming that a company is either stupid or short sighted or similar. As far as I can see, the Linux community (since that is who I think is mainly driving the frustration at iPlayer) needs to realise that sometimes, it will not win an argument where large-scale commercial concerns will mean linux versions are unlikely to be released for free, and to top it off, let's face it, the linux community could quite possibly be the biggest load of hackers on the net, and therefore a commercial minefield. I can see the lawyers saying something like if we release this on linux too, we're running a much greater risk of being hacked and losing millions of pounds. With MS, at least if someone hacks it, the BBC can tell MS to take some action, thus providing some protection for their content. The fact that a linux version won't be released at all because of the choice by the BBC to tie itself to an MS product is I think a bigger mistake. Not sure where all that came from, so I'm going to stop... ...waiting for the flames. Paul Richard McMillan wrote: Me too! On 01/08/07, *robl* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not that I'm condoning the choice, personally I'll always prefer an agnostic system, but, well, maybe the BBC were just realists when it came to the practicalities of development cost versus ROI from creating versions for (EXTREMELY) minority OSes? I mean, come on, hands up who here on the list uses Linux as their primary OS. Me -
Re: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting
On 01/08/07, Paul Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The choice of the BBC not to use these is almost certainly because of the ability to hack them. Imagine if they released a system based on something open and it got hacked within 3 days? There's already a hacked version of iPlayer, it's called Bittorrent. It's platform neutral too. I'm not advocating eye patches and peg legs here, but personally I don't see a moral difference between getting something that's available on demand free from iPlayer via other means. That could be a PVR, or it could be getting it from a torrent.
Re: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting
On 01/08/07, Paul Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are times when I think that the Linux community expects everything for nothing, and if it's not forthcoming that a company is either stupid or short sighted or similar. No, the software freedom movement doesn't expect anything for nothing; it has worked relentlessly for over 20 years to write all the kinds of software that people like to use, and has come across several impediments such as unpublished hardware specifications and unpublished file formats that are now illegal to reverse engineer in the USA and elsewhere. The most commonly quoted area of free software lacking today is 3D graphics card drivers - but if the hardware vendors simply published how their hardware worked, they would exist, and the vendors themselves don't need to write any free software. Similarly, the BBC doesn't need to write any media player software - www.getmiro.com is one example of what is out there already - it just needs to publish data in non-proprietary formats. As far as I can see, the Linux community (since that is who I think is mainly driving the frustration at iPlayer) needs to realise that sometimes, it will not win an argument where large-scale commercial concerns will mean linux versions are unlikely to be released for free For free is not the issue. Freedom is the issue. With the software freedom community, when you read the word free it usually refers to freedom, not price. and to top it off, let's face it, the linux community could quite possibly be the biggest load of hackers on the net, and therefore a commercial minefield. In this context, and historically, hackers means people who love to program, not people who crack security systems :-) I can see the lawyers saying something like if we release this on linux too, we're running a much greater risk of being hacked and losing millions of pounds. The risk that DRM will be cracked is very high - near certain - regardless of the operating system. With MS, at least if someone hacks it, the BBC can tell MS to take some action, thus providing some protection for their content. The fact that a linux version won't be released at all because of the choice by the BBC to tie itself to an MS product is I think a bigger mistake. The BBC is committed to releasing versions of iPlayer for other systems - but cross platform availability of DRM is not the issue. The restrictions are the issue. ...waiting for the flames. lol - I've always found this list to be a model of etiquette :-) -- Regards, Dave - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting
At 04:26 +0100 1/8/07, Christopher Woods wrote: The quality was abysmal though, and RealVideo? Urgh. The simile employed in the DbD article is a little inaccurate, the more I think about it; the BBC's choice of MS-based systems for its iPlayer platform is more like their choice to broadcast in PAL - more or less an international industry standard, even with its flaws (and subsequent improvements and patches)... Because even PAL, as a standard, as it exists today, has been quite significantly modified in its operation and composition when compared against how it existed when it was first used. So, [...] Choose PAL: choose life! Gordo -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting
On 8/1/07, Simon Cobb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (EXTREMELY) minority OSes? I mean, come on, hands up who here on the list uses Linux as their primary OS. And me. And as such I just accept that if I want to watch any channel's output on-demand, there's a box in my living room that will capture it for me with the minimum of configuration. It's an old-fangled piece of tech called a video recorder. I hope you're destroying those recordings after 30 days! (or 7 days after first viewing, which ever comes sooner) Actually, bad news: It has come to my attention that Argos are proliferating (on sale, no less!) a DVD Recorder device for the infringing-inducing, low-low-price of just 79.99: http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/5334427/Trail/C%24cip%3D156565.Sound%2Band%2Bvision%3EC%24cip%3D156604.DVD%2Band%2Bvideo%3EC%24cip%3D156607.DVD%2Brecorders.htm Here's how it works (now pay attention, because this is tricky): * Infringer buys one DVD Recorder (79.99) and one 5-pack DVD-R discs (street price: 5.99) * Discs are placed in the pirating receptacle, shiny side down. With a felt-tip pen the perp may flaunt their infringement on the other side. * The Record (from the Latin recordus, meaning theft) button is pressed. That's it! That's all! It's just a short step from there to inserting the DVD into a standard computer (Windows, Mac or Linux -- it's completely cross platform) and uploading the whole lot to YouTube! Or giving it to a friend. Or storing it on a shelf, indefinitely. But that's just me Oh Simon, if only that were true. The scourge of home recording has been with us for a generation now. The sooner the BBC can put this genie back in the bottle, the better. - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting
On 01/08/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not advocating eye patches and peg legs here, but personally I don't see a moral difference between getting something that's available on demand free from iPlayer via other means. That could be a PVR, or it could be getting it from a torrent. The moral difference is in the restrictions. A file from the iTunes Music Store that you can only play with Apple's proprietary software is unethical, even if the copy you obtain was via bittorrent. Similarly, there are many PVRs that are restricted so you can't, for example, copy the files to your laptop to watch them on the train. -- Regards, Dave - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting
On 01/08/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 01/08/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not advocating eye patches and peg legs here, but personally I don't see a moral difference between getting something that's available on demand free from iPlayer via other means. That could be a PVR, or it could be getting it from a torrent. The moral difference is in the restrictions. A file from the iTunes Music Store that you can only play with Apple's proprietary software is unethical, even if the copy you obtain was via bittorrent. Similarly, there are many PVRs that are restricted so you can't, for example, copy the files to your laptop to watch them on the train. DRM may be annoying, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it unethical; secondly who buys a PVR that DRMs your recording?! On that note, what type of Pirate (Arrgh, me hearties) downloads DRMed Music? If your anti-DRM taargets[sic] are bittorrent and PVRs you're aiming in the wrong direction. Vijay.
Re: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting
On 01/08/07, Christopher Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: maybe the BBC were just realists when it came to the practicalities of development cost versus ROI from creating versions for (EXTREMELY) minority OSes? I mean, come on, hands up who here on the list uses Linux as their primary OS. me as well (as if you couldn't have guessed). Why in your statistics did you neglect things like Java and Python? They may not be OSes themselves but they provide an abstraction to the OS in much the same way as OSes themselves provide an abstraction to the hardware. For instance you would say develop for Java, not Java on WinXP as Java provides portable hooks into the parts of the OS you need (which technically you can bypass and go direct to the OS but that's going out of your way to make a non platform neutral implementation). Only thing Java, Python and other such systems is they don't seem to get around the platform dependence of the OS. Luckily there is a whole lot of people who may write the installer for you (provided you open source the code), how helpful of them! Or you can develop for a standardised OS, (e.g. POSIX). Code for POSIX then just recompile with the correct cross compiler and it will run on any POSIX conforming OS for which you can find a cross compiler (or you could install the OS and do a native compile). Now the POSIX argument is much closer to that of PAL. POSIX is actually a standard, many OS manufacturers implement it, and any OS manufacturer can implement it if they choose! So BBC choose to develop for a standard, POSIX there. Percentages speak a lot to people signing off on cheques to fund development lifecycles... The BBC was set up up so that we had a broadcaster who was not tied to such commercial pressures, evidently the BBC is disregarding the reason it was created! And as I have pointed out several times, where do you get the idea that it costs more to develop for extra OSes? You develop cross platform from day one. You don't have to spend 3 times the money for 3 OSes. Most code in C works on all platforms, why would it have to be written again and thus cost more? And if you want maximum Return On Investment then here's an even cheaper method to get cross-platform vendor neutral and all the other goodness. Define a specification (you would normally do this anyway, otherwise you need to have server and client teams working too closely), make sure everything is defined and then publish it fully. Write the Server side of the application, (You would have had to do this anyway) Now BBC, you stop, your job is done. Community people can take over and build clients, people get a choice of clients, if there is demand on a specific platform it gets built otherwise it doesn't (nice way to work out how much demand there really is for different platforms ;)) And you get the advantage of seeing all the innovative idea people come up with. Would this appeal to the people on this list? You could then actually Mash Up BBC content, putting it in software that works the way you want it to and making your own better software if the current offerings are not good enough. Currently the BBC won't let anyone even touch the way iPlayer works, oddly they consider it theirs, ignoring the fact that the UK License Payer payed for it, not just BBC employees who get the right to do what they want with it (regardless of what your regulators, or the law tells you to do). Oh and anyone got the UK statistics on Firefox usage? Is that a small enough to be discriminated against? Precisely how small does a group need to be before it becomes morally justified to discriminate against it? Anyway consider the above idea, maybe for iPlayer, or if not some other project, it would be an interesting experiment would it not? Let's get back to an innovative BBC we used to have, remember the days when the BBC where proud to do things others didn't. (Sorry reminiscing about Walking With Dinosaurs, truly ground breaking when that came out, pity the BBC won't do new innovative things any more, preferring to copy other channels, iPlayer is not innovative in the least, it's like 40D, only later and still in Beta). Andy PS: Didn't find the article I _know_ I saw but this is close enough: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070717-europeans-embrace-firefox-in-record-numbers.html 18.7% Firefox usage in the UK (and that's not counting the other browsers). First hit on Google I got for uk web browser statistics (note: may not be first for you, google personalises searches) provides some more stats: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp Appears somewhere in the region of 40% of people aren't using IE. It's OK to discriminate against 40% of people? No one else thinks that's wrong? -- 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
RE: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting
Blimey, my last reply did stir it up (which is great, exactly what I wanted to see, got some really good answers out of people.) I just *knew* that the ratio of Linux users on this list would be higher than average though :D (incidentally, which flavours of Linux do people favour on here? When I play with Linux I'm a Ubuntu person, but I don't even have it installed on my laptop at the moment because I wiped my drives clean a while back when I was reorganising my system, and didn't bother to put Linux back on. I still have the Ubuntu sticker on the lid though because it's so deliciously ironic ;) Back on point again, The BBC's been forced to bow to commercial pressures more than once in the past; anyone remember the Jam debacle? That was the Trust telling them to stop doing what they were doing because it was inflicting losses on other commercial entities doing a similar thing. Frankly, I disagreed with their decision, if the BBC's doing it then it's obviously for a better reason other than to just push other companies out of business, it's for the education of our future generations... But hey, commercial pressures. I overlooked Java and other methods of abstraction because, well... The statistics weren't mine (hope I made that obvious) and they didn't talk about abstraction methods, only OSes. I wouldn't *want* to develop for Java though, it's such a kettle of fish and the JRE itself is such a massive piece of bloatware with some awful endemic security flaws. I've gotten a nasty virus through a Java vuln once before which was a BITCH to get rid of - and it was all because Java didn't clean itself off the machine before upgrading (so you had multiple versions, and one of the builds was the vulnerable one). It literally took me days to figure out how to get rid of that virus. I'm of the opinion that having to load an entire runtime environment (along with its associated memory and CPU footprint) BEFORE you can even run the actual program is A Bad Thing, it slows even my machine down a bit (admittedly it's not the snappiest beast in the world but it's no slouch) so imagine what it'll do to slower PCs. That's really the only reason I moved from Azureus to uTorrent... With regards to worldwide takeup, I too thought the iPlayer was a UK-only thing, but I've heard rumblings about it becoming a paid-for service outside our borders in the future (I know of no ETA though). Don't know as to the authenticity of that, maybe a BBC bod could give me the partyline on that? -Original Message- From: Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 August 2007 18:50 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting On 01/08/07, Christopher Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: maybe the BBC were just realists when it came to the practicalities of development cost versus ROI from creating versions for (EXTREMELY) minority OSes? I mean, come on, hands up who here on the list uses Linux as their primary OS. me as well (as if you couldn't have guessed). Why in your statistics did you neglect things like Java and Python? They may not be OSes themselves but they provide an abstraction to the OS in much the same way as OSes themselves provide an abstraction to the hardware. For instance you would say develop for Java, not Java on WinXP as Java provides portable hooks into the parts of the OS you need (which technically you can bypass and go direct to the OS but that's going out of your way to make a non platform neutral implementation). Only thing Java, Python and other such systems is they don't seem to get around the platform dependence of the OS. Luckily there is a whole lot of people who may write the installer for you (provided you open source the code), how helpful of them! Or you can develop for a standardised OS, (e.g. POSIX). Code for POSIX then just recompile with the correct cross compiler and it will run on any POSIX conforming OS for which you can find a cross compiler (or you could install the OS and do a native compile). Now the POSIX argument is much closer to that of PAL. POSIX is actually a standard, many OS manufacturers implement it, and any OS manufacturer can implement it if they choose! So BBC choose to develop for a standard, POSIX there. Percentages speak a lot to people signing off on cheques to fund development lifecycles... The BBC was set up up so that we had a broadcaster who was not tied to such commercial pressures, evidently the BBC is disregarding the reason it was created! And as I have pointed out several times, where do you get the idea that it costs more to develop for extra OSes? You develop cross platform from day one. You don't have to spend 3 times the money for 3 OSes. Most code in C works on all platforms, why would it have to be written again and thus cost more? And if you want maximum Return On Investment then here's an even cheaper method to get
Re: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting
On 8/1/07, Christopher Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With regards to worldwide takeup, I too thought the iPlayer was a UK-only thing, but I've heard rumblings about it becoming a paid-for service outside our borders in the future (I know of no ETA though). Don't know as to the authenticity of that, maybe a BBC bod could give me the partyline on that? What are you, some kind of conspiracy nut? Just because it makes no sense to wrap programmes in junk-DRM when higher quality, unencrypted, unrestricted versions are beamed directly to convenient digital recording devices in houses throughout Britain, don't get confused and think it's just a scheme for bbcamerica.com to expand their VOD market using the web. Because it's not! - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting
On 01/08/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 01/08/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 01/08/07, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not advocating eye patches and peg legs here, but personally I don't see a moral difference between getting something that's available on demand free from iPlayer via other means. That could be a PVR, or it could be getting it from a torrent. The moral difference is in the restrictions. A file from the iTunes Music Store that you can only play with Apple's proprietary software is unethical, even if the copy you obtain was via bittorrent. Similarly, there are many PVRs that are restricted so you can't, for example, copy the files to your laptop to watch them on the train. DRM may be annoying, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it unethical; Its not ethical to restrict people from doing things that they are used to doing with equivalent technologies, that are legal to do, and things that they should be able to do in a free society. Its not merely annoying; its wrong. secondly who buys a PVR that DRMs your recording?! My friends tell me that their Sky+ boxes are highly restrictive. On that note, what type of Pirate (Arrgh, me hearties) downloads DRMed Music? People are often falling foul of FairPlay DRM because they want to have more/different devices than Apple deem necessary. That's a regrettable side effect though; the people that the restrictions attack are the novice users doing friend-to-friend copying, and one of the friends in that case is 'downloading.' If your anti-DRM targets are bittorrent and PVRs you're aiming in the wrong direction. Savvy users will have no problem getting unrestricted files; no one is debating that (any more) - but its important to defend novice users, who are the victims here. -- Regards, Dave - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting
Calm down dear, it's only a mailing list. What's wrong with discussing the (faint) possibility that it may happen (though most likely won't) in the future? -Original Message- From: Stephen Deasey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 August 2007 23:28 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting On 8/1/07, Christopher Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With regards to worldwide takeup, I too thought the iPlayer was a UK-only thing, but I've heard rumblings about it becoming a paid-for service outside our borders in the future (I know of no ETA though). Don't know as to the authenticity of that, maybe a BBC bod could give me the partyline on that? What are you, some kind of conspiracy nut? Just because it makes no sense to wrap programmes in junk-DRM when higher quality, unencrypted, unrestricted versions are beamed directly to convenient digital recording devices in houses throughout Britain, don't get confused and think it's just a scheme for bbcamerica.com to expand their VOD market using the web. Because it's not! - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting
At 19:41 +0100 31/7/07, Dave Crossland wrote: On 30/07/07, Jeremy Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From time to time there has been (mostly around iPlayer) some strong criticism of how the BBC develops products. That's good. http://www.defectivebydesign.org/blog/BBCcorrupted August 14th seems like a date for the diary :-) Channels, IE 4? Gordo -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting
From today, you will need to own a Microsoft operating system to view BBC programming on the web. This is akin to saying you must own a Sony TV set to watch BBC TV. He's quite right, because when they launched the trial of the iPlayer, the BBC shut off the cross-platform system they *used* to run that allowed you to watch hundreds of hours of BBC TV on the web on-demand for nothing ;-) cheers, martin On 31/07/07, Gordon Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 19:41 +0100 31/7/07, Dave Crossland wrote: On 30/07/07, Jeremy Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From time to time there has been (mostly around iPlayer) some strong criticism of how the BBC develops products. That's good. http://www.defectivebydesign.org/blog/BBCcorrupted August 14th seems like a date for the diary :-) Channels, IE 4? Gordo -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Martin Belam - http://www.currybet.net - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting
/apples_u_s_mac_market_share_ri ses_to_5_6_percent_in_q2.html (The Mac takeup is still less than I thought it would be!) From that article's discussion: In the second calendar quarter of 2006, Mac sales in the U.S. accounted for 57 percent of all Mac sales (760,000 out of 1.327 million). With 960,000 units sold in the U.S. this quarter, Apple will sell about 1.68 million Macs worldwide if the U.S./World ratio stays constant. So, maybe all this factored into the BBC's equations when they were deciding how to go about this fancy new-fangled iPlayer thingumajig, and they just decided to go with the hardware and OS combination which would reap an almost instant ~90% availability? That last 10% is unfortunately (for them) going to probably one of the more vocal percentages, but when you contrast that lot / us lot with the millions of (fairly?) happy PC-with-XP users all pootling along with iPlayer and not kicking up a fuss, I think the BBC can go to the Trust, look, we've done our best for the moment given the time and technological constraints, give us a while to roll it out to everyone but unless you guys can suggest a better way to give immediate 100% availability, can you just shut up and let us get on with it? Sorry, just thinking in type, playing Devil's advocate a little... But it is something worth thinking about. Oh, and of course to get any semblance of decent content on there they had to kowtow to rights holders and their licensing terms, but let's just sidestep that for the moment. (PS - A whole lot more reading on problems with home Linux takeup here: http://ubuntucat.wordpress.com/2007/06/22/types-of-desktop-linux-adoption-ba rriers/ (just found at random, but still interesting reading given that it's coming from a Linux user)) -Original Message- From: Martin Belam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 August 2007 00:21 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Cc: Dave Crossland Subject: Re: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting From today, you will need to own a Microsoft operating system to view BBC programming on the web. This is akin to saying you must own a Sony TV set to watch BBC TV. He's quite right, because when they launched the trial of the iPlayer, the BBC shut off the cross-platform system they *used* to run that allowed you to watch hundreds of hours of BBC TV on the web on-demand for nothing ;-) cheers, martin On 31/07/07, Gordon Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 19:41 +0100 31/7/07, Dave Crossland wrote: On 30/07/07, Jeremy Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From time to time there has been (mostly around iPlayer) some strong criticism of how the BBC develops products. That's good. http://www.defectivebydesign.org/blog/BBCcorrupted August 14th seems like a date for the diary :-) Channels, IE 4? Gordo -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Martin Belam - http://www.currybet.net - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
