Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet The Media

BBC's iPlayer To Be Crossplatform 232

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the coming-around dept.
craig1709 writes "10 Downing Street has responded to the petition to open up iPlayer access for those on other operating systems. While the wording is confusing, near as I can tell, they say they will make the iPlayer available to users of those operating systems. 'The BBC Trust made it a condition of approval for the BBC's on-demand services that the iPlayer is available to users of a range of operating systems, and has given a commitment that it will ensure that the BBC meets this demand as soon as possible. They will measure the BBC's progress on this every six months and publish the findings.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BBC's iPlayer To Be Crossplatform

Comments Filter:
  • Platforms (Score:5, Funny)

    by Hwatzu (89518) on Friday September 07, 2007 @12:50AM (#20503729)
    Of course it'll be multiplatform. Why, you can run it on XP *and* Vista!
    • Sadly this joke has a lot of truth in it. From http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayerbeta/ [bbc.co.uk]

      Timelines for other platforms

      There will be a Vista version of BBC iPlayer available this year. We are actively working on Mac and cross platform support.

      It shows where their priority is

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by lukas84 (912874)
        You think it's wrong to support the current version of the most popular operating system first?

        Give me one good reason why Vista *shouldnt* be their top priority.
        • by FireFury03 (653718) <slashdot@nex[ ]k.org ['usu' in gap]> on Friday September 07, 2007 @04:46AM (#20504919) Homepage
          You think it's wrong to support the current version of the most popular operating system first?

          I think it's wrong to use a propriatory format. If they used an open format for the system, producing a "iplayer" application for each OS wouldn't be important.
        • by 1u3hr (530656) on Friday September 07, 2007 @05:48AM (#20505199)
          You think it's wrong to support the current version of the most popular operating system first?

          I think it's wrong to use a format that is integrated into the "most popular operating system" and can't easily (and possibly not legally) be used on anything else.

        • by NickFortune (613926) on Friday September 07, 2007 @06:39AM (#20505417) Homepage Journal

          You think it's wrong to support the current version of the most popular operating system first?

          And here I was thinking that Vista was a whole new operating system. I'm sure that's what the nice people at Redmond have been saying.

          I can understand them wanting to support XP first, certainly. Describing Vista as "popular" however would seem to be a bit of a stretch. You might just about get away with "probably going to become widely deployed OS, someday". Not exactly a reason to prioritise support however.

          Especially seeing as - as has been pointed out elsewhere, if they'd used an open format the problem would not have arisen. It's a bit like cutting off a fellow's leg, and then telling him there are people ahead of him in the queue for prosthetic limbs.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Winckle (870180)
          Mac OS X is more popular than Vista.
          • by Ilgaz (86384) *

            Mac OS X is more popular than Vista.
            It could be or it could be not but lets not forget the "iTunes music store" became success while it was Macintosh/PPC only. So, the Mac community pays for content. I am assuming they don't pay as much as MS Wmedia Team pays ;)

            • by Winckle (870180) <[ku.oc.elkcniw] [ta] [kram]> on Friday September 07, 2007 @06:54AM (#20505509) Homepage
              Perhaps, but the BBC content is free. The DRM exists just to expire the content. Not tat it works, I just crack it with fairuse4wm.
              • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

                by suv4x4 (956391)
                Perhaps, but the BBC content is free. The DRM exists just to expire the content. Not tat it works, I just crack it with fairuse4wm.

                Makes me wonder, why aren't they simply using Silverlight. Supports WMV, WVM's DRM, and is multiplatform (Silverlight on Windows/Mac and 100% compatible Moonlight on Linux).
                • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

                  by Ilgaz (86384) *

                  Perhaps, but the BBC content is free. The DRM exists just to expire the content. Not tat it works, I just crack it with fairuse4wm.

                  Makes me wonder, why aren't they simply using Silverlight. Supports WMV, WVM's DRM, and is multiplatform (Silverlight on Windows/Mac and 100% compatible Moonlight on Linux).

                  Adobe products are multi platform, Silverlight/Moonlight is not. Can you create content on Linux/OS X? Just a bribed Novell coded plugin doesn't make difference.

                  Also there is no guarantee that Silverlight 2 (embraced and extended!) with having some real important functions will be released as "Moonlight 2". Where is Mono supporting .NET 2.x ?

                  They can use _any_ DRM of their choice as long as it is true multiplatform, Real comes to mind, even Quicktime DRM is possible. What should be done is stick with true

                • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                  by JimDaGeek (983925)
                  The Linux Moonlight is not there yet. It is and will always be behind Spotlight because MS controls the specs and Mono/Novell have no input in the development process for Spotlight. Also, DRM encrusted WMV will not work in Moonlight.

                  It is a shame really. Spotlight could be cool, however as usual, all other OSs are being treated as second-class citizens. I don't know why people keep buying into the MS PR stuff about anything from MS being cross-platform. I think people would have learned/learnt alrea
        • by Ash Vince (602485)

          Give me one good reason why Vista *shouldnt* be their top priority.
          How about the lack of uptake? Nobody is buying Vista. Where I work we provide a web based solution to various large and small corporate clients. None of them are on Vista yet.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Phil John (576633)

        The problem is that Kontiki (the platform forced upon the BBC as the only off-the-shelf system available that handled all the drm and p2p side of things) only runs on Windows (and evidently the version the beeb uses only works on XP). The BBC are beholden to them wrt other platforms.

        I suspect some of the bright people at BBC research are working on their own system for the other platforms (maybe even to replace kontiki). It really wouldn't be an insurmountable problem (it's not as if Kontiki is Rocket Sci

        • And then it'll all be cracked in a couple of days (well, it probably will already have been cracked if they use existing DRM tech) and have been a complete and utter waste of fscking money?
        • by rikkus-x (526844)
          Or just drop the DRM, use a codec that's supported cross-platform, install a BitTorrent tracker and stick links to torrents on the website. No 'iPlayer' needed. Job done. Seriously, I'm paying for this. I think that's how it should be done. If 'content providers' don't like the lack of DRM, stop using them. Don't tell me that I won't be able to watch SomeGreatProgramme. Make your own programmes. Shocking idea, I know.

        • by Serious Callers Only (1022605) on Friday September 07, 2007 @08:48AM (#20506315)

          The problem is that Kontiki (the platform forced upon the BBC as the only off-the-shelf system available that handled all the drm and p2p side of things) only runs on Windows (and evidently the version the beeb uses only works on XP). The BBC are beholden to them wrt other platforms.
          I suspect some of the bright people at BBC research are working on their own system for the other platforms (maybe even to replace kontiki). It really wouldn't be an insurmountable problem (it's not as if Kontiki is Rocket Science - it's a p2p distribution platform that leverages Windows Media DRM), build in a bittorrent client, maybe license FairPlay for the Macs and look into developing some sort of close-source playback system for Linux and they're onto a winner. They could then sell it to the other media companies who want to offer a cross-platform content-delivery system.


          As some other posters have pointed out, this entire debate is framed incorrectly - they're asking the wrong questions.

          NEWSFLASH to the BBC from the world
          • We don't want to have to wonder which of our devices will play this content because the BBC deigns to produce a player.
          • We don't want the Internet to turn into the TV - time-limited, time-shifted, restricted content that is controlled by someone else.
          • We don't want files that expire, ever.
          • We don't want Kontiki, PlaysForSure, FairPlay etc.
          • We don't want yet another bittorrent client that chews up our bandwidth whenever it's open.
          • We don't want iPlayer; we want your content available on the internet, worldwide. If it's good, people might even pay for it.


          The BBC shouldn't be trying to make the Internet into broadcast television, but turning from broadcast television and using the Internet to distribute, via the channels already available - (XBox, unbox, iTMS, YouTube etc). The future for the BBC is not in broadcasting, but in content production. Unfortunately the BBC Trust has no fucking idea about the internet, and the BBC is not enlightening them. Why not? The BBC doesn't even depend on advertising, this should be a perfect situation for them to lead the way. Instead they're leading everyone in precisely the wrong direction, egged on by the Trust.

          People would gladly pay for these shows in the right format. If you don't have the licensing rights to sell online, get them; you seem to manage to for DVDs.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by JimDaGeek (983925)

            We don't want iPlayer; we want your content available on the internet, worldwide. If it's good, people might even pay for it.

            Well, people already paid for the content through forced taxation. Why should they have to pay again or have the content that they paid for be locked up?

            Seriously, it is not like the BBC is a private company that is making content on their own dime. If that was the case, then people could complain but wouldn't have much of a case since they didn't pay for the content. As it is

      • by iapetus (24050)
        Their priority seems to be in the easy win? Or are you suggesting that the amount of work involved in creating a Mac or Linux version is less than creating a Vista version (when the existing XP-friendly version can be 'persuaded' to run under Vista as it is...)
      • by Ilgaz (86384) *

        Sadly this joke has a lot of truth in it. From http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayerbeta/ [bbc.co.uk]

        Timelines for other platforms

        There will be a Vista version of BBC iPlayer available this year. We are actively working on Mac and cross platform support.

        It shows where their priority is

        Cider I say... Yes, they will ship a x86 Cider (commercial WINE) thing which still uses MS Wmedia and its DRM. Only difference is, it will be named .app or .i386 and claim to be multiplatform.

        It will be easy to figure out, just watch OS X version, if it releases as "Intel only" , it is WINE :)

        Happy prisoning yourself to non standard formats while even Real networks moved to Mpeg 4 on high bandwidth BBC guys!

  • Every six months? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by nacturation (646836)
    Wouldn't every six weeks be more appropriate? How long does it take to make a player cross-platform?
     
    • by QuantumG (50515) <qg@biodome.org> on Friday September 07, 2007 @12:57AM (#20503785) Homepage Journal
      You're kidding right?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Fizzl (209397)
        Flamebait? What the fuck?

        These kids at /. just have no clue how true pofessionals work.
        On the first 6 month reporting time I would ask for extra two weeks to prepare my report!
      • You're kidding right?

        We're no longer in the days when people develop their own codecs and players from scratch. Start with any number of open source programs that are already cross-platform and tailor it to suit their needs. VLC, for example, already runs on Windows, OS X, BeOS, all kinds of Linux, WinCE, all kinds of BSD, Solaris, QNX, etc. Perhaps they also need some kind of server component, but they could standardize on the server platform as that doesn't need to be cross-platform. How long would the modifications take

    • by RuBLed (995686) on Friday September 07, 2007 @01:53AM (#20504097)
      Here's how it works:

      Month 1

      Week 1: Debate which OS/Distro to develop on.
      Week 2: Submit recommendations/analysis to superiors.
      Week 3: Wait
      Week 4: Submission was going to be revised. Resubmit. Hope that it is okay this time.

      Month 2

      Week 1: Accepted. Determine the priority of the modules to port.
      Week 2: Make new test scenarios with regards to the target environment.
      Week 3: Buy development pc/server, install the target OS/distro. set it up.
      Week 4: Manager decides to do team building at the beach.

      Month 3

      Week 1: Start to port the code to the new environment.
      Week 2: same as Week 1
      Week 3: Employees all got common cold.
      Week 4: Coding Finished.

      Month 4

      Week 1: Run Tests and modify code as necessary.
      Week 2: Continue testing and make initial builds.
      Week 3: Install initail build on test server and demo it.
      Week 4: Continue the iterations until an acceptable build was made.

      Month 5

      Week 1: Had the QA run the build on their tests.
      Week 2: QA tests the build and determines if the video would no longer play after a few weeks.
      Week 3: QA waiting for the two week expiration of video. CEO resigns.
      Week 4: QA test completed, bugs logged, dev goes into cramming.

      Month 6

      Week 1: QA runs tests as necessary.
      Week 2: Management determines product is good even with active bugs.
      Week 3: Marketing announces the launch date of the product.
      Week 4: Dev copies the exe from his bin...

      Month 7 ...
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Insane_Homer (961013)
      Rather simply the platyer is tied to MS. At the moment the DRM is Microsoft and the player only works with Internet Explorer so cross platform is going to require a complete overhaul and re-write. To be honest I registered, downloaded and try to use and it was a process I care not to go through again. the hoops you are made to jump through make no sense at all. After about a 48 hour turn around from registering, downloading and installing the application. the 1st and only pro gramme I downloaded was 220MB
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bateleur (814657)
        that's what I come to expect that at the end of the day is government driven

        The UK government certainly are absolutely awful where IT projects are concerned, but in this case it's not really fair to blame them since the BBC is autonomous in this respect.
    • by Ilgaz (86384) *

      Wouldn't every six weeks be more appropriate? How long does it take to make a player cross-platform?

      It will take a LOT since they didn't choose a true multiplatform server/client structure such as Real, Quicktime at first hand.

      If I was a British citizen and paying to BBC, I would ask a full govt. investigation for this "iPlayer" scandal. In fact, doesn't UK have respected IT media to dig this?

      If you hate Real, Quicktime is there. I am sure Apple wouldn't miss the chance to ship Quicktime framework for Linux using this as excuse. Both Real and Quicktime are MPEG standard based products these days, there i

  • by ktappe (747125) on Friday September 07, 2007 @01:03AM (#20503817)
    With only measurement and not enforcement being dictated, one might expect the chronology of events to go something like:


    [John Cleese mode=on]

    6 months: "Not done yet? Carry on."

    12 months: "Still not cross platform? Jolly good."

    18 months: "What, no Linux so far? You chaps are putting on a fine show."

    And so on

    • by dwater (72834) on Friday September 07, 2007 @01:15AM (#20503879)
      you forgot to turn your cleese mode off.
      • by owlnation (858981)
        Bet his walk's been silly for hours...
  • BULLSHIT (Score:5, Informative)

    by Quietlife2k (612005) on Friday September 07, 2007 @01:08AM (#20503839) Journal
    If you read the article and related items you will fin that this is NOT NEWS. The prime minster has simply said that it is already being taken care of by the BBC TRUST and that the UK government need take NO ACTION. "They will measure the BBC's progress on this every six months and publish the findings." They being the BBC TRUST not the government. AND it a REVIEW not a "in 6 months we will have a cross platform player", its a promise to look to see if anything has been done - no word on any actions that can be taken to force the production of any such player in the likely event of it's non-existence. In short : Convicted Fellon (Microsoft) 1 : License Payers 0 Disclaimer I'm from the UK and this really hacks me off.
    • by dwater (72834)
      right. just what you said. the only news is that they (the uk gov.) said they (the UK gov.) aren't going to do anything.
    • by jkrise (535370) on Friday September 07, 2007 @03:35AM (#20504569) Journal
      Let's see a bit more of the quoted response:
      The BBC Trust made it a condition of approval for the BBC's on-demand services that the iPlayer is available to users of a range of operating systems, and has given a commitment that it will ensure that the BBC meets this demand as soon as possible. They will measure the BBC's progress on this every six months and publish the findings....

      So, if the BBC Trust's conditions have not been met by the BBC, why is this service being allowed to operate at all? There is no need to measure 'progress' on a commitment; it is just a YES or a NO.

      What if only a few distros that accept DRM in the form of proprietary drivers from some select video cards.. are able to participate in this new thingy? Will that be measured as 'available on Linux'?

      It's sad to see the BBC disobeying the BBC Trust, and getting away with this nonsense. While we get to read such nice articles on... yes, the same BBC!!
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6325353.stm [bbc.co.uk]

      The freedoms built in to the net are under attack like never before, argues regular columnist Bill Thompson. ...

      While Bill Thompson was talking about Windows Vista, he might have as well been referring to his own employer, the BBC. Sad state of affairs, really.
      • by AmiMoJo (196126)
        I agree that the player should not have been launched yet, but for a different reason. The BBC has made is virtually impossible to port to Linux because the DRM is based on Windows Media.

        How is the BBC going to port Windows Media to Linux, and more specifically non-x86 platforms? Worse still, how will they decide which platforms get ports? How about AmigaOS, or RiscOS? *BSD? AppleTV? Cowon A2?

        What I can't understand is why DRM is required at all, when broadcast TV has no DRM and can be freely recorded and s
    • by ednopantz (467288)
      The UK Prime Minister has absolutely nothing better to do than worry about cross platform support for streamed BBC TV shows?
  • I have searched the BBC Trust Website for any evidence of a change of heart, and found none.

    This is exactly the same response they gave in the original approval for the iPlayer service.

    Full text of the decision from April this year can be found here [bbc.co.uk]. From this document:

    ..In response to a submission from the BBC Executive, we are dropping our two-year deadline for achieving platform neutrality on seven-day catch-up TV and will instead audit the Executive's progress every six months.

  • ... framework. There are a variety available, which share the property that one need only write one set of cross-platform sources, that can be compiled native to any of the supported platforms and linked with the library.

    Besides the more well-known wxWidgets and Qt, there is also ZooLib [zoolib.org], which is written in C++ and has the MIT license.

    I've been a ZooLib developer for seven years, and think it's the best thing since sliced bread. I'm using it to build Ogg Frog [oggfrog.com], a Free (GPL) audio application. One reas

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by DrXym (126579)
      Java would make more sense as a cross-platform framework. Implement some kind of listings / bittorrent application in Java that allows the user to download files to any platform. Something akin to Azureus but with listings. Java can easily invoke native code for playback if it has to.

      The tough part is the DRM and frankly I think they should forget about it, or at least loosen it up so it's not so evil. Let's face it, the majority of people just want to watch the shows on the computer or their other device

      • There's also problems with Java apps not being compatible with certain runtimes, despite the "write once, run anywhere" claim.

        A minimal java app plus runtime download is tens of megabytes. A minimal zoolib download, which requires no runtime, is a half meg or so, and, once most of ZooLib's codebase is linked in, grows very slowly as new functionality is added to the app.

    • There's only one way I can make sense of this entire debacle: there was never any real intention to make it cross platform.

      Let's see:

      1. The "requirement" that it be cross-platform is 2 years, replaced with a 6-monthly audit. Come on, this is a media player FFS. And it's not as if it will have to play 101 different types of media. The problem is reasonably well understood - using cross platform libraries a rough beta could probably be thrashed out inside 2-3 months.

      2. The initial beta on the BBCs websit
  • by The Master Control P (655590) <<ejkeever> <at> <nerdshack.com>> on Friday September 07, 2007 @01:58AM (#20504127)
    Why this this cross-platformness farce even exist? Just use an open standard/codec - boom, problem solved, noone is forcibly excluded. Or even use something like Flash video. Hell, it's not like there's any shortage of audio/video formats to choose from which run on multiple platforms and architectures.

    If I were to look, would I be likely to discover the involvement of a certain company known for pushing closed, incompatible data formats centered on it's closed operating system?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      The BBC isn't the rights holder to most of the stuff it broadcasts, so it isn't really up to them.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by FireFury03 (653718)
        The BBC isn't the rights holder to most of the stuff it broadcasts, so it isn't really up to them.

        Sure it's up to them - they negotiate the distribution rights when they negotiate the contracts with the content producers. They already negotiate for un-DRM'd PAL distribution in the UK, un-DRM'd DVB-S distribution in the UK, un-DRM'd DVB-T distribution in the UK and un-DRM'd DVB-C distribution in the UK. Why can't they negotiate for un-DRM'd IP distribution in the UK too?

        Also, they are insisting on DRMing a
    • by evilandi (2800)
      Hear, hear - mod parent up.

      The BBC doesn't manufacture televisions or write software for digital radios. It just picks a standard that any manufacturer can use, and leaves the rest to the market. Quite why it should be involved in writing software for domestic computers is totally beyond my comprehension.

      All they need do is to pick from one of the squillions of codecs already available, or at worst define their own, and the job is done. If they need to restrict content by geography, there is a wealth of geo
  • Open source (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tsa (15680) on Friday September 07, 2007 @01:59AM (#20504135) Homepage
    I guess since the software AND the content it plays are paid with public money the right thing to do is make everything open source.
    • by QuantumG (50515)
      Heh, public money.

      Ask a brit for the rundown but I'm under the impression that there's a pretty good end run around the whole "public money" problem.

      There's a corporation that collects the money, and although they have special powers in law, they're not government employees.

      It's not "compulsory" to register a television that you don't watch the BBC on, but you have to explain why you don't want to watch the BBC, and you have to allow an inspector into your house to prove that your tv is incapable of receivi
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Quietlife2k (612005)
        Err not quite - the television license is a license to own and operate a TV receiver. Even if you can only receive Sky One you STILL NEED A LICENSE.

        Technically you would still need a license if all you owned was a video recorder but had no screen to watch it on.

        Under the Communications Act 2003, you need a television licence to receive or record television programmes. This applies if they are received by a satellite, cable or land based transmitter. If you are watching any satellite service, controlled
        • by QuantumG (50515)
          From the same FAQ:

          What if I only use a TV to watch videos/DVDs/as a monitor for my games console? Do I still need a licence?

          You need to notify us in writing that this is the case and one of our Enforcement Officers may need to visit you to confirm that you do not need a licence.

          Please write to us including your name, address and the reason you believe that you don't need a licence at:

          TV Licensing
          Bristol
          BS98 1TL
      • by jez9999 (618189)
        you have to allow an inspector into your house to prove that your tv is incapable of receiving the BBC.

        Heh. Only if they get a court warrant and accompanying police officer. Otherwise, they get a door slammed in their face.
  • Well... (Score:2, Funny)

    by JimXugle (921609)
    I'd like the iPlayer on Linux. You can do that? Great! It'll play swimmingly on my SPARC box then, right?
  • by User 956 (568564) on Friday September 07, 2007 @02:37AM (#20504321) Homepage
    'The BBC Trust made it a condition of approval for the BBC's on-demand services that the iPlayer is available to users of a range of operating systems, and has given a commitment that it will ensure that the BBC meets this demand as soon as possible.

    I hate to say it, but that demand has already been meet. Via Bittorrent. Everyone who knows the phrase "Vote Saxon" will agree with me.
  • Old news (Score:2, Interesting)

    by wlvdc (842653)
    The contents of the government's 'response' is almost an exact copy of the BBC own press release from earlier this year. They announced in April that there would be a 6-month review, which should be around this time. However, both texts don't tell us anything, there is no time plan, nothing. I very much doubt that there will be an iPlayer for other platforms before the end of this year.
  • I hope that television (especially the beeb) is going the way of the music and newspaper business. file sharing and other internet goodies will certainly help to that end.

    Why;

    they have dumbed tv down to the point of no return (along with the other uk channels, especially the now dismal ch4)

    even the dumb content is nowhere near as good as it used to be (apart from radio 4)

    they have failed utterly to conceal their cynical e
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by SkunkPussy (85271)
      yes radio 4 is awesome, except I always leave work at 7 so I have to put up with the archers for most of my journey home!
  • by itsdapead (734413) on Friday September 07, 2007 @06:27AM (#20505379)

    A: You only pay the TV license if you own TV reception equipment - whether or not that makes it a "tax" is up for debate, but it is more-or-less ring fenced for broadcasting, and doesn't (e.g.) just disappear into the Inland Revenue coffers with your income tax. (There's a side-issue with convincing the TV license stormtroopers that you don't have TV reception equipment, but that's incompetence, not the law). Actually, I'd predict that as soon as media convergence "matures" this system will collapse - I don't think extending the definition of TV reception equipment to PCs and Internet would be tolerated - big media and comms. companies are already hostile towards this system and would roll out the astroturf like mad. In a sense, by pursuing online TV in any form, the BBC turkeys are voting for Christmas.

    B: The BBC is not "run" by the government - lots of effort has been made to ensure that the management from the BBC is apolitical. Of course, this is totally immune from political appointments and back-room arm twisting - not!!! - but the thought is there. Like all journalists, the BBC news service is in the business of telling ripping yarns that get the viewers in, with accuracy and objectivity distinctly optional (e.g. the recent documentary on how nasty WiFi radiation fries kids brains, in which a tinfoil-hat salesman was given an uncritical platform) and this occasionally gets mistaken for political bias.

    C: As far as I am aware, the BBC has no Royal Exemption from copyright and contract law and they have to deal with rights holders - much of their content is outsourced, bought in, involves card-carrying actors or is sold overseas (with various guarantees of exclusivity).

    OTOH, this is all a bit nuts, since if you bung a DVB-T (terrestrial broadcast digital TV) card in your PC you can grab Dr Who, Torchwood and Heroes in ad-free wide-screen unencrypted MPEG2 goodness anyway (and 'Who is on continual re-run on BBC3 so you can't miss it!).

  • One of the stumbling blocks to having iPlayer on other OS's is the DRM required to 'protect' the content being distributed. By choosing DRM that is linked to a particular OS the BBC makes it very difficult to transfer the player to Mac, Linux etc. It can, therefore, reasonably claim that it's going as fast as it can at every 6-monthly review, without ever actually achieving anything.

    Technically speaking it's not difficult to have something working on pretty much every OS by the end of today, so long as yo
  • I refused to sign this petition not because I am anything other than a Linux fanatic but because it calls on the PM to instruct the BBC to do something. Short of a national emergency the PM should not have any such powers. So, the whole thing was flawed and mis-directed.

Lisp Users: Due to the holiday next Monday, there will be no garbage collection.

Working...