MP accuses BBC chief of illegally championing Microsoft

blah blah blah

John pugh is my local MP and he is a complete tit. He is always ready to jump on the bandwagon for any free publicity regardless of whether or not he knows anything about the topic.

I have not had a problem using firefox to view the iplayer but I still don't understand this argument about everything should be available no matter what. Before the internet, was it feasible for BBC Scotland to be forced to provide services to Wales, for the few viewers that may have wanted those programs? What about the other way around, broadcasting Welsh to the Scots?

Should I be kicking up a fuss that so far I do not have a HD ready TV, and as such cannot recieve the BBCs HD channels?

As a license payer, I fully support the notion that my money should be spent on catering for the majority instead of pandering to a very small bunch of whinging sods with big mouths.

Rights....

"the BBC has insisted that desktop versions for Mac and Linux were not developed because it could not provide the Digital Rights Management demanded by TV production companies"

But... aren't the BBC *the* production company concerned, or don't they own the rights to their own programs?

Something fishy?

@blah blah blah

"As a license payer, I fully support the notion that my money should be spent on catering for the majority instead of pandering to a very small bunch of whinging sods with big mouths".

That is exactly the argument here... for EVERYONE or at least the majority to be able to access the iPlayer, and not just pandering to a small CORPORATE (MS) bunch of whinging sods and bigmouths!

Also how very arrogant of you to think that simply because you can access this player then you are the majority.

Anonymous Coward indeed.

Codswallop

It doesn't matter wether John Pugh is a tit or not. What matters is that the BBC's design brief should have been for a multi-OS player that played only their content. They could have written their own DRM into it, such that the content could only be played on their iPlayer on any system.

Then the whole M$, Linux, Mac debate would be moot. And they wouldn't be paying my licence fee to M$ for a proprietary (and crap) DRM licence.

What's the alternative?

Seriously, I've yet to see one suggested.

Right now we seem to be heading towards having the iPlayer downloads removed completely from the majority of computer users to satisfy a small minority.

iPlayer, DRM, and codecs

I heard (via the grapevine of someone that used to work at the BBC) that they DID have a DRM and codec alternative developed in house that worked under multiple platforms. It was (apparently) quite a clean solution that they were getting ready to opensource as well.

As for support within 2 years - the codebase that Microsoft have used to provide their player is slated for cross platform support in less than 2 years, so the BBC may just be relying on that happening to give them their "get out of jail free" solution.

But then again...

John Pugh is a beancounter who has never really achieved anything in his life except the ability to count beans inaccurately.

Mark Thompson and Mark Byford on the other hand are two amiable open minded chaps (and yes, I do know them both) who have the job of steering the BBC through major change and innovation in an uncharted sea where change is the only constant.

Having travelled the globe several times - I can confidently say that the quality of the BBC output ranks head and shoulders above any other media corporation on the planet and is something the UK should be proud of rather than taking every possible opportunity to bite chunks out of it.

RE the media payer - like most other things on the BBC website - it's excellent. And it remains excellent to the majority of PC users around the world.

If you own a Mac, or choose Linux... fair play, that is your choice. But you need to understand that you are in a large minority, and as we still try to work around the principle of majority rule, you should expect to wait just a little longer while the majority is catered for. If you can't wait, the answer is simple... go use a PC in your local library to use the player. If you can't possibly bear to make that effort to solve your own problems, get a digital TV recorder.

re: blah blah blah

Your analogy of Scotland programmes being shown in Wales is completely wrong. This has nothing to do with content, but accessibility.

How would you feel if you had to buy, say, a Sony TV to watch the BBC because the BBC deemed Sony to be the most popular platform. This would give Sony a very unfair advantage and no competitors would be able to get a look in.

The BBC's charter specifies that it must provide equal access to all. So, I would prefer the BBC spend its (our) money on providing a proper implementation that befits its charter rather than line the pockets of a convicted monopoly!

@RE:

It's not up to John Pugh to come up with a solution. The BBC cocked up and it's their problem to solve.

What does it matter?

I only like the on-line version anyway, I use it on my mac, it works great, no problem! I cant stand the P2P aspect of the download player. But still, a knock against microsoft is one for the little guy.

RE: Production Company

But... aren't the BBC *the* production company concerned, or don't they own the rights to their own programs?

No, they also buy in programs internationally which obviously the producers want guarantees will be protected as well as from independents in the UK as previously mentioned.

However, I think that it's a fair point that it should be opened up as much as possible, 2 years for a MAC or Linux client seems extreme......

Re: Waste of Money

Michael,

Your assertation that the flash player works on all platforms is incorrect. It does not work on 64bit Linux due to Adobe's failure to release a plugin for 64bit Firefox. Given the number of machines out there now shipping with 64bit processors it is totally unacceptable that they are using a proprietary format which is not 64bit compatible across all 64bit operating systems. Especially when software exists for video streaming over the web, which are compatible.

iPlayer name

It's sad to see that the Beeb jumped on the "i" bandwagon, rather than being original and coming-up with something new.

There again such lack of originality and inspiration is evident from their Christmas television schedule, so why am I surprised?

@Jeremy

'That is exactly the argument here... for EVERYONE or at least the majority to be able to access the iPlayer, and not just pandering to a small CORPORATE (MS) bunch of whinging sods and bigmouths!'

It isn't about pandering to MS. If you look at the figures, XP is by far the most widespread OS on the desktop. So it makes sense for the BBC to spend public money on providing services for that.

IF Mac or Linux had the majority share, or even close to large numbers of users then they should cater for it, but they haven't. Your argument about pandering to a SMALL CORPORATE is weak. Linux has a tiny tiny percentage of users, Mac has a few percent more but not much. Just because you may use one or the other does not automatically mean huge numbers of other people do too.

As for the accessibility, all the programs ARE accessible. Everything on the iplayer is something that has already been shown, not exclusive content. The internet in this instance is being used as nothing more than a way to catch up with something you missed. So your choices are:

Watch it when broadcast

Tape it on video for watching later

Record it to DVD for watching later

Record it on a hard disk recorder for watching later

Watch the repeat later in the week - almost everything is shown at least twice

Watch it on the iplayer

Given all these available means of watching something, how exactly are the programmes not accessible?

@AC - "A solution to the DRM issue"

"Funny how Pugh at no point suggests a solution to the DRM issue that would actually work, isn't it?"

There's a very simple solution. No DRM. The media market is moving away from DRM, anyway. Expect significant moves in this direction in 2008.

Unfortunately, this is unlikely to feed into iPlayer for some time yet, as the BBC has to get clearances from the rights owners for all the material supplied through iPlayer, before it can provide it DRM-free. A disappointing number of the rights owners are, right now, so obsessed with rights/restrictions management that they would need major surgery to extract their heads from the orifices into which they're presently jammed. That will change, forced by market momentum, just not tomorrow.

However, there are cross-platform DRM-enabled alternatives that work right now, even if they're still proprietary. Real's solution has been used for streaming by the BBC for years, and it is supported on Mac and Linux. An organisation with the clout of the Beeb wouldn't have problems persuading the Real execs to provide additional functionality to satisfy its needs, in order to leverage Real's technology into even more homes.

We already own the BBC.

The BBC is funded, let's face it, by a TAX (The TV License cannot be anything else when every registered address in the UK has to pay it!)

IMHO Everything shown by the BBC is paid for and owned by the British Public. Let's be done with this IPlayer faff and just get the Beeb to make programs available to the Public on DivX filtered by IP origin.

For those who whinge that the programs will leak out of the restriction of the UK - they're going to do so regardless, so lets have less of our BBC-TAX money spent on funding Microsoft and DRM companies and more money on content we can enjoy!

sod the operating systems it doesn't work on my Wii

Which is a real shame as my Wii is positioned in the right place in relation to my Sofa for me to sit and watch telly, unlike my various computers with various operating systems.

'Minorities' not the point

"As a license payer, I fully support the notion that my money should be spent on catering for the majority instead of pandering to a very small bunch of whinging sods with big mouths."

Jesus wept man, can't you see the bigger picture here? iPlayer is EXACTLY like the BBC broadcasting to people who own Sony TV exclusively and then claiming that's OK because m=ore people have Sony TVs than any other brand. The iPlayer débacle is an important watershed - up until now the BBC has broadcast in internationally STANDARDISED formats. We must not accept this notion of proprietary technologyendorsed and promoted by a publically funded resource like the BBC.

Who cares about the OS, it's the timeline

Whether or not XP/Vista computers generate more hits than Linux/Mac isn't really the issue. The issue is it shouldn't take 2 years to make another version. 3 - 6 months is a far more acceptable timeframe. There's people who spend less than 2 years in jail for murder.

And as for the idiots who are saying why not do an Amiga/Workbench version, geez... grow up. That's a pointless statement. I'm sure the ratio of Amiga : Linux/Mac is significantly less than the ratio of Linux/Mac : Windows.

Also Alexander was right, if you want to spank someone talk about Adobe and not providing a 64-bit version of the plugin.

Paris Hilton icon - spankings, tv etc...

Then there's the interview...........

The Beebs recent touchy-feely interview with Bill Gates underlines all of this. Questions were *allegedly* submitted by members of the public, but not one came near putting Bill 'on the spot'

So we must be a nation of Microsoft lovers.

The other possibility, that the BBC deliberately filtered the questions to give Bill an easy ride, couldn't be true, could it?

FFS

"If you own a Mac, or choose Linux... fair play, that is your choice. But you need to understand that you are in a large minority, and as we still try to work around the principle of majority rule, you should expect to wait just a little longer while the majority is catered for. If you can't wait, the answer is simple... go use a PC in your local library to use the player. If you can't possibly bear to make that effort to solve your own problems, get a digital TV recorder."

Tosser.

The issue here is about STANDARDS, not Windows, Mac or ANY OTHER specific computer OS. Why doesn't the BBC just start broadcasting over Freeview in WIndows Media 9?

@Nardak

quote :

IMHO Everything shown by the BBC is paid for and owned by the British Public. Let's be done with this IPlayer faff and just get the Beeb to make programs available to the Public on DivX filtered by IP origin.

unqoute

You are obviously stupid, please be quiet

I think Nardak is Paris's alter ego

Not quite the point...

"why do the bbc have to provide for everyone, people complain that they can't get the service because they don't use windows, why not complain that you don't get the service because you don't have broadband or because you don't have computer, or complain that you can't watch TV because you don't own a television."

If I don't have broadband and want the service, I can go and get broadband from any one of multiple providers. If I particularly dislike one of them, chances are there's one that I find amenable.

If I have no TV, I'd be a fool to pay for a TV licence, and then wouldn't mind not watching TV.

If they were only going to release it on one single system, why not pick the more interoperable and cheap one? If it's perfectly acceptable to tell people to change OSs in order to use this, surely it's more acceptable to make them change to a free one?

Amiable, open-minded ...

"Mark Thompson and Mark Byford on the other hand are two amiable open minded chaps (and yes, I do know them both) who have the job of steering the BBC through major change and innovation in an uncharted sea where change is the only constant."

Not open-minded enough to start off the project saying "Actually, it needs to be cross-platform". I'm not shedding any tears for them, considering they get paid a significant amount of cash to run a massive organisation - if they'd innovated enough in the first place to think "Oh yeah, maybe if we made it cross-plaform and didn't tie people into the ridiculous world of Kontiki, we'd have a better proposition."

(Yes, I'm a Mac user. Yes, I have PC access. Yes, Kontiki sucks ass.)

@ all the morons here

The point being made is not that the BBC should *now* be implementing support for other platforms but that this support should have been there from the very beginning and that there was nothing to stop this from being the case. Was it technically feasible? Absolutely. Did the BBC choose to do it? No. Ergo the BBC is guilty of assisting MS in pushing their platform and proprietary formats to gain unfair market advantage. By tying their horse to MS during development, they prevented cross platform development from happening (and is it any surprise to know that two of the higher-ups in the iPlayer development outfit are former MS employees who self-evidently had an agenda to make sure that this is how things worked out?). It absolutely is not the role of the BBC to help support a company with known despicable ethics that has been convicted of such underhanded techniques in the past to do the exact same thing here. The BBC should be utterly ashamed of themselves for this iPlayer debacle.

I'm getting slightly annoyed at...

The Gates worshippers who keep reminding us that we Linux users are just a tiny little group. That may well be the case, but Microsoft has a long record of unfairly leveraging their advantages so that this continues to be so. That is why Microsoft is now enjoying the attention of the European Community's antitrust people. I don't see why Auntie Beeb should assist Microsoft in their efforts towards continued world domination by requiring users of advanced operating systems to downgrade to some rancid version of Windows.

As for the content providers who insist on crippling their output with copy protection: They can always opt not to have their programs distributed by iPlayer. I'm sure the BBC can find plenty of material that is not so encumbered.

The folks who insist that there is no working copy protection for Linux should realise that there is no working copy protection for Windows either. Remember the Sony gaffe with copy protection that a) contained more malware than a porn site and b) could be circumvented by blacking out part of the CD with a permanent marker. People who still think that there is such a thing as working copy protection are deluding themselves.

There are many different file formats suitable for streaming video. The BBC would not have to build any software if they would simply use that, because software for viewing MP4, AVI or other video files already exist for Windows, Mac and Linux.

@Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse

"If you own a Mac, or choose Linux... fair play, that is your choice. But you need to understand that you are in a large minority, and as we still try to work around the principle of majority rule"

Linux/Mac users are pay the same license fee as everyone else, and are no longer an insignificant minority in terms of personal computer users.

This is not about 'majority rule', its about the BBC pandering to a monopoly software vendor when it need not necessarily have done so. It would have been technically possible to create a cross-platform iPlayer had the Beeb specified this as a requirement, but blinkered thinking still thinks of personal computers as running Windows. As long as companies continue to think short sightedly like this, Innovation in non-Windows platforms will continue to be stifled.

Pugh for PM

"John Pugh is my local MP and he is a complete tit." John Pugh is also my local MP and he is one of the very few politicians that I have ever met who understands the technical and competitive issues at stake and who does actually know something about software. For the record he is not anti ms but he is pro competition also in his choice of computing he is agnostic - I believe his home network comprises a windows, linux and mac os computer.

@Jeremy: "It isn't about pandering to MS..."

... Windows XP might currently be the largest installed base of desktop computers, but it is currently coming to its end of life. Microsoft are trying very hard to get people to use Vista instead (despite a large amount of unpopularity), and Vista itself currently has a tiny fraction of market share.

So the only supported OSes are:

* XP 32 bit with SP2 which is end of life

* Vista 32 bit, which currently has nearly no market share, and it is not clear that it eventually will have the largest market share for this purpose (I would expect largest market share would be for set top boxes / DVRs-- which pretty well all run some derivative of Linux or BSD)

One suspects that a standards based approach would have been more cost effective and future proof for the BBC, even if they have to push some of the standards themselves (e.g. MP4 supports DRM, if not right now in the exact way the BBC required).

PS @James Bryant "Why?": Your analogy is erroneous. Should I choose to get broadband, I can get it from several suppliers and choose the best one for my purpose. If I want to use iPlayer my choice is limited to MS.

RE

"The alternative is to save the files as MPEG2 files for download. In order to reduce the load on the BBC systems and on the UK network in general, these files could be BitTorrents that seed from the BBC.

As Tom said (and I've said before), for those things the BBC cannot put out because of rights and restrictions, don't put it up. Let the recalcitrant owner pay for their own distribution (after, of course, paying the BBC for THEIR rights)."

That's already done - rights block 99.999% of programmes. The rest are already podcasted.

Democracy TV

I imagine anyone (such as myself) can download the streams using DemocracyTV,or one of the other stream savers.

Obviously the BBC wouldn't want this, but then they shouldn't screw up in this way.

The guy at the top here would have expected this result, and if he didn't, they he's an idiot. By making the service WindowsXP only, he's ensured people will save the streams, and you can guarantee people will then share the saved streams.

So what about the streams?

It's amazing the amount of people here who complain about some sort of perceived Microsoft bias based on the iPlayer using Microsoft's proprietary technology, but aren't complaining about the streaming part of iPlayer, which uses Adobe's Flash, funnily enough proprietary technology! The BBC has to use technology from somewhere. Fact is, Microsoft's technology is widespread so why not use that now and continue to develop technology for other systems? Why delay the whole thing just to satisfy the (minute) minority?

Misconception

Some people seem a bit confused (or blind) over why it is a bad idea to cater only for the market leader.

Scenario:

Microsoft is the market leader.

Companies refuse to develop for anyone else for one or more of many reasons: They are unaware of the alternatives. They are lazy. They cannot justify the cost of development.

Microsoft continues to grow, milking its market share for all its worth with no incentive to innovate. Development time at Microsoft is spent designing new looks for an old product and releasing it as a new version. Everyone buys the new version because Microsoft stop support for the old version. Microsoft gradually switches to a rental system on the basis that you are giving them money annually anyway so lets skip the formalities. Don't like it? Sorry, but the only competition Microsoft has left in the software market are the anti-virus companies.

A bit overstated yes, but the point is Microsoft is a capitalist company. They have one goal. Capitalism only works (and I hate to use that word anywhere near capitalism) if there is competition. Some people might not mind that their computer 20 years down the line is still largely being used for excel so you can calculate how much you owe Microsoft.. personally I'd like to see what 20 years of innovation from people who aren't Microsoft's logo department will bring.

Excuse me?

So this is the same government whose websites FORCE me to use MS Internet Exploder instead of Firefox?

Pot meet Kettle!

Re: iPlayer, DRM, and codecs

"I heard (via the grapevine of someone that used to work at the BBC) that they DID have a DRM and codec alternative developed in house that worked under multiple platforms. It was (apparently) quite a clean solution that they were getting ready to opensource as well."

They did.

Dirac (the codec) and the Schroedinger Project (the whole DRM thing) - google for it. Quite informative in its own way, but effectively killed off by the crippling bureaucracy that can only come from either the BBC or government departments.

"Catering for the majority"

IIRC, the BBC's remit is to broadcast to EVERYONE and specifically ensure minorities are catered for, both in terms of content and delivery. Hence there is still some decent programming for current affairs, science, the arts or real niche interests like farming and religion. Late night repeats are often shown with sign language. How many commercial channels provide all this?

From the start, the BBC should have used an open format, compatible with any platform that someone with the know how can build a player or plug-in for. Not just for Windows/Mac/Linux, but Xbox, PS3, Wii, PSP, Wii, mobile phones or any other media capable device.

If the rights-holders don't like it, they don't have to sell to the Beeb, but they might find themselves losing more revenue by being too picky about their customers!

To all the anti-corporate lot

All of you shouting about 'Evil Corporations'

Example:

'Microsoft has a long record of unfairly leveraging their advantages so that this continues to be so'

Newsflash: The BBC IS a corporation.

Ever purchased or had services from any of the following companies:

Microsoft, Apple, Dell, Sony, Phillips, HP, Aiwa, Virgin, Sky, ITV, IBM, Sega, Nintendo, Acer, Panasonic, LG, Ford, Fiat, the list goes on and on

All of these are corporates. Every corporate in existence has at some point or continues to do so uses dirty tricks, bully boy tactics and industrial espionage to get where they are. Every last one of them. They DO NOT get to be so big by playing nice. Regardless of how you feel about that it is the way of business. You may not like how MS throw their weight around, but they really are no different from any other corporation.

For all the people who think these corporations should be dismantled because of the tactics they use.

Many of the devices that sit in the system you are now using to read this have been researched and developed by corporations. The fact is the R&D is an expensive business costing millions in whatever the local currency is. It is done solely to make a profit from the end product and the corporates will push it in any way they can.

Technology is now so complex, that the days of individuals sitting in a garage or bedroom with parts from radio shack and coming up with a revolutionary new product are long gone. With only a few exceptions, most innovation and new technology is created by these 'evil' multi billion dollar companies. Hobbyists just don't cut it anymore. That even goes for linux which is why a large number of linux companies are going the corporate route because they know it is the only way to survive.

So it doesn't matter now how MS got majority market share, the fact is they have got it and it is public money being spent on the iplayer. Being publicly funded is the number one reason to start of by catering for the majority share otherwise they would be accused of wasting it, and enough has been wasted on this project as it is. The same principle stands for a private company as they would be aiming to get as many customers as quickly as possible with their product. Only then do you start porting it to the smaller players in the market, which the BBC have promised to do.

Other changes to the BBC website that no one mentions

I have my browser set to wipe cookies on exit. This means that the first time I try to watch a video on the BBC news site each day I get that page prompting me to choose between Windows Media Player or Real Media formats. This has always defaulted to Real, but a couple of months ago, when the iPlayer was being talked up, this default setting changed to WMP.

Also, the Real videos used to play automatically but at the same time this changed so that I have to click the start button on the player (Real Alternative - has worked perfectly on the BBC site for years) to begin. Furthermore, some videos simply don't play for me, no matter what my Javascript, firewall, cookies or other settings are. This never used to happen.

It's funny how they've slyly changed the default media format to WMP because it was only a couple of years ago they were complaining about the licensing costs involved in implementing WMP streams and would only use it on some files. Now I'm guessing these changes have something to do with the close partnering that brought us the iPlayer.

i386 plugins on amd64

http://gwenole.beauchesne.info/en/projects/nspluginwrapper

… which is packaged for various Linux distributions, e.g. Debian:

http://packages.debian.org/nspluginwrapper

The BBC's Billophillia

If you don't think the BBC is fawning over MS, take a look at the recent Bill Gade advertisements, sorry, blog postings on the BBC News Technology pages.

His Billness's first blog was a load of tripe but the feedback was all "Bill, you've done more than anyone else to bring powerful and innovative computing to the masses" and "you are the modern day saint with all the money you give to charity".

Sickening.

The Billocks he posted later wasn't much better.

Icon selected for ironic uses...

@Rob Crawford

"It's a tiresome subject as no matter what the BBC do theyre damned"

And who, exactly, would damn the BBC for choosing an MPEG4 streaming solution? As things stand they've, in effect, chosen a Flash streaming solution. How much money have the BBC pissed up the wall avoiding using MPEG. You know MPEG, right, it's the same group of standards that THEY USE FOR ALL OF THEIR OTHER DIGITAL BROADCASTING SYSTEMS.

Licensing issues?

"The whole internet streaming has a lot more to do with making damn sure no-one can evade the licence tax than providing a service. They shoved it onto satellite to stop anyone claiming they shouldn't pay for something they weren't getting. Now you don't even need a TV to get encumbered."

Hmm. I'll have to have a look at the TV License Ts+Cs - I don't own a telly, nor anything that can receive TV signals [I have a USB Freeview adapter, but it don't work on Ubuntu, so can't receive signals - thus is exempt] so it would be interesting to see if they try to change the Ts+Cs to get anyone who has a broadband connection.

That's one hell of a conspiracy theory my man.

I have no time for telly [the only things I used to watch were Top Gear, Newsnight and the C4 news anyway] so I fail to see why my hard earned cash should fund Strictly Come Birdwatching Brother Celebrity Edition, or whatever shite the BBC is coming up with next.

The easiest way to blow a hole in your idea, of course, is to have a box entitled 'please enter your TV License number here' in the iPlayer app and on the flash streaming page. That way you lot can watch Strictly Come Birdwatching Brother Celebrity Edition, and I can read a good book with the money I have saved. Or just get wrecked on spirits listening to grunge, which is far more likely.

Steven R

PS: I watched the gogglebox for the first time in about 18months while crashing at my brothers place at Chrimble - and decided that although I had the hard cash for a 21" telly for my flat, that it really wasn't worth it. I bought my bro about a weeks worth of booze and drank it all myself instead, because I'm nice like that.

re: To all the anti-corporate lot

"All of you shouting about 'Evil Corporations'

Example:

'Microsoft has a long record of unfairly leveraging their advantages so that this continues to be so'"

Eh? No-one here is bashing corporations per se. Only one corporation the BBC is being bashed as they should have produced a standards compliant implementation which is not tied to a particular bit of hardware or software.

Just like how they broadcast in PAL and NICAM stereo. Any manufacturer can make PAL/NICAM *compatible* hardware. In fact NICAM is a great example as NICAM was a standard developed by the BBC when there wasn't any. It's a shame their dirac project was shelved following cuts as that would have lead the way for all broadcasters if it worked.

Licence Fee

If (as a non-tv owning student) i choose to watch these programs online with no tv licence, am I breaking the law? Questions such as this should be addressed before the OS issues. That being said, as a Linux user its very easy to say the BBC should be providing this service to fit my OS, just as it is easy for an MS user to not care because it works for them.

This system, because you need no proof of tv licence to view, is surely outside of the tv licence remit, and, if not covered by this, then the iPlayer is (to borrow a phrase from parents, clergy, teachers and self important arseholes) a privelage, not a right.

The best way for the BBC to sort this would, clearly, to use an open codec or just use a bit of flash, as per youtube etc. The fact the BBC is using stuff which is platform dependant is more a comment on the developer staff, and the deadline than anything.

That, and they wanted a pretty looking thing that would be liked by the higher-ups

Why is there no

British made operating system.

British OS

How about Symbian? And there are more mobiles than PCs!

its all about monopoly

Several people are still discussing this story as if it its about the i-player on windows without perhaps fully appreciating that the point made by Dr Pugh was that its not about about Windows or Linux or Mac or any another OS for that matter. His clear unambiguous point is that the BEEB as a PUBLICLY Funded Corporation should not be favoring a convicted monopolist using tax payers money. He is consistent on this charge having made it on the 9th Oct 2007 in relation to Gov web sites for tax collection. Some people have referenced other cases where the BEEB has favoured one company over another but MS is special. Its a monopoly and the consensus amongst economists is that monopolies are bad because they charge higher prices and they work to maintain their monopoly by engaging in anti competitive tactics that are bad for the market. But luckily its not just the Lib Dems who are concerned - the European Commission are equally worried and yesterday they launched another major enquiry into MS and its anti competitive practices.

So this is an age old story, and its a simple story its all about a monopolist working to maintain its monopoly and for those of you who don't agree then answer the following question - is the price MS charges Joe Blogs on the high street in any way connected to the maintenance of its monopoly and if not then how in a competitive marketplace the cost MS charge for its os and office productivity software - is more that the entire £160 quid cost of the Asus Eee PC and that includes the hardware, the OS and a full Office Productivity suite. This story is about monopoly pure and simple and it affects all of us who pay taxes, i-player users or not and that BTW does not include Sir Bill unless of course his "contributions" are being taxed.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm071009/halltext/71009h0008.htm

...and the answer is?

"And, I'd bet that another company could produce a DRM system cheaper than the BBC is currently paying MS"

IIRC the last company to take that approach to the problem was Sony..........

As for the "standards" argument, name a "standard" for streams / downloads with DRM. Ah, *there's* yer problem. The whole point of a standard is that there should be *one* of it. Problem here is that everyone's got their favourite. They're more opinions than standards. The BBC's gone for the MS version. Whatever they chose was going to piss someone off, they went for pissing off a vocal minority rather than the silent majority. This is actually quite a brave move, most publicly funded organsiations go for the "quietest life" option.

Don't get me wrong, it's a right, royal pig's ear. Then again, I don't know what the answer is and, reading this little lot, it appears that neither does anyone else around here.

It only takes one cow....

... push open the gate.

"Even with a 10-15 second ad at the start/end, very few people would bother seeking out illicitly-distributed versions if the iPlayer downloads were otherwise equivalent or higher-quality" but if even just one of the people who downloaded this unprotected material copied it outside the BBC's licence for it the BBC could be held liable for all the copyright holders loss. At which point no doubt the same people who whine about DRM now would be complaining about the loss of licence payers money to settle the damages awarded by a US court.

No one likes DRM in use but without it being written into contracts it's pretty unlikely a lot of TV material would be licensed for online access to the BBC (or any other broadcaster for that matter).

Logic Bomb?

"Frank Bough,

Unfortunitly the owners of the programmes would damn the bbc for streaming MPEG4 across the internet. Without content the player would be of no earthly purpose to anybody."

What?? If I chip over to the iPlayer site I get a streaming Flash movie. Where's the DRM here? In what sense is that a BETTER solution to MPEG4? The Kontiki system (that WAS bought in, despite your assertions) is a FAILURE - the present and future of "iPlayer" is streaming (Flash, probably). If and when you finally adopt h.264 video encoding in the Flash streams, we will then have a poor, proprietary version of what we should have had in the first place - streaming MPEG4. The DRM issue is a total red herring, with 80% of viewers using the craptastic Flash streams. To coin a phrase, please wake up and smell what you're shoveling.

It's so sad it's unbelievable. Are these the same morons who are working on the NHS IT 'upgrade' by any chance?

DRM is stupid

Why do the downloads have to have DRM on them, when they broadcast their programmes from their tv transmitters in full broadcast quality to the whole entire nation for free! It's totally stupid, anyone can record it onto a dvd recorder and keep it for years - no DRM. So why does the BBC need DRM all of a sudden for the BBCi Player? If i wanted to 'pirate' a programme, I would just DVD record /Sky+ it. It wouldn't surprise me if they got a back hander from Microsoft in order to promote their stupid DRM software.

This is all about lining the pockets of wealthy American coporate fat cats. Boo Hiss.

BBC is Biased

The BBC are biased in favour of Microsoft. They did Money Programmes hyping up the release of the XBox360, but no similar prog hyping the release of the Playstation3. Have you noticed how much free advertising they give Facebook? You know that Microsoft own a stake in Facebook, don't you? Now how much free advertising do they give other websites like Friends Reunited? They don't give any, that's because Friends Reunited is owned by ITV and the BBC don't want to give publicity for websites owned by its rivals now, do they? Best to give all the hype to companies linked with Microsoft.

The BBC are biased and corrupt and can't be trusted read this site:

http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com

Just a legal point

You CANNOT 'just record something from TV and then keep it forever'. Legally, you are only allowed to keep that recording for up to 30 days. After that you are supposed to tape over/delete it. If you want to keep it forever you are supposed to buy the VHS/DVD release. It's just that no-one to my knowledge has ever been prosecuted because the law is practically unenforceable.