Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

BBC Launches APIs

Posted by CmdrTaco on Thu May 12, 2005 03:43 PM
from the unleash-an-avalanche-of-applications dept.
The Internet The Media
Stefan Magdalinski writes "The BBC is opening up a slew of APIs to its content and applications via a new site, backstage.bbc.co.uk, and actively encouraging users to remix, mashup, and otherwise play with their content to create new applications. Already there's a few cool featured apps, my own BBC News wikipedizing proxy, and a del.icio.us-enabled version of BBC News "Use our stuff to create your stuff" is their slogan. Could a commercial broadcaster ever take a step like this?"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

BBC Launches APIs 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Missing Link (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fembots (753724) on Thursday May 12 2005, @03:44PM (#12513323) Homepage
    1. Use our stuff to create your stuff
    2. ???
    3. Profit!!!!

    Terms & Conditions:

    4. The BBC may edit, amend or change the BBC Content that appears on the backstage.bbc.co.uk site at any time at its discretion. The BBC also reserves the right to modify or discontinue the backstage.bbc.co.uk site at any time.
    • not free as in free beer? what is the world coming to?

    • Define profit (Score:5, Insightful)

      by grahamsz (150076) on Thursday May 12 2005, @03:49PM (#12513370) Homepage Journal
      Hopefully for the bbc profit = "wide distribution of knowledge", not that traditional profit = "massive bonuses for executives"
      • for the bbc profit = "wide distribution of knowledge"
        Knowledge or what UK government thinks is knowledge? The real question is, are UK's taxpayers (owners of BBC) benefitting from this?

    • Re:Missing Link (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I'm an American, so correct me if I'm wrong, but i thought that the BBC is government funded and is not looking for step three.

      • Re:Missing Link (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Not quite. The BBC has the right to charge a "licence fee" on all households with a TV set. It works the same way as a tax, but it doesn't flow through the Government.

        Still, the main goal in the BBC Charter is to distribute information rather than to make money, so Step 3 still doesn't apply.

        • Re:Missing Link (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Capsaicin (412918) on Thursday May 12 2005, @08:04PM (#12515230)

          If they were government funded there wouldn't have been all the fuss over BBC vs Government during the whole Iraq thing.

          Not so. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is funded from consolidated revenue, and they still had a spat with the government apropos Iraq (though not as big a spat was the BBC did).

          Their independence results instead, it from the fact that each of these broadcasters is formally an independent corporation. Of course the question of funding, whether out of consolidated revenue or via a licensing 'fee,' given governments some leverage over these organisations. Additionally, at least in the case of the ABC, appointments to the board (as with judges to the bench) are made by government. In Australia at least, the government, as a matter of convention and honour, has tradtionally resisted making overtly politcal appointments or using funding cuts as a punishment for criticism. Unfortunately given the international Retreat of Democracy this seems no longer to be the case.

    • Re:Missing Link (Score:4, Insightful)

      by NeedleSurfer (768029) on Thursday May 12 2005, @04:27PM (#12513718)
      And the problem is? What is wrong with them wanting control over their content and content distribution system? All they are saying is play with it but so will we. They don't make a site so you shamelessly copy them to profit or get eyeballs at your own site, it's even surprising (in a good way) that they actually let you play with their apps and give away their intellectual property that freely, all they want in return is the possibility for themselves to also play with it regardless of what you have done with it...

      Some people are never happy...

    • Re:Missing Link (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Skevin (16048) on Thursday May 12 2005, @05:17PM (#12514096) Journal
      > and a del.icio.us-enabled version of BBC News

      Now, what's to prevent script kiddies, or heaven forbid, more knowledgeable malware writers, from coming up with new means to zombify your computer to add to the growing pool of spam gateways, ddos relays, or simply an all out porn repository?

      I propose the domain, mal.icio.us for exactly such acitivities.

      Solomon Chang

  • Universal Streamer (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geomon (78680) on Thursday May 12 2005, @03:46PM (#12513338) Homepage Journal
    So what is the possibility that we could be converging on a universal streaming client? I know Microsoft and Real would like to see their systems become the ligua franca of streaming video, but the BBC has the advantage of a huge library of content.

    Will content trump market penetration?
    • Will content trump market penetration?

      I think that is the case with all information related products and services. There is a saying - "content is the king" and for very good reason. A good example could be Xbox vs Playstation earlier on. Most people were not eager to jump on Xbox bandwagon util they saw games like Halo, Doom start rolling out. So I think it is safe to say that content will determine market penetration.

      • Yeah, that and this current announcement were what I was alluding to.

        If this codec gets wide enough use in Europe, it could make Microsoft and Real take a more open approach to their codecs.

        I know Real has already made some moves and they are to congratulated. But something that would make video streaming available across all platforms seems like a long way off.

  • wait, hold up, what? (Score:5, Funny)

    by TheHonestTruth (759975) on Thursday May 12 2005, @03:48PM (#12513357) Journal
    I'm confused... it sounds like someone is actually encouraging people to share information. I'll need to read that again. Hold on...

    -truth

  • Would this ever happen without the licence fee? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jolyonr (560227) on Thursday May 12 2005, @03:48PM (#12513361) Homepage
    Sure, some people may bitch about having to pay a TV licence fee, but would this kind of thing ever happen if all broadcasters were only in the game for a profit?

    Jolyon
    • I'm so disgusted with what passes for programming on the American TV networks that I'd be more than happy to pay the British TV license fee if it'd get me all the BBC content.

      Yeah, I'm sure the founding fathers are turning over in their graves at the idea of an American volunteering to pay a British tax, but then the founding fathers would understand if they had to watch the WB...
        • Yes, cable gives you more choice, but speaking as a British ex-pat, BBC America != "the BBC channels". For one thing much of the content on BBC America isn't even produced by the BBC (they license material from other British networks like ITV and Channel 4), and for another most of the good stuff is either completely absent or very delayed.
        • BBC America isn't the same as it's UK cousins. It's a fully commercial network, not funded by any license fee. They're run by BBC Worldwide, which is the commercial arm of the BBC, and have to purchase the rights to any and all programming they air, just like any other American network. They also have commercials, which makes for slightly strange programming blocks, IMO.

    • Re:Would this ever happen without the licence fee? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by soliptic (665417) on Thursday May 12 2005, @04:39PM (#12513821) Journal
      Exactly.

      I barely watch TV at all, but I'm happy to pay the TV license to fund the BBC. For all the (naive) /. belief in the "free market", and sniggering about the silly "socialist" "tax" on TV in the UK, I seriously challenge anyone to convince me that the BBC would do as much cool stuff as it does if it had to be fully commercial. Want proof? Look at ITV and Channel 5. Terrible. The BBC is bad enough due to even having to compete in the commercial marketplace - daytime/primetime schedules on BBC1 and BBC2 TV have been dragged down into the same wall-to-wall "reality TV" / soap-opera shite and are barely better than the garbage on the commercial stations. But even if the TV gems like Alan Partridge and The Office dry up, at least they still do stuff like amazing David Attenborough documentaries, a fantastic online resource, some truly great stuff on their radio, developing free (Free?) codecs. I don't think any of that would happen, at least not to the same extent, if they were "just another commercial TV station".

        • But at least the commercial broadcasters don't steal money from people who don't watch their shows in order to make them. If you don't like it, you don't have to watch. If you're British and you don't like the BBC you don't have to watch that either - but you DO have to pay for it.
            • Meh.. Am I forced to buy the products advertised on the TV shows I watch? Do they come to my house and charge me with a crime if I don't?

              Saying the TV license is a pretty good deal implies that you have a choice whether to pay it or not. It's fundamentally anti-freedom to be FORCED, by LAW to pay for programming that you don't even watch just because you own a TV.

              No one else sees this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills... :) If Microsoft was a government controlled entity and every computer owner ha
                • Companies advertise on TV to sell more products. The more products they sell, the less they have to make per product due to economies of scale. I could argue that products being advertised on TV actually effectively lower prices overall.

                  But you want to say they're slightly higher, and you compare this to a government imposed tax that no one has a choice not to pay because you personally feel that the tax is a good deal for you, since you happen to like what the government does with the money they take fr

  • Where's the Monty Pythonizer? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Cr0w T. Trollbot (848674) on Thursday May 12 2005, @03:54PM (#12513412)
    I want an API that turns any webpage into a Monty Python sketch!

    Customer: Excuse me, I would like to complain about this Windows Security Update what I downloaded just yesterday.
    Shopkeeper: Oh yes, a great Windows Update! Beautiful plummage.
    Customer: The plummage don't enter into it! The problem is that this Windows Security Update is dead.
    Shopkeeper: No, it's just resting! It will hop up any minute and dance around destroying viruses.
    Customer: This Windows Security Update would not dance around even if Linus Torvalds himself gave it CPR!

    Crow T. Trollbot

  • Further Proof... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eno2001 (527078) on Thursday May 12 2005, @03:54PM (#12513427) Homepage Journal
    ...that the Beeb has got it right. In the media business, the focus should be on content generation and the flexibility of form in media. Who cares about market share or sales or ratings, when you are truly focused on creating content and sparking creativity amongst the viewers/readers/listeners, etc... This is why the quality of everything the BBC produces is of the highest caliber. The closest thing we have here in the states is the poorly underfunded PBS and NPR networks. The day that the Republicans decided to rip away government funding from PBS was a dark day indeed and we're still paying for it in every sense of the word. Discovery and TLC don't even come close to what PBS used to be able to offer when it got better governement funding. Kudos to the BBC for showing the rest of the world how good it could be.
      • Actually, the poor funding of NPR is only part of the problem. The Republicans have packed the board of directors with partisans and are actively interfering in programming decisions. I expect that the PBS will soon be "fair and balanced" just like Fox News.
        • As an actual employee of PBS, I can say that there might be one or two Republicans floating around here. Just about everyone here is a Democrat or otherwise anti-Republican.
      • We wont be off air, although I'd expect the daily news (breakfast 1/6/10) to simulcast with News24 for the affected days, and radio 5 to have more phone ins and 4 to have more pre-recorded shows. There's enough non-unionised engineering effort (like myself) to cover.

        Long term however, the biggest problem I see is the R&D move to Manchester. They'll lose a lot of R&D engineers, which would be bad, maybe even fatal for the department. TBH the BBC could pay Murdoch for a studio and aupport to run a ne

  • PBS next? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Colonel Panic (15235) on Thursday May 12 2005, @03:59PM (#12513468)
    Could a commercial broadcaster ever take a step like this?

    Not likely, but what about PBS doing something similar to what the Beeb is doing? There are other non-commecial broadcasting entities around the world which could do similar things.

  • Extract from the Api (Score:5, Funny)

    by Zangief (461457) on Thursday May 12 2005, @04:00PM (#12513473) Homepage Journal
    Stream getMovie(char* movieName)

    getMovie returns a stream of data, if a movie called movieName exists, null otherwise.

    Stream getAd()

    getAd must be called before every call to getMovie. Otherwise, your computer explodes.

    From time to time, a call to getMovie is forwarded to a call to getAd.
  • This is cool. If enough people use this to create cool stuff, and it generates enough publicity, maybe more companies will follow. If not, Grease monkey [mozdev.org] will let us most of this, but not as easily.

  • Automatic slashdot stories (Score:4, Funny)

    by ganhawk (703420) on Thursday May 12 2005, @04:04PM (#12513514)
    We should use the API's to generate automatic stories on slashdot.
    Ofcourse, generated stories will be rejected if it does not contain certain keywords or dupes. So I propose combining this with Slashdot random story generator [bbspot.com]

  • Hmm (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pHatidic (163975) on Thursday May 12 2005, @04:05PM (#12513524) Homepage
    BBC News wikipedizing proxy

    Doesn't this violate wikipedia's trademark?

    • Re:Hmm (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gstoddart (321705)
      BBC News wikipedizing proxy

      Doesn't this violate wikipedia's trademark?

      Well, wiki seems to becoming a verb like google at this rate.

      I see so many wiki-ish links all over the place nowadays it's hard to tell which are actually using wiki, and which are just wiki-like.

  • Coding style... (Score:4, Funny)

    by creimer (824291) on Thursday May 12 2005, @04:09PM (#12513558) Homepage
    Does this mean that we will have to program in proper English with a stiff upper lip? Will we get a compiler error if we use American slang and/or spelling? As long as we don't have to program in Esperanto...

  • Oh the irony... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I do like the comments attached to wikiproxy stating that it underlines links because links are meant to be underlined.

    It's all well and good being standing up for these sorts of things, just so long as you adhere to those standards too.

    Checking out the authors' website shows an abundance of links that are not underlined. Ah, the irony.

    Kicking the BBC is too easy - you really don't come across as all that revolutionary by laughing and pointing at the mistakes they make. So let's give a huge *well done* t
  • There have been stories for a while that the BBC are putting all of their stuff online for download (for a price of course). Anyone heard any news on how that is progressing?

  • OGG/Vorbus (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hey (83763) on Thursday May 12 2005, @04:23PM (#12513686) Journal
    Are they using OGG or their own codec?
    (I recall stories about them developing one)
  • I've always found the BBC sexy. I used to think it was the accent, but I know I know it's a deeper love.

  • Want to grab a market (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Colin Smith (2679) on Thursday May 12 2005, @04:28PM (#12513725)
    Be promiscuous. Looks like they're basically planning to take over the news world.

  • Commercial problems... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nordicfrost (118437) on Thursday May 12 2005, @05:01PM (#12513990)
    Could a commercial broadcaster ever take a step like this?"

    As one who work in a commercial news website; nope. We offer simple feeds to private non-commercial sites that wants to have out 10 latest news headlines. But other than that, it would be like handing out gold over to the competition. Besies, we want people to visit our site. Not get all the goodies on other sites.

    Now, a state-run actor can do this, because their mraginal loss is approx. zero. We have a state rune broadcaster in Norway and they SUCK. I hate them with a passion, because thei charge the license fee and give us crap back. If there was an option to pay to the BBC and only get BBC programming to my TV, I'd do it in a heartbeat. NRK (the state broadcaster) has so much crap, I don't have the concistence to pay for it. So I don't have a TV.

    BBC is cool. they plan to make most of their archives available for the public free. Here we have out of copyright works DRMed in Windows Media DRM and published for a fee by the film board. How retarded is that? Do you want to see a clip from your state broadcaster produced comedy show that YOU financed through license fees? Cough up 5 dollars pr 1/2 hour, scumbag, and take this Media Player DRMed file.

    God, I hate them. No wonder they fail misreably in the internet sector, even while having the HUGE advantage f bein a state broadcaster.

  • Appreciation of the BBC (Score:3, Interesting)

    by HomeworkJunkie (877015) on Thursday May 12 2005, @05:41PM (#12514253)
    It's only when I see comments on Slashdot (this shows the extent of my reading) that I come to appreciate what the BBC does and what my licence fee pays for. I have always been moaning about being forced to watch EastEnders by my wife, which is a realistic a portrayal of London as Friends is of New York.

    We do get a lot of American programs here and you start to think that the grass is greener. Then you actually watch an American channel and realise that most of the 40 minute program is made up of adverts. I was amazed the first time I saw an American channel. The titles started and then we went straight into an advert break. What!!. Talk about teasing you. You then watch 10 minutes of the actual program, which isn't bad, then you get the next ad break. You finally watch the last part of the program, which doesn't end with the titles but with another ad break. The titles then come after the ad break!?!

    Any hoo. The BBC website is always my first port of call for news, sport etc...; after Slashdot of course ;)

  • Collaborative Tagging (Score:4, Funny)

    by delete (514365) on Thursday May 12 2005, @06:11PM (#12514436)
    Interestingly enough, as part of the BBC's new service, they've provided a tagging system (associated with delicious [del.icio.us]).

    For example, the tags for Malcolm Glazer's takeover of Manchester United football club [headshift.com] are currently given as:
    "utd wanker wanker asshat asshat utd beard"

    It's actually a great idea, but perhaps a little more tweaking may be in order.

    • Parent is troll (Score:4, Funny)

      by rokzy (687636) on Thursday May 12 2005, @05:20PM (#12514115)
      you don't need a license if you don't watch TV. even if you have a TV but only use it for watching videos you're fine.

      plus it's not just a TV license, it's for radio too.

      plus if you were really an "English man" you'd probably realise that it's one word.

    • Re:*Free* (Score:3, Interesting)

      by frostw (739485)
      Mate, move to Australia and suffer the piss poor excuse they have for TV and radio here. You'd never moan again. I did, and I would willingly sell my first born to be able to access BBC content again

    • Re:*Free* (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Oxygen99 (634999) on Thursday May 12 2005, @05:41PM (#12514252)
      Oh do be quiet troll.

      The BBC license fee is one of the best investments you'll ever make. Where else can you be ensured of an impartial independent information channel with consistently high quality output imparted through channels so diverse you probably haven't heard of half of them. I'm sure you'll be ecstatic when the entire gamut of television in the United Kingdom runs from the Celebrity Wrestling to Footballer's Wives. Personally I'd prefer to keep programs such as the Power of Nightmares [bbc.co.uk] and The Office [bbc.co.uk] while supporting high quality radio and fantastic web services. All for £10, or $20 a month.

      People like you amaze me.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.