'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable

On 23 Apr, 15:32, Adrian C wrote:
2Bdecided wrote:
On 23 Apr, 14:13, Adrian C wrote:

There is a difference between live broadcasting (which you pay and need
the license for), and offering catchup / download services (which is
currently outside the scope of the license).

There is. And given the choice, which one do you think is "the future"
- live, or on-demand?

_Live_ is relevant to the majority of most people in the country. It is
the service which the license fee is collected for. The license fee also
funds the production of television programs which are played out to a
waiting loyal audience of much greater mass than others who haphazardly
choose from an on-demand EPG.

For now.

How long before the situation is reversed?

I'll give you a hint: there are already some programmes aimed at
younger people which get more views in iPlayer than via broadcast.
This has just started to happen with TV; it happened a year or more
ago with radio.


I think you've shown an irrational dislike of an "on-demand EPG" by
suggesting it's users choose "haphazardly". If anything, the on-demand
audience chooses its viewing very carefully and selectively - it's the
live audience that is more likely to watch things "haphazardly" - e.g.
just because it is on at a time when they are ready to watch TV, or
after a programme that they chose to sit down and watch.

Cheers,
David.

In message
,
2Bdecided writes
On 23 Apr, 13:51, Ian Jackson
wrote:

I did get a couple of the HD programmes to download (albeit in bursts,
and slowly). However, on replay, the video is more of a 'jerky'
(©®™) than a movie, ie a series of stills. Presumably my PC simply
isn't up to these new-fangled offerings!

It could be the inefficient adobe flash / air player - my PC can play
equivalent HD files in VLC just fine (and VLC is hardly the most
efficient player available) yet I get little more than a slideshow
from HD flash.

The problem is that you have to use the BBC's Desktop Player for the HD
downloads and WMP for the old stuff (or so I understand it). Because of
the DRM, my other players won't play the WMV files.

I've just done a quick test watching Wainwright's Walks on BBC4. The
standard version is definitely a bit jerky (but still reasonably
watchable). Surprisingly, the HD version is essentially jerk-free. Also,
the HD version was almost dead in sync with what I was watching on TV
(that is until there was a momentary glitch, after which it was running
about one second behind). Apart from that, the actual picture quality of
the two streams was similar (not particularly outstanding on my 1280 x
1024 LCD monitor).

As I said, this PC isn't really up to good video. It's only got a 1.6GHz
processor, and 1.25GB of RAM. I'm also using a hand-me-down video card
(donated by my son). I still reckon that the only way to watch TV is on
a TV set (and preferably in true analogue).
--
Ian

On 23 Apr, 21:29, Ian Jackson
wrote:

The problem is that you have to use the BBC's Desktop Player for the HD
downloads and WMP for the old stuff (or so I understand it). Because of
the DRM, my other players won't play the WMV files.

IME WMV plays best in Windows Media Player anyway.

I believe there's nothing in place that would stop the truly
determined user from acquiring whichever version they want, keeping it
for as long as they want, and playing it on whatever compatible
software they want.


As I said, this PC isn't really up to good video. It's only got a 1.6GHz
processor, and 1.25GB of RAM. I'm also using a hand-me-down video card
(donated by my son). I still reckon that the only way to watch TV is on
a TV set (and preferably in true analogue).

The short answer to that is that I agree, quality wise. Though 14x9
analogue (cropped from a 16x9 master) isn't much use on a widescreen
TV.

Cheers,
David.

In message
,
2Bdecided writes
On 23 Apr, 21:29, Ian Jackson
wrote:

The problem is that you have to use the BBC's Desktop Player for the HD
downloads and WMP for the old stuff (or so I understand it). Because of
the DRM, my other players won't play the WMV files.

IME WMV plays best in Windows Media Player anyway.

I believe there's nothing in place that would stop the truly
determined user from acquiring whichever version they want, keeping it
for as long as they want, and playing it on whatever compatible
software they want.


As I said, this PC isn't really up to good video. It's only got a 1.6GHz
processor, and 1.25GB of RAM. I'm also using a hand-me-down video card
(donated by my son). I still reckon that the only way to watch TV is on
a TV set (and preferably in true analogue).

The short answer to that is that I agree, quality wise. Though 14x9
analogue (cropped from a 16x9 master) isn't much use on a widescreen
TV.

I forgot to add 'and definitely CRT' to my list of 'the only way'!
--
Ian

2Bdecided wrote:
For now.

How long before the situation is reversed?

When that happens, the terms of BBC's license will have been changed to
include on-demand use and the majority of folks will be able to navigate
an EPG, without current technofear issues - and given access to it
across a commonly available digital platform.

I'll give you a hint: there are already some programmes aimed at
younger people which get more views in iPlayer than via broadcast.

Because most of the content of those BBC3 programmes are not child /
child with parent watching / family or schedule friendly, and don't have
a loyal live following - just haphazard interest after discussions have
gone around the office or school playground.

This has just started to happen with TV; it happened a year or more
ago with radio.

I think you've shown an irrational dislike of an "on-demand EPG" by
suggesting it's users choose "haphazardly". If anything, the on-demand
audience chooses its viewing very carefully and selectively.

Some do, some don't. I've got TiVo and yes, I'm a selective viewer. I
never watch anything live.

But, the On-demand viewing could easily be the greatest extension of the
'channel hopping' habit that prays on those with a slightly limited
attention span. Why should broadcasters and advertisers pile money into
that? Where is the loyal payback for their effort? Might as well give up
and let these folks find youtube ...

It's a bit similar to how people are buying music today. Cherry picking
the 'good' tracks from albums and ignoring the rest. Soon the name of
the artist, the theme of the writings and the interest in the back
catalogue are forgotten. Disposable.

I've become a 'Spotify' subscriber addict in the last few days. Although
I do buy a lot of CDs and will continue to do so (The hifi equipment
appreciates the playback quality of CD compared to streaming), the death
bell for HMV record shops and for that matter chart radio is surely
ringing louder than ever before.

At least Spotify have an income stream for doing this service on-line
on-demand. And so do the other on-demand bodies out there.

The BBC? 'tis madness. :-|

--
Adrian C

On 24 Apr, 15:03, Adrian C wrote:
2Bdecided wrote:
For now.

How long before the situation is reversed?

When that happens, the terms of BBC's license will have been changed to
include on-demand use and the majority of folks will be able to navigate
an EPG, without current technofear issues - and given access to it
across a commonly available digital platform.

I think that's likely - but you don't get from there to here without
having iPlayer now. If you don't have iPlayer now, it won't stop ITV,
CH4, five, Sky etc doing it - it just leaves the BBC on the outside.
How does that benefit the BBC?

I've got TiVo and yes, I'm a selective viewer. I
never watch anything live.

That makes the rest of your argument look quite selfish. You've solved
the "problem" of live TV using a technology that's no longer
available. Other people are solving it a different way, and you don't
want the BBC to help them.

But, the On-demand viewing could easily be the greatest extension of the
'channel hopping' habit that prays on those with a slightly limited
attention span. Why should broadcasters and advertisers pile money into
that? Where is the loyal payback for their effort? Might as well give up
and let these folks find youtube ...

The percentage of programmes watched until the end on iPlayer is
surprisingly high. (Well it surprised me, but not enough to remember
what it was!). Most of these programmes are 30-60 minutes long. That
doesn't indicate an attention deficit to me.

And if the whole country did develop a ten second attention span,
that's where the advertisers and broadcasters would have to go - or
die. I don't think that's really happening though.

It's a bit similar to how people are buying music today. Cherry picking
the 'good' tracks from albums and ignoring the rest. Soon the name of
the artist, the theme of the writings and the interest in the back
catalogue are forgotten. Disposable.

Completely different topic, but the GBs of music people carry around
on their iPods harldy suggest that the back catalogue is forgotten -
there isn't _that_ much new music!

The BBC? 'tis madness. :-|

They are securing their place in the future. It'll happen with or
without them - they are being very smart by placing themselves at the
forefront.

They want brand recognition above almost all else. iPlayer helps that.

Cheers,
David.

2Bdecided wrote:
Other people are solving it a different way, and you don't
want the BBC to help them.

The current 'well heeled' are in an ample position to add funds to this.
Like buying a PVR, or installing a computer and signing up to broadband,
or taking up a contract on a capable mobile phone.

It's the people who can not sort this _now_ that are disadvantaged, and
are reminded of it every time the BBC self-promotes "catch it on
iPlayer" knowing that they are paying for this and for various reasons
it's beyond them.


They are securing their place in the future. It'll happen with or
without them - they are being very smart by placing themselves at the
forefront.

They want brand recognition above almost all else.

So do it from their commercial platform.

iPlayer helps that.

We'll have to see. With technology, sometimes the horse that runs first
is not the one that remains in the running. My TiVo for instance :-(

--
Adrian C

On 24 Apr, 20:52, Adrian C wrote:
2Bdecided wrote:

Other people are solving it a different way, and you don't

want the BBC to help them.

The current 'well heeled' are in an ample position to add funds to this.
Like buying a PVR, or installing a computer and signing up to broadband,
or taking up a contract on a capable mobile phone.

It's the people who can not sort this _now_ that are disadvantaged, and
are reminded of it every time the BBC self-promotes "catch it on
iPlayer" knowing that they are paying for this and for various reasons
it's beyond them.

I guess the BBC should have kept out of colour TV and HD for the same
reason?

("No" is the correct answer to that one!).

Cheers,
David.

2Bdecided wrote:

I guess the BBC should have kept out of colour TV and HD for the same
reason?

No, because that was an improvement to their _live_ broadcasting, and
covered under the license (extended as in the case of colour TV).

--
Adrian C

On 26 Apr, 11:15, Adrian C wrote:
2Bdecided wrote:
I guess the BBC should have kept out of colour TV and HD for the same
reason?

No, because that was an improvement to their _live_ broadcasting, and
covered under the license (extended as in the case of colour TV).

So you _don't_ object to the BBC promoting and delivering services
that (some) people can't afford (at that time)?

You merely object to them delivering a non-live service?

Do/did you object to their other pre-iPlayer on-demand programming,
e.g. listen again, the catch-up VOD provided via HomeChoice/Tiscali,
NTL etc ?

I'm not having a go at you - your argument has some merit - I'm just
not convinced it's 100% rational.

Also, I'm fairly sure that making such services outside of the core
remit of the BBC will not help the BBC one bit.

Cheers,
David.