digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

BBC Corrupted by Microsoft! Take back the BBC, Tuesday, August 14!

defectivebydesign.org — Today the BBC made it official -- they have been corrupted by Microsoft. With today's launch of the iPlayer, the BBC Trust has failed in its most basic of duties and handed over to Microsoft sole control of the on-line distribution of BBC programming. From today, you will need to own a Microsoft operating system to view BBC programming on the web.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • earls, on 10/10/2007, -51/+158More power to you, this is absolutely disgusting and I was infuriated since the day I heard about the situation. Easily the WORST and STUPIDEST move BBC has made while bringing their content online. No only are the consumer screwed, little do they know so is BBC. I thought I found something special in BBC but this ONE thing completely reverses any positive notions I had about them.

    And that goes for ANY company that makes ANY pact with Microsoft.
    • OBKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -15/+35I suspect this all has to do with lobbying by Microsoft. Are there any laws in Britain about foreign companies bribing public officials?
      • qwertylicious, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4Yes.

        But this doesn't seem like it was from bribes, so such laws would not apply.
        • MauiMac, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"And that goes for ANY company that makes ANY pact with Microsoft."
          Like say... Diggnation!?
      • Ramble, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2I don't think it's to do with lobbying. The BBC is obliged to provide media to all license fee payers. Provided that they need something with DRM and something that can be accessed by the majority they are only faced with two options. Make their own codec or use an MS one.
        • kelly, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Or use the most widely used DRM'd codec... Apple and AAC.

          It's the lesser of two evils... it least it would support two operating systems.
        • yenster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Well, well! Oddly enough: http://dirac.sourceforge.net/overview.html

          The BBC's R&D crew has released an open source, rather innovative codec (according to some more technically-oriented articles I've read about it). WHY they don't release their own material encoded with Dirac and playable on any Dirac-capable media player is completely beyond me. I'm pretty sure I've got the codec installed and usable in Mplayer. Must be that they're needing a DRM mechanism, although I thought I read that their content was to be essentially public domain.
      • PaulOwen, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6I don't want to sound cynical but the BBC were corrupted by influence many years ago. This whole issue is about private interest vs. public interest and when the Hutton report and the BBC's bias in favour of their editors' interests became apparent about three years ago, the BBC became a shade of their former selves.

        (PS I live less than a mile away from the BBC's HQ and I might even work for them).
    • Azimuth1, on 10/10/2007, -39/+67Exaggerate much?

      90% of people use Windows. How exactly is that screwing the consumer? Throw in the fact that they've promised to support Mac OS and other operating systems in the future, and it's clear that you're getting all worked up over absolutely nothing.

      Also note that if you don't live in Britain it won't be available to you anyway.
      • bieber, on 10/10/2007, -11/+27You talk like this is only an issue because it's Windows only. Even if you're on Windows, and you can view the footage, you _still_ have to deal with the DRM.
        • fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -20/+15"deal with the DRM".... what does that mean exactly? You click play and it plays.

          Or are do you feel your rights to pirate their videos are being violated?
          • rabidstrike, on 10/10/2007, -6/+18for one.. you cannot transfer the content to your portable player to watch at a later time.. lets say like the daily commute. Maybe yes if you have a zune or any drm supported player. But a hassle nevertheless.
          • Wootery, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5"Or are do you feel your rights to pirate their videos are being violated?"

            Seeing as how they force you to pay for your 'TV licence', then yes - you the consumer have at least some right to it. Moreso than if it was just another competing company.

            Distributing something for free, but cursing it with DRM, makes no sense at all. The only reason I can think of it that they want control, and don't want anyone else distributing 'their' content (for free - BitTorrent).
          • cubed2d, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Actually, TV license doesn't come in to this. you have to pay for a TV license to watch a live broadcast or record a live broadcast. This isn't live, you downloading pre recorded content, so you don't technically need a license to watch it. In the future when they add the ability to watch live TV in iPlayer, then you will need a TV license to use it
          • Wootery, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@cube (reply function broken)
            I presume you're talking about another country.
            In the UK, you have to pay your TV licence if you own a TV; simple as that. Doesn't matter what you use it for.
      • hypercrypt, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Well we pay TV licence for it, it isn't like ABC's content is available outside of the US...
      • ArthurSucks, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"...they've promised to support Mac OS and other operating systems in the future..."

        Don't hold your breath.
        • chazuk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2So we should believe you over the BBC?

          No thanks.
    • sundancekid503, on 10/10/2007, -11/+80"And that goes for ANY company that makes ANY pact with Microsoft."

      So I guess you hate digg too then?
      • vfrex, on 10/10/2007, -13/+6If only I could digg digg down.
      • MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -7/+27The decision to switch to Microsoft certainly lowered my opinion of Digg.
        • jedikv, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Just that really? Not the bogus sensationalist headlines, introduction of politics section, the influx of tinfoils, the bias and the overall immaturity of the userbase?
      • BigBadger, on 10/10/2007, -10/+9Huh, I've been away for a bit doing some programming, so I didn't know digg became ms' latest bitch until now.

        ***** you Jay, Kevin, and digg in general.
        • conmulligan, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Eh, Micosoft is paying Digg... who exactly is the bitch?
        • compu73rg33k, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3And Microsoft strengthens their choke hold around the neck of the computer industry...who exactly is the real winner?
        • sadilak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Well, I dont care about what OS/web server digg uses. Digg is a great example of web 2.0(minus the performance/loading times). I dont think we should change our opinion of digg just because digg is now ms based. It does not affect us in any way. It is not a sellout like MySpace or AT&T in the sense, it does not compromise with user data. The real winner here is Us, the end users. Think about it, MS must have paid millions to digg, this ensures that digg will remain healthy for years to come. I only wish that they have a better commenting system. I got "session expired" thrice already and am getting pissed off
      • Griiih, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5Wait for Digg to start censoring anti-microsoft stories.
        • jedikv, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Might actually balance things out with all the Pro Apple stories
      • akhomerun, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3considering the word "pact" as a synonym of "contract', then I guess apple, ford, dell, hp, gateway, toshiba, or any person or business who has ever agreed to any of microsoft's end user license agreement all qualify as people you hate.

        since you probably legally own some kind of microsoft software, then you also hate yourself. shall i refer you to some counselors?
        • mroseberry, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Are you implying that everyone reads the EULA whenever they click the "I Accept" button or press the F8 key (when installing Windows)? I read a survey among IT Professionals and only about 33% of responders said they actually read the EULA before accepting. Most end users not only never read the EULA, those who do are (intentionally) likely to not understand the full implications of what the EULA says. When I tell a user they didn't actually buy some software, just a license to use it how the software publisher says they can use it, it's always news to them.
      • OBKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1[quote]"And that goes for ANY company that makes ANY pact with Microsoft." So I guess you hate digg too then?[/quote]

        If Microsoft unconditionally gave you free $$$ (and who knows what else? Souls most likely, considering this is MS), would you take it? It's not like MS is forcing Digg to change any policies AFAIK?

        Google has enough support already.
    • mcmlxxii, on 10/10/2007, -7/+37This is about freedom of choice. We (in the UK) all pay for the BBC, it belongs to us. The BBC decided it would make it's iPlayer work only with Windows XP AND Internet Explorer. It simply isn't good enough for a publicly owned company to dictate which OS and browser you must use to view content for which you have already footed the bill. It is almost exactly the same as the BBC saying that their programs will now only be viewable on Sony televisions.

      They have had a long, long time to come up with a better solution. Let's face it, we knew that tv over ip was coming years ago. So enough of the "oh Windows has market share yada yada yada" because the BBC could easily have developed a platform agnostic solution of their own.
      • kelly, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3DRM'd AAC would be a better solution... at least it is for both WIndows and Macintosh
        • ocram, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1(Assuming you're referring to iTunes) The format makes no difference, unless they licenced FairPlay from Apple (who has been unwilling to licence it to anybody so far) the BBC would still have to develop a player for the Mac platform.
    • qwertylicious, on 10/10/2007, -9/+7Just a side note:

      Capitalizing WORDS to add EFFECT is LAME.
      • mcmlxxii, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Can you ask Kevin to free up <em> then?
    • razor150, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1This just in, the BBC infects MS with it's liberal agenda.
    • drunkenoaf, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Earl, do you pay for the BBC's content?

      I do, I pay the TV licence fee in the UK. Despite owning a Mac, and having e-mailed the BBC to develop iPlayer for other platforms, what they are doing is stupendously generous to the rest of the world. So before defaming them completely, give them a break. It's not like they're excluding you from seeing content you've paid for.
      • Stonekeeper, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3ok. so i pay the bbc tax. why shouldn't i just d/l rips of shows on BBC? What? it's not legal? yeah right.... it's not legal to view content i PAY for because i dont own a box with a CRT or TFT in.. . yeah right. Just d/l your shows if you pay bbc tax....
        • ocram, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Your TV licence covers any device capable of receiving a TV broadcast signal, including your PC if it has a TV tuner card, so in theory as long as you pay for the licence you should be able to download the content.
        • drunkenoaf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Okay... your comment seems unrelated to what I'd written.

          I didn't say anything about watching Top Gear on YouTube-- if you've paid your licence fee, that's fine by me.

          The BBC are trying to do something nice here-- high quality shows for free. Ok, there's DRM, and it's Windows-only at the moment, but it's better than nothing, and it's better than before.
    • KOAS, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Bizarrely it doesn't work with Vista. I would, however, also point out that the BBC does intend to bring it to Mac users ASAP. Clearly, this is not good enough, but it is worth at least saying this as the article does not say this.
      • djGentoo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Does the word "Linux" mean anything to them?
        • oepapel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Linux has no DRM solution (by philosophy) and the BBC needed DRM so Linux has effectively taken itself out of the running...
          The BBC may be a publicly owned corporation but it is also a content producer. It collects a tax from it's people but it also makes money through advertising.
          Advertising requires distribution numbers and this is what they lose if they allow their content without DRM. No distribution #'s, no ad money.
          Until the Ad business can adapt, content producers need to control distribution, even if the content is free!
    • betterth, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Wow, Reverend earl has spoken and we know knoweth the devil, and it's name is Microsoft. Be warned all ye who consort with the devil, for doing so is sin, and sinners have no place in heaven!

      Seriously though, I really hope you're an atheist. That way, I can giggle about how you're so open minded about religion, but when it comes to companies, there is pure good, pure evil, and association with that evil is damnation.
    • Hickeroar, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Don't worry, the EU will slap them and MS with antitrust lawsuits...
    • mayur, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Digg just signed a deal with Microsoft to serve most of the advertising on Digg. I think we will miss you on Digg Earls (or not)
  • robwilkens, on 10/10/2007, -45/+34Microsoft made public the interfaces (I believe) for anyone to implement Silverlight (which I believe it uses) on *any* operating system. This article is not only a lie, it also serves nothing but to bash the other operating systems for not keeping pace with published, open technology.
    • earls, on 10/10/2007, -15/+12"Microsoft® Silverlight™ is a cross-browser, cross-platform plug-in"

      Rob is right, but just know this is how they get you hooked and then down the line you're raped. MS is far from "all bad" but I don't particularly share or appreciate their views on technology now and in the future.
      • bytecolor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I love how the term "cross-platform" is being thrown around. Microsoft's idea of cross-platform is the ability to run on 2k, XP *and* Vista.
    • dbzer0, on 10/10/2007, -13/+33three words: Embrace, expand, extinguish.
      That's how MS treats open standards.

      Now that this is their own standard, nothing is stopping them from "enhancing" it in the future to run better in Windows
      • meatmcguffin, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2*extend

        Expand also implies something positive
    • dbzer0, on 10/10/2007, -23/+8three words: Embrace, expand, extinguish.
      That's how MS treats open standards.

      Now that this is their own standard, nothing is stopping them from "enhancing" it in the future to run better in MS

    • HyperHacker, on 10/10/2007, -14/+14DRM is still DRM, and Silverlight is still Microsoft. Like I'm going to move to a free OS to get away from Microsoft DRM and then install this? Kinda like moving into a new house because your old one is in a terrible-smelling neighbourhood and then hiding rotten eggs everywhere.
      • Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3No, it's not like that at all...

        and I use Linux exclusively.

    • bieber, on 10/10/2007, -5/+31That would be a really good point, were it not for the fact that you're completely wrong. Windows Media DRM is anything _but_ free and open, regardless of the "openness" of the platform they enforce it on; not only can you not implement it in an open way, you can't implement it AT ALL without Windows. Obviously, they're not going to use free software for their DRM, because then users would be free to remove it, and their goal here is to keep users from doing what they actually want to do.

      Or, to put it more succinctly, you're just plain full of *****.
    • Langford, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13Do you remember IE5 for Unix? How about IE5 for Mac? It always starts with promises of interoperability, then once they have the servers in place they stop support for competing platforms.
    • ostracize, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2If I had to login, I would log in just to bury you. Since I'm already logged in, I'm burying you now.
    • generalloy, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6"Microsoft made public the interfaces (I believe) for anyone to implement Silverlight (which I believe it uses) on *any* operating system. This article is not only a lie, it also serves nothing but to bash the other operating systems for not keeping pace with published, open technology."
      Nope. .NET is proprietary and closed. Silverlight is a subset of .NET, not open. Plugins outside of MS funded don't exist. Patents are also a problem (remember "Linux violates 235 MS patents!!!". same company)
      There is no fully functional Linux or Mac plugin of Silverlight.

      From wikipedia: "Microsoft Silverlight (code-named Windows Presentation Foundation/Everywhere or WPF/E) is a proprietary runtime". So you have your facts wrong, and the people who've dug you up and didn't look at the comments beneath also took the wrong facts in. ". An unattributed report claimed[5] that Microsoft aims to release certain parts of Silverlight source code as open source software, but the claim has been denied by Microsoft."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverlight
      • djGentoo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Mono made a Linux version of Silverlight...
  • PacketScan, on 10/10/2007, -12/+49DRM is dead.
    • bieber, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16As much as I would love to agree with you, the point of this article seems to be that DRM is, in fact, very much not dead :(
    • yman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4We all hate DRM but we have to remember that the BBC has to protect their content. People want the BBC's content to be freely available but the content should be only available to the British people who pay the license fee. The BBC could use some form of IP geog checking but that will be circumvented quickly. Unfortunately there needs to be some form of DRM. As long as any citizen on any OS can access the content, even if it's DRM protected I see no problem with that.

      On the subject of the player. I completely agree that the player shouldn't lock people to one OS. Heck, they are not even supporting Vista yet. But they are trying to get the (beta) service available to the largest majority, and that currently means XP Pro. Obviously if they don't quickly (in a couple of months) make the system available to Mac and Linux then it's definitely unacceptable as they have a duty to reach every citizen.

    • lowmagnet, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Long live the DRM!?!
    • muffinmanpoo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No it's not, unfortunately.
  • 7of7, on 10/10/2007, -31/+8I can't say I'm shocked that Defective By Design is trying to bully their enemies again.
    • Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -8/+9Poor Microsoft........always being pushed around and bullied

      *tear*
    • djGentoo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Can't say I'm shocked that I'm about to bury your arse.
  • eternal, on 10/10/2007, -19/+37I don't want to have to install Siverlight just to watch BBC programming.
    • MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Would your opinion be the same if they used a Flash-based video player like Youtube?
      • cdmarcus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Flash is already widely used, and most importantly, CROSS-PLATFORM!
        • IanLynch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1And cross platform is the key issue. Fully open would be better. Cross platform acceptable, reinforcing an existing abusive monopoly, unacceptable
    • Septimus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Why? The tech is good and far more flexible for coding in.
      • lgarfiel, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5But I can develop for it and play it back with equal ease on my Linux box, without paying the Microsoft Tax? No? Then it's government-sponsored extortion. By a convicted monopolist in a foreign country no less.
        • oepapel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What Microsoft Tax is that again? And how is that different from the "Apple Tax" that was the alternative solution?

          Just to be clear, there were only ever two choices: Microsoft's DRM or Apple's DRM.
          Apple doesn't allow third party encoders to add their FairPlay DRM. So if they went that route, they would HAVE TO distribute through the iTunes music store (exclusively!).
          This is one of those cases where Microsoft was actually the more free and open choice.

          And forget Linux. Linux and DRM are incompatible. The BBC requires DRM. End of story.
      • Hickeroar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3That's a highly relative as well as high debatable claim you've made there.
        • IanLynch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Which bit is debatable? Calling the payment to MS a tax? Possibly but the rest is factual. You can split hairs about the government ownership of the BBC - its a quango but can't effectively operate without government approval of the BBC tax aka the license fee. So I think his claim reflects the overall spirit of the situation.
  • toxicityj, on 10/10/2007, -36/+12good thing this is only a problem for 5% of the world.
    • bieber, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15Yes, because all Windows users enjoy and embrace having their media shackled to their computer by DRM. Spot on there, you are.
      • fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4DRM is seamless and transparent for end users until they try to distribute the files illegally. So yes, most Windows users enjoy and embrace media without even realising there's DRM or even knowing it exists.

        If consumers gave a crap about DRM do you think iTunes would have sold billions of songs with it?

        Thanks for playing.
        • halavais, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Absolutely wrong. As a teacher, when I want to make fair use of a clip from the BBC (as is my right, granted by over a century of case law), the DRM won't let me.

          What you meant to say is that it's seemless and transparent as long as you use the media only in the way MS wants you to use it. That's not the same thing as "legally."
          • MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6In the US it is. We often forget other countries have more fair use freedoms than we do.
          • Septimus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Wrong. Education Media Online holds the license for distributing all BBC copyrighted media (if they are the sole copyright holder) to all Janet enabled schools and Universities in WMV and QT formats. Glad you aren't teaching any kids related to me.
        • StarlessKnight, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yes, DRM is transparent. So transparent, in fact, it's opaque. http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=357 regarding http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/15/1914248 concerning Sony's DRM on the Stranger Than Fiction, Casino Royale, and The Pursuit of Happyness discs.
        • Fartag, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I love Microsoft's innovations. Making your data unreliable in in non-obvious ways always brings a tear to my eye. Forced incompatibilities combined with vendor lock-in and/or embrace, extend & extinguish, that's the MS way! Clearly they have your best interests at heart when they make operating systems too.

          BTW justifying forms of DRM under a playing field where no viable alternatives exist? Non sequitur. It's easy to claim they don't "give a crap" about it until you can offer side by side a data file with or without strings and measure how much better the one without strings sells.

          Good effort!
    • qwertylicious, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3World?

      This doesn't apply to the world. Only the British. People outside of Britain can't access the material at all.

      So really, it's more like a problem for 0.920541872% of the world.
      • StarlessKnight, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Until they continue to expand their efforts to other networks. Or will it only be a problem for 1.9%, then 2.9%, then 10.9% (sudden leap there), 12.9%, 20.9%... or is Microsoft feeling like the BBC's the only one worth paying attention to? Small problems have a tendency to become Big problems when people ignore them.
  • CrimsonBlur, on 10/10/2007, -38/+18Buried as inaccurate. Silverlight is cross-browser and cross-platform. It's no different than using Adobe Flash or their new AIR platform.
    • manifestdata, on 10/10/2007, -8/+14Crimson, do not prove the Digg sheep wrong or thou shall be buried, even if you are right.
    • joeyjojo, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8Both of those proprietary, commercial plug-ins are a bad thing too.
      • fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -6/+10Yeah proprietry is evil. ***** Porsche, ***** Apple, ***** everyone who doesn't give you a cake and the recipe too!!!!!!!
        • generalloy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Software is a different story. If you want security holes, go ahead and use it. Some people have higher standards. In this case, these people fund the BBC.
          The BBC used to hold itself to higher standards, too (see Dirac). http://dirac.sourceforge.net/
          • jedikv, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"Software is a different story. If you want security holes, go ahead and use it"

            That pretty much affects every piece of computer software ever developed
    • 35263526, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Except Adobe has actually made some effort to bring their stuff to Linux. Silerlight isn't going anywhere near it (and a third-party Mono-based alpha version doesn't cut it).
      • oepapel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Microsoft CAN'T bring Silverlight to Linux because it would violate the various licenses that Linux uses. DRM and Linux are incompatible from a licensing standpoint. Adobe has tried (and failed) to do it. Apple isn't porting iTunes to Linux even though technically it's a much easier task due to it's Unix underpinnings.
  • paranoiabacon, on 10/10/2007, -33/+11buried as being a linux/mac fag
    • djGentoo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Buried for being a Windows fantroll.
  • majortom1981, on 10/10/2007, -26/+6I am digging this down. The BBC has stated from the get go that the only reason why this is for microsoft os's only is because linux doesnt have any thing with drm in it.
    • Buelldozer, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8What about Macintosh?
    • dhughes, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18 It's a public institution paid for by the TV tax they have, anything shown on the BBC shouldn't be burdened by DRM or any other type of copy protection. All people should be able to access any type of media on the BBC website whether it's video, audio or the website itself with any browser compliant with web standards (which MS refuses to adhere to).
      • neiltc13, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Do you even have a clue how the business side of television works?

        The BBC has its own production teams and generates a small amount of its own programming, yes, but plenty of other programmes are BOUGHT IN using licence fees and if the BBC wanted to simply distribute this content free of any restrictions (akin to someone handing copies out on DVD or whatever) then they would have to pay EVEN MORE for it.

        So it's outrage over us being able to see the content or outrage over the BBC paying too much for content and us not seeing it at all. For goodness sake, I'll take DRM if it means VOD is here NOW and not in like 2011 when they finally develop a solution for the fraction of users who are Mac only.

        PS: Written on my iMac. I reboot into Windows XP to use iPlayer. It really isn't a problem at all.
        • jedikv, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I dugg you up. Your comment stuck out like a diamond floating in *****. (Written on a XP/Vista/OSX/Fedora quad boot PC)
  • dgh1973, on 10/10/2007, -10/+27iPlayer??

    That name won't last...
    • Bloc, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10yeah because i heard apple trademarked every word with the letter 'i' before it.
    • gorgonzola22, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0You would think so by now.
    • djGentoo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What about iDiocy? They have a *patent* on it already...
      Wait, that's their fanboys. My mistake.
  • desqjockey, on 10/10/2007, -7/+26Wow, they just keep making tech mistakes. I write them to protest having to use Realplayer to listen to radio one every time I install Realplayer on a new computer for only that purpose.
    .MP3 streaming, is that so hard?
    • timestar, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7Ogg Vorbis/Theora would be preferable. I wonder why the BBC didn't use this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/dirac/index.shtml
      • Daedalus17, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2No it wouldn't. 99% of people don't even know what .ogg even is. MP5 would be the easiest and cheapest for everyone by far.
        • Grimboy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3You don't need to know what it is. You just need to have a media player that plays it. Just as I don't have to have read the be able to, by hand, decode an mp3 file to a air displacement against time in at a particular coordinate of space. Most people that use mp3s don't really 'know what they are' apart from they let them listen to music. They know the name, that's all.
    • Septimus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Real is a good multi platform live streaming solution.

      When they bought the Universal license, years ago, there were no other viable alternatives. They now have such a large investment with Real that it will take time to move away from it. Anyway, Helix Player or Real on anything but Windows isn't that bad.
    • drunkenoaf, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2If you use windows, the live feeds from the main Radio stations are Windows Media too. You can still get content for free on a box w/o installing Realplayer.

      Has nobody heard of Real Alternative?
    • centinall, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3 When will Dirac be ready?

      It depends what you mean by ready.

      We already have a specification that can be used for real. We can code in non-real time in software, and for many application real-time decoding is now feasible. What we have not yet delivered is real hardware coders for main-stream use. That is the next phase of the project.

      http://dirac.sourceforge.net/faq.html
    • Alfonzo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Look into Real Alternative: all the codecs, none of the spyware!
  • da5id, on 10/10/2007, -7/+18Great. RealPlayer is malware!
    • TheRealPod, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It's offensive to use. Mal as in bad!
  • Redsblog, on 10/10/2007, -20/+45BBC iPlayer doesn't even support Vista yet, it's not some conspiracy to make people buy Windows it's just making the product available quickly to the majority of people. Eventually OS X (and possibly Linux) WILL be supported, just not right away, the software is still in Beta anyway!
    • MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -7/+9If they wanted something quick that works for the majority of people, they'd have used Flash.
      • Septimus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Flash is not a good solution for this. It doesn't offer the requirements the iPlayer will need to offer on final release.

        I like Flash streaming, but it is not the be all and end all.
      • mrblack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not really true. Flash requires massive amounts of servers and hardware costs, the iPlayer esentially is a p2p system, less hardware and bandiwdth for the bbc to take the brunt off. However there are plans in the future to have higher quality streaming systems in place.
    • jamesarice, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I heard this, too. So, in the long run everyone should be satisfied.
  • aaronm67, on 10/10/2007, -17/+5Wow...conspiracy theory much? Microsoft was probably the lowest bidder... it probably has very little to do with bribing political officials or the fact that Bill Gates was knighted.
  • KSean, on 10/10/2007, -22/+13Cry me a river.

    The BBC probably did this due to Windows having the biggest market share. As far as I'm aware it's built on Silverlight and the BBC Trust already said that this must be cross-platform, and eventually they'll release a Mac/Linux version.

    *waits to be dugg down by the Mac/Linux fanboys*

    Buried as lame.
    • Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -8/+7So.....you're cool with DRM then?

      Stop making this a Mac/Linux issue.
      • KSean, on 10/10/2007, -7/+8They clearly don't want their content being distributed everywhere, and it's a free service, so what's wrong with the DRM? If the DRM works cross-platform and doesn't restrict what devices it can be used on, then yes, I am cool with DRM.
        • qwertylicious, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Wow. Getting buried for a personal opinion? Digg has sunk to a new low....
          • Septimus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1You aren't supporting the OSS movement. Obviously you are just MS's bitch.

            /sarcasm
        • generalloy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4BBC is accountable to the people who pay it, i.e., the public. It's not your average corporate website either. It also is held to a much higher standard because of that.
          There's your difference.

          Also, the DRM is not cross-platofmr. DRM by it's name restricts the devices you can use it on. They want you to pay twice, remember.
    • xrenjrvt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I think you're missing the point. The BBC is publicly funded, they have an obligation to provide their services to everyone. Per its charter, to be "free from both political and commercial influence and answers only to its viewers and listeners" (wikipedia)
  • IceZZ, on 10/10/2007, -17/+7>And that goes for ANY company that makes ANY pact with Microsoft.

    Gee, no bias there. You just lost all credibility.

    This article is a non-issue, silverlight is open standard.
  • Jazzillion, on 10/10/2007, -16/+7I will get buried for this, but NPR is funded by a British oil company. No media is safe from corruption.
  • cosulliv755, on 10/10/2007, -10/+28Its very depressing as a Linux user to sit back and watch sources of media on the web dry up as support for open standards, and platform independent solutions for media distribution disappear. Its even harder to watch what used to be a bastion of fair and unbiased reporting cow tow to the money men from Microsoft. Good lord people what is happening to the BBC !!
    • abigsmurf, on 10/10/2007, -9/+5Maybe if the OSS had a single viable DRM solution then the BBC wouldn't have to use Microsoft. But then, DRM is 'against OSS principles' so microsoft and one or two other companies will enjoy domination of the DRM market
      • generalloy, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7DRM doesn't work. BBC doesn't use DRM in their terrestrial broadcasts. There are much better ways to use content restriction, eg., restrict via IP, password, etc.

        It's MS likely giving them kickbacks for this decision. BTW, you know that the BBC is funded by these people who are now unable to utitlize what they paid for? If they buy a TV, they have to pay a tax to the BBC.
        • oepapel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"There are much better ways to use content restriction, eg., restrict via IP, password, etc."

          This made me literally laugh out loud! Sure, let's just set up a password that only Britons know (I suggest the Queen's favourite treacle tart). Or let's use IP filtering. Nobody knows how to spoof an IP address, right?

          These "solutions" are so bad that they HAD TO INVENT DRM! Put it another way, if it really worked as good as you say, why would anyone pay for a DRM solution?

          So let's say that it is "good enough" security. What's to stop a Brit from setting up a BitTorrent of all the content and redistributing it? Could the BBC stand to lose that Ad revenue?

          In the world of online distribution, he who distributes gets paid.
  • flaterates, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8It's only available in Great Britain.
  • abigsmurf, on 10/10/2007, -14/+8Yes why didn't the BBC use all the Open source, cross platform DRM systems for media delivery that are out there?!?!?

    Oh wait there aren't any. 90% of people complaining are non-TV licence payers who think they should have a right to get content for free.
    • generalloy, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7Oh please. There are many ways to restrict access (ever hear of passwords?). Be creative, and no it doesn't have to involve DRM.
      • oepapel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Sure, use a password system. And how do you prevent redistribution? I'm sure that more than one Brit would like to set up a BitTorrent to Namibia and collect the ad revenue themselves. Of course, they'll report the income and the BBC can just come in and ask for their cheque...

        Password systems don't work when you cannot trust the end users to not circumvent the security. Especially when that circumvention leads to financial gain.

        If other simpler methods really worked, then DRM would never have a shot in Hell of being used. The fact that it is being adopted by most content producers to protect distribution is proof that there is a real need that other methods can't address
  • manifestdata, on 10/10/2007, -28/+22You kids here at digg are hilarious. Microsoft teams with Digg, "Eh, I have Adblock because I'm a leet haxor so I don't care."

    Microsoft teams with BBC, "OMGZOR this is terrible. They have teamed with a station most americans don't give a ***** about, lets burn this city down!"
    • Kamaji, on 10/10/2007, -7/+15Uhh, the fact that BBC coverage exists on many NPR stations is proof to the contrary -- that many Americans do care about the BBC.
      Also - why would there be a BBC America cable station if we don't give a ***** about the BBC? explain that.
      I for one do give a *****.
    • TheRealPod, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1Eh, I'm in the US so I don't care. (P.S. I'm a t0eTLie a 1337 H8XOR)
    • Sabot, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Placing adds is a lot different than making it impossible to view. Now if MS made it so I could not view their adds on digg with Linux that would be a bonus.
  • Gargoyle, on 10/10/2007, -22/+27Bitch, moan, whine...

    So the BBC chose to launch a new service compatible with 90% of computer users first. And on more than one occasion they have stated that other platforms including OSX and Linux are very high on the list of priorities.

    Now if we were all looking for things to whine about, we could start with your blog, which has already died under the digg load! Shame! My heart bleeds for you!
    • tico24, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5Its the fact that we pay money to the BBC every year and we're not seeing anything from it.
      • Septimus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2We as in the entire UK? Yes as the entire UK mainly uses nix or OSX.

        and be more accurate, your mum pays for the tv license.
    • timjohson, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4you mean you don't get any tv and radio? Okkkk....
  • Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -16/+22I love how 99% of the people defending BBC and Microsoft here can also be found cursing DRM on other Digg articles.

    Gotta love the hypocrisy
    • tizz66, on 10/10/2007, -7/+11DRM on music I pay for to own = sucks.
      DRM on TV programmes that have been licensed to me for 7 days = whats the problem?

      It's either accept DRM on programme rentals, or don't have them at all. The BBC does not own the full rights to the programmes it is sharing so it does not have the ability to say screw DRM.
      • MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6"The BBC does not own the full rights to the programmes it is sharing so it does not have the ability to say screw DRM."

        Really? What DRM technology do they use for the over the air broadcasts?
        • rohanch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7They don't. Because no such technology could be easily implemented with the current broadcast system, and therefore the rights owners allow them to broadcast over the air without DRM.

          What rights owners do not allow is non-DRM on the internet. However, for programmes made entirely with BBC property, they do have a choice about the use of DRM. I agree in that case and think the use of DRM is stupid and unjustified. When they broadcast programmes on TV, I can record them and keep the recordings as long as I like, so why can't I do that for internet downloads?
        • tizz66, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4MWeather: Look, you clearly know very little about this subject. The BBC *cannot* give out free downloads of all its shows. Why not? Because that could conceivably be damaging to both other broadcasters and also DVD sales. So, under UK law and under the terms of the BBC's license it has to restrict its downloads. The BBC is in a unique position in the broadcasting world and cannot simply do whatever it wants. It cannot put itself in a place that damages commercial interests. Do DVR's do the same thing? Yes. But is that the BBC selling them? Nope - that's the commercial interests I'm talking about.
  • tizz66, on 10/10/2007, -23/+18For ***** sake. Open source ***** morons. Since when is releasing a player for one particular OS before others 'corruption'? ***** off and campaign about something important.

    'scuse my French.
    • Sabot, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3The problem is they have been talking for many months that they were going to be making their material available in an open format, and to the world. This is a slap in the face to their customers.
      • tizz66, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3No they haven't - I'd like you to find where that's been said. They've said they will be working on bringing it to other formats asap (they have to, that's a condition of their approval). But isn't getting it to 90% of people first better than everyone waiting?
  • mephitix, on 10/10/2007, -18/+28I love how everyone who mentions that Silverlight is cross platform is getting dug down, and all the whiners/bitchers/MS-bashers are completely ignoring the fact. This story is just FUD in itself and a lie, but hey, what do you guys care; I'll still get dug down anyway.
    • Langford, on 10/10/2007, -8/+13Do you remember Internet Explorer for Unix? Where is it now? That is the fate of Silverlight in the future. Microsoft knows it, and everyone with experience knows it. This is history repeating.
      • sundancekid503, on 10/10/2007, -7/+8"Do you remember Internet Explorer for Unix?"

        Yeah, nobody used it so they stopped releasing it.
      • tdous, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1Do you remember when Bill Gates took a ***** in 1992? That is your future.. shat on by Bill and his MikkroSS00ftt fiends rabble rabble rabble RABBLE RABBLE!!!
    • generalloy, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12Please point me to the MS Silverlight plugin for Linux.
      Sure, it's "Cross-platform" in MS speak, as in it works in Firefox on Windows, and maybe Mac one day. And yes, they drop support (ActiveX was supposedly cross-platform too), embrace and extend, as others have said. Windows makes them too much money to support other platforms.
      • Freddfx, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2The MONO team is working on it, infact they have a very basic working version.
      • tizz66, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Uh, works fine on Mac. I'm running it now.
  • alucinor, on 10/10/2007, -11/+18The UK and Microsoft have quite a relationship ... they chose to standardize their national records and library on OOXML alone, they have chosen to standardize their warship and submarine command systems on Windows 2000, they squash study after study about how open source could save their education system millions of $$$ (or fire whomever is in charge of the study, heheh) and they knighted Billy G. But this is a socialist country that pretty much operates on de facto everything, so going all Microsoft suits.
    • FredFredrickson, on 10/10/2007, -8/+7Open Source might save the school system hundreds of thousands of dollars, but don't you think it's important for kids in school to learn how to use Windows, since it is still the most widely used OS? I mean, there's a reason why you want to learn the most common language in a country if you're planning on living there.
      • jejones, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10I'd rather kids in school learn the principles of computing, so that when the UI du jour changes--which it certainly will--they can adapt. You seem to have education confused with something else.
        • tdous, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1No, you have education confused with idealism.
      • brownb2, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7The only problem with that argument is that the kids only learn one skill and thus keep MS in power for generations, because they think exactly the same thing when they grow up as they don't know any better or have experience of anything else. Just because Windows does the job doesn't mean it's the best tool.
      • alucinor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I suppose the school system figures students at that age need to be trained to be paper pushers? Seems to me that it's far more important to learn HOW to think, and get relative training in using a specific application by your employer. I'm sure even MS Word doesn't look the same over the course of 12 years of schooling.
      • 35263526, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1This argument doesn't really hold up when the facts about I.T.C. teaching are actually presented; not even in A-level Computing are the internals of Windows even touched, and the UI differences between Windows and GNOME/KDE/etc are minimal at best. Besides, the UIs aren't even taught, instead it's all 10-20 year old theory and using basic office and design programs which exist on every platform.

        If I.T. classes were actually focused on things like WinAPI, Computer Management, or CMD, then you'd be right, but they're far less specific and sophisticated than that.
  • rebotfc, on 10/10/2007, -15/+9Its sad but the bbc has always been in the pocket of microsoft. Mostly their covereage of news issues are unbiased but in technology they always favour microsoft's stance.

  • WanderLink, on 10/10/2007, -21/+2Wow, I don't give a ***** about the BBC.
  • nytrokiss, on 10/10/2007, -9/+5So no one Use them!
    • brownb2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1And who would be the alternative supplier? It isn't ITunes you know :)
  • vikramkr, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4Oh yeah, because NO ONE has Windows right...
    • Septimus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Nobody cool who is giving it to the man!

      /from their mums basement while dressed as a Klingon.
  • donnyburnside, on 10/10/2007, -13/+6Oh stop 'hating the man', its so 1999. The BBC is a hell of a lot more than internet casting.
  • kretik, on 10/10/2007, -12/+5Wow, the users of the platform with 0.7% desktop market share sure are noisy. The "vociferous minority" headed by the people who run 'defectivebydesign.org' and 'badvista.org', purveyors of the finest FUD and DRM boogeyman lies and misrepresentations. Not content with spamming half the internet with their *****, now they are attacking the BBC for the only ***** sensible solution they could have arrived at to make their content available.

    Apparently unable come up with viable technology to enable this and offer it to the BBC as an alternative, the only course of action left is to whine and bitch in the best Stallmanist tradition.

    We are all lucky that they are fighting for "our" freedom...
    • MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3"Apparently unable come up with viable technology to enable this and offer it to the BBC as an alternative,"

      Flash.
      • kretik, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4For these people Flash is as bad as anything else because it's "propietary close-source" or whatever.
      • oepapel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Where's the DRM? In case you haven't been paying attention, it's not the Codec, it's the DRM that's the issue...
    • Septimus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Plus it's ***** at live and its taken ViewCast and On2 ***** forever to make something that does live broadcasts well.... which iPlayer on it's final release needs to do.

      The unoppressed minority are always the noisiest and whiniest.
    • Fartag, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3How widespread Linux distros are is unknown, it is free download and there aren't unit "sales" figures to back it things up. As for "vocal" you're absolutely right, when things start heading down another trap-laden path using a very similar pattern witnessed many times in the past then you'll see people that recognize it speak up about it.

      There are many possible technologies, DRM is not necessary, consider that somebody can record it in the UK and upload it illegally. How will DRM help? It could be streamed in an IP region-locked fashion or through logins and such, it could offer one of several common formats that are truly platform independent.

      Stallman has been providing many alternatives in GNU software for decades, he's probably done more for software progress than you have. And yes we're lucky they're fighting for our technological freedoms rather than allowing the freedoms to be taken by indifference or ignorance.
      • oepapel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1DRM is necessary before Internet distribution will be allowed by all the content providers.
        IP spoofing is trivial and gets around your IP region-locking.
        Password's don't work when the people with the passwords have a financial incentive to bypass the security.

        Yes, there will be those that record the live broadcast. But we already live in that world and content providers have no choice but to deal with that. What they DO have a choice in is how things are distributed on the internet.

        Idealism is great but a little pragmatism is what's needed here.
  • TotalHalibut, on 10/10/2007, -14/+4Buried for FUD, sensationalism and ignoring the actual reality. I'm glad the Ubuntards are pissed off about something else though, hopefully they'll explode, quite literally.
  • qwertylicious, on 10/10/2007, -16/+9Would you all prefer it if they screwed the majority of the public to allow the approximately 7.6% of Mac owners to access the content?

    Stories like this with such Mac biased comments make me want to log off the internet and never come back....
    • Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14So it's either something that 90% of the people can use or 10% of the people can use?

      What about something that 100% of people can use? That WOULD be the first and obvious choice..............
      • Ndric, on 10/10/2007, -5/+390% NOW or 90% LATER

        just ***** wait
      • conmulligan, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Of course, but why hold back on releasing a product useful to 90% for the sake of a multi-platform release?
      • oepapel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"What about something that 100% of people can use? That WOULD be the first and obvious choice.."

        Ok, I'll bite. What's the solution that provides 100% coverage and still protects the rights of the content providers? Oh wait, it doesn't exist.

        There are two sets of rights here. The rights of "the people" and the rights of the content providers. Both must be addressed before this will be a success.
        Let's not forget, nobody has an inalienable right to streaming digital content.
    • Kamaji, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6So, yes, the vast majority of people with a computer are Windows users of some form, but, would you rather be locked into that platform forever? or would you rather there be some choices? With more content being available to only proprietary and windows-only clients, we are all being forced to accept the windows platform, and pay the Microsoft tax.

      Sure, in some instances MS software may be more user friendly, and any one of us can choose to use whatever they wish including MS software, but, do you really want one company deciding what you can and can't do? or would you rather some choices?

      From the sounds of it, BBC intends to provide clients for MacOS X and Linux in addition to the current Windows client. Now, noone knows how fast they'll progress on this, or whether it will just be a forever goal that never gets achieved, has yet to be seen. I'd like to believe that it will get done, but I don't have high confidence of it.
      • conmulligan, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3The fact that the vast majority of people with a computer are Windows users means a corperation, even a state-owned one like the BBC, are going to target that market as soon as possible. This is in no way indicative of an agreement between BBC and Microsoft (including the Queen?!). I am sure that a version will follow for OSX and Linux, sooner rather than later.

        I actually agree with you, mostly, but you cannot realistically blame a company for releasing their product so it can affect 95% of the market, as opposed to holding back the XP version for another 3-4 months waiting for another version to finalise.
      • adc86, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Since when does the Mac version take 3-4mo longer to write? Is Win32 really that much more efficient to develop than Cocoa?
        • timestar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I think its probably not a priority for them, not because Cocoa is harder to develop for. Using Qt might have been a better decision.

          For some reason I don't have a cursor in the Digg comment box :-D Edit: Clicking edit seemed to help
    • brownb2, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4So do us all a favour. If the BBC chose right in the first place they wouldn't screw anybody, there would be no argument on who gets screwed.
  • HairyPoter, on 10/10/2007, -16/+7Micro$oft's player name is iPlayer? hahaha The assholes in Redmond cannot live a single day without ripping something from Apple... Micro$oft is the most disgusting company in the planet for all the ***** they do. I have not words to describe the sick I feel when I read about the stuff these crooks do. I hope users can open their eyes one day and switch to Mac or Linux, so these assholes will vanish or at least fade away from industry.
    • sundancekid503, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9No, the BBC's player name is the iPlayer. BBC picked the name, not Microsoft. Simmer down.
    • FredFredrickson, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9"The assholes in Redmond cannot live a single day without ripping something from Apple"
      Wow... get a clue.
    • specialdan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1iGoogle?
  • fullstop102, on 10/10/2007, -10/+12This is just a waste of an article. You could have put a better case together if you didnt take this all as a conspiracy. Do you think the queen has been brain washed by Mr. Gates? For goodness sakes they are not doing what is best for the viewer but they are trying something new and iplayer is availble to 90% of people by making it windows based. I use OSX but I am not crying.. The OSX one will be along soon and if not offically then a cool port. Wont be suprised if they come on XBMC for my old Xbox soon too!
    • Septimus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Prepare to be dugg down for being prudent and lever headed.
  • mdman, on 10/10/2007, -11/+9who cares? so they team with Microsoft.. maybe their streaming will work on most computers, rather than catering to 5% or less market share systems...
  • charlesray, on 10/10/2007, -8/+11"This is akin to saying you must own a Sony TV set to watch BBC TV."

    No it's not. It's not like 90% of all people who own a TV own a Sony. That's the situation that exists with Windows. It's a stupid move, granted, but what corporation wouldn't do it? They are reaching 90% of the market while only spending the money to develop one platform instead of two or three.
    • MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5"It's a stupid move, granted, but what corporation wouldn't do it?"

      Youtube/Google
    • MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2"It's a stupid move, granted, but what corporation wouldn't do it?"

      Youtube/Google
    • dillibob, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1i wish i could afford a sony tv.
    • Clusterduck, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0charlesray: "They are reaching 90% of the market while only spending the money to develop one platform instead of two or three."

      As opposed to being genuinely platform neutral by developing and/or using open formats and letting the community join in on the work?
      • oepapel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ok. Please tell me more about the open source DRM projects out there and their availability to handle something like what the BBC needs.

        ... I'll wait...
        • Clusterduck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Notice that I said "open format". I have no idea why you seem to think I was suggesting any kind of DRM system.

  • over9, on 10/10/2007, -6/+9and Digg is corrupted by Microsoft as well right? Why don't you just abandon digg will ya?
  • mattlee, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4http://duggmirror.com/tech_news/BBC_Corrupted_by_Microsoft_Take_back_the_BBC_Tuesday_August_14/
  • generalloy, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11DRM doesn't work. BBC doesn't use DRM in their terrestrial broadcasts. There are much better ways to use content restriction, eg., restrict via IP, password, etc
    It's MS likely giving them kickbacks for this decision.
    BTW, you know that the BBC is funded by these people who are now __unable to utitlize___ what they paid for? If they buy a TV, they have to pay a tax to the BBC.
    • abigsmurf, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4And if they don't have a freeview/digital box they can't get most BBC channels, if they don't have a Sky or Virgin media they can't get BBC HD, if they don't have DAB they can't get a number of BBC stations.

      90% of people can use this, that's pretty decent availability. I'd wager that at least 10% of people can't get a good TV signal through their Aerial.
    • oepapel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"There are much better ways to use content restriction, eg., restrict via IP, password, etc"

      This is complete nonsense. IP filtering is easily fooled by IP spoofing. And password systems don't work when those with the passwords have a financial incentive to undermine the security of the system.

      Learn something about distribution before you start criticizing those that do. DRM exists for the simple reason that other methods do not work! Is DRM foolproof? Of course not. But it is a LOT better than the alternative, speaking from the point of view of a content rights holder.
  • FredFredrickson, on 10/10/2007, -10/+17Um... why are you guys yelling about this? You can only use Windows to see programming online for the BBC? No freedom of choice? Where the hell were you when your precious iPhone came out, and they decided to strike a deal up with AT&T / Cingular for 2-3 years? Picking and choosing what you get mad about is *****, when every company engages in these practices, both loved and hated by you.
    • scooch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4People are annoyed because the BBC is paid for by a license and a lot of those license payers dont have a windows pc and so cant view the content they are paying for. They believe the BBC shouldnt be selecting a technology that is platform specific or that you have to pay to use as is the case with windows. Private companies can do what the hell they want but when managed by the government these sort of practices are frowned upon.
    • kookster, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0there is a bit of a difference between what 2 companies arrange, and when a public media organization gets in bed with a single corporation. Or do you see no distinction between public media and it's mission, and apple - which is a reasonably nice company, but doesn't owe me or the public anything.
    • neiltc13, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1FredFredrickson, iPhone is a US only product. This article is about the United Kingdom.
      • tdous, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Pedantry to detract from the original point. The reason they are yelling is because it is Microsoft. That's all. They can dress it up as anti-DRM or anti-closed source but most people here are reacting to seeing Microsoft's name in the title.
    • dillibob, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2iphone= iGive Nazis money
  • PseudoKnight, on 10/10/2007, -13/+19What's the problem? They simply decided to support the OS with the largest user base first. This is WAY overblown.
    • lougoose, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2You are obviously a Windows user. If you used a better OS, you would understand that excluding a large part of the community should be frowned upon.
      • tdous, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"large part of the community" - you missed that the point was marketshare didn't you. Not OS fanboyism, like you reply was; marketshare.
      • dillibob, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2wawawa
    • jedikv, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"If you used a better OS"

      Talk about being a retarded fanboy - here is a direct quotation from one kids
  • gogun, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1come to
    http://forums.mvgroup.org/
    for your bbc needs.
  • Ndric, on 10/10/2007, -10/+9You guys are ridiculous. I don't give a ***** about MS and I understand

    Over 90% of the marketshare are Windows. BBC just don't really give a ***** about the rest where the percentage of Windows users of their audience is maybe even HIGHER.
    • Grimboy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4So what you're saying is it's acceptable to make 5-10% of your customers pay for a product that they can't use? It's acceptable to say you'll export British programming to the rest of the world, but not let it reach the children in deprived areas with OLPCs running Free Software. The BBC aren't just another capitalist company trying to suck up as much money as they can either. The BBC is a state appointed company. You know, like public transport (the type that actually runs on time).
      • tdous, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3No, but I think it's perfectly acceptable to release to the vast majority with a delay until the already announced ports are released.
    • weeble, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Where does everyone get this 90% of computers run Windows number? I call *****. I maintain a bunch of websites on various topics and for a variety of businesses. The server logs consistently show that Windows is NOT 90% of the hits. Windows is more like 60 to 65%, with the remaining 35 to 40% spread mainly across Solaris, Linux, and Mac. Granted this is only happening recently... as in the last 6 months or so with a massive increase in Linux... hmmm now that I think of it, the bump in Linux users hitting the sites seems to correspond roughly with the Vista release.

      Anyway, point is... people keep spouting this tired old crap that Windows is 90% etc etc, and it's not true. It's a rehashed urban myth. Wake up people. Dell, HP, Toshiba, Acer etc would not be selling computers with Linux installed if there wasn't a market. Apple would not be seeing the massive market share increase they are experiencing if everyone was using Windows. The public is waking up to reality and realizing that Windows is pure unadulterated garbage that has been foisted on us by an American company who cares nothing about the consumer.

      The BBC has an obligation to it's owners.. that's the public that pay the license fee.. to provide content that works... and not content that works in one version of one operating system that is dying out.
  • reechme, on 10/10/2007, -7/+10Buried for being a rant. The story is fine, most of the comments here are people yelling about Microsoft. (But hell, that's my opinion, and Digg's an opinion site!)
  • curunculus, on 10/10/2007, -8/+8What the BBC is saying here: "Enjoy our TV shows on your Sony televisions. If you have a Samsung TV ... well youre s***t out of luck. Screw you"

    • scooch, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Precisely and it also has a big influence then on what platform people will choose. If someone goes out to buy a TV and they find out the Samsung doesnt support BBC you'd probably buy the Sony. Theyre effectively helping out the company who has the monopoly.
  • SoothSinger, on 10/10/2007, -14/+11http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/iplayer/

    Go and sign up please, This is a scandal. Hope I get a refund of my Tv Licence.
    • brownb2, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Thanks for the link - much more official and closer to home than the fsf petition.
    • neiltc13, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Paying for a TV licence does not entitle you to reception. Further, this service is over and above the scope of the licence - it's an extra service which the BBC does not have to provide but is doing so in the interests of providing a better service to customers.

      Further, had the BBC waited to launch until they had an all platforms solution then it might be years before we are arguing. I'm happy booting into Windows XP on my Mac if it means watching VOD now rather than in 2010.
  • rodgy, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12Yeah this is priceless, it's not even Vista-only, it's XP-only. So all those who use Vista, Win98, Win2k, Linux and OS X, no BBC 4U!
  • Sabot, on 10/10/2007, -16/+11The BBC is a bunch of little *****. They come out with all this ***** on how they are going to give to the community by brining out all their material in open formats. In reality they go with MS and limit it to the UK. I say it again the BBC is nothing but a bunch of little corporate ***** heads.
    • losimagic, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Limit it to the UK? Maybe that's because the BBC is publicly funded, UK residents need a license to watch TV - the fee for the license goes to the BBC
      • Sabot, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1So since I am not in the UK and they can't charge me a license, they lose nothing by letting me view their content. God forbid I may even like a show like The Office and buy the DVD set. The key is they are already paid by their UK audience. Since they are fully publicly funded is would not hurt them one bit to share with the rest of the world. They have claimed to be different, but they are just like every other media corporation.
        • richardiscool, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4But we'd have to pay for the extra bandwidth?
    • Chazx, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10***** you. Do you pay for the BBC? No. Do you watch ads shown on BBC channels? No, they don't exist, because here in the UK, WE pay the £135.50 every year for the privilege to watch BBC channels. You pay jack *****. Any BBC you see is a present from us, we're paying for it. So shut the ***** up and stop whining.
      • BeatPoet, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Great comment. It managed to articulate most of the anger I'd stoked up by this point in the thread. Thanks for saving me having to write it myself.
      • jedikv, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1As a fellow License payer - I can stand behind that I guess
      • Sabot, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Your the one that is being *****. You pay 135.50 and you can't even view the ***** they are making for you on-line unless you shell out another 100 to Microsoft. You have to pay Americans to view your own *****. Now that is ***** stupid.
      • simonox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Yes, it's true. It does not make sense to pay M$ to watch something you have already paid. 135 bucks should be enough. Set your content free. You paid for it ;-)
      • smacksaw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1***** yourself. I do pay for the BBC. It costs me $2.50 a month for BBC America and another $2.50 for BBC Kids (so I can see Top of the ***** Pops).

        Considering you've already paid for it, the fact I am being charged for it means I have just as much, if not MORE say in it.

        No one in the rest of the world gets it free. Pull your head out of your ass. You get 10 TV channels (OTA and digital) plus 5 radio just in the UK. That is a lot of programming, not to mention the news/internet you get for your pound.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 105 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.