BBC response to missing Look North

On 2009-07-07, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 15:39:54 +0100, Paul D.Smith wrote:

What makes them think all viewers have a PC and can use iPlayer?

Quite. What minimum speed does iPlayer need to work in streaming mode
and how long would a 30 min programme download take at dialup rates?
This is always assuming you have a machine modern enough for iPlayer
to work on. It doesn't work on Win 2k for example, which is still
supported by Microsoft.

I'm afraid this hasn't been true since December 2007. iPlayer is now mostly
based on Adobe Flash and Adobe Air technologies, both of which are compatible
with Windows 2000.

But not eveyone, myself for example, wishes to have Flash on their PC,
and iPlayer downloader will not work in W2k.

On 18 Jul 2009 10:54:21 GMT, Mr Premise
wrote:

I'm afraid this hasn't been true since December 2007. iPlayer is now mostly
based on Adobe Flash and Adobe Air technologies, both of which are compatible
with Windows 2000.


======================================

Please always reply to news group as the email address in
this post's header does not exist. Alternatively, use one of the
contact addresses at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:05:37 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

But not eveyone, myself for example, wishes to have Flash on their PC,
and iPlayer downloader will not work in W2k.

There is quite a difference between "X does not work in Windows 2000"
and "X does work in Windows 2000 but I will not install the software
needed to make the service work".

--

In message , Zero Tolerance
writes:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:05:37 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

But not eveyone, myself for example, wishes to have Flash on their PC,
and iPlayer downloader will not work in W2k.

There is quite a difference between "X does not work in Windows 2000"
and "X does work in Windows 2000 but I will not install the software
needed to make the service work".

So the people unfortunate to be in the region affected (I missed the
start of the thread so can only go by the subject) are to be obliged to
install software on their computer which they wouldn't have otherwise?
Had it been the case that iPlayer would work with the default software
on say 2/3 of computers, it would be less bad, but - presumably because
of rights fears - iPlayer is reliant on most people installing something
(iPlayer itself for a start), including Flash about which many have
legitimate concerns.

Another point: how big is a 30-minute prog.? Quite a few broadband
contracts have quite small monthly download limits, and this is a
nightly prog. we're talking about.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)[email protected]+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Who can refute a sneer? - Archdeacon Paley, in his book Moral Philosophy

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:14:36 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

So the people unfortunate to be in the region affected (I missed the
start of the thread so can only go by the subject) are to be obliged to
install software on their computer which they wouldn't have otherwise?

If you want to use anything on the internet you are obliged to have
the right software. Flash does not come with the computer, but it's
free, and simple to download and install. If you want to use Flash
websites, you need Flash installed. It takes a few seconds and does
not disadvantage you in any way.

Had it been the case that iPlayer would work with the default software
on say 2/3 of computers, it would be less bad, but - presumably because
of rights fears - iPlayer is reliant on most people installing something
(iPlayer itself for a start), including Flash about which many have
legitimate concerns.

Concerns such as... ?

Working with "the default software" on most computers means
Windows-only, Microsoft-only. That's something which people tend to
get very anxious about, immediately slinging around accusations of the
BBC making special deals with Microsoft to 'restrict' access to their
content, abuse of monopolies, etc etc etc.

Another point: how big is a 30-minute prog.? Quite a few broadband
contracts have quite small monthly download limits, and this is a
nightly prog. we're talking about.

Well, again, if you want to watch TV on your computer, you need a
broadband package that is suitable for that. Not all are.
--

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 09:37:33 GMT, (Zero
Tolerance) wrote:

If you want to use anything on the internet you are obliged to have
the right software. Flash does not come with the computer, but it's
free, and simple to download and install. If you want to use Flash
websites, you need Flash installed. It takes a few seconds and does
not disadvantage you in any way.

Flash does disadvantage one while *most* of the content that uses it
is worthless.

1) Having it means that you often have to sit and wait for
irrelevant corporate videos to play, etc.

Concerns such as... ?

2) It has been used for security attacks on PCs

Working with "the default software" on most computers means
Windows-only, Microsoft-only. That's something which people tend to
get very anxious about, immediately slinging around accusations of the
BBC making special deals with Microsoft to 'restrict' access to their
content, abuse of monopolies, etc etc etc.

3) There are de facto standard file formats that can be played on any
computer using the software that comes with that computer.

Well, again, if you want to watch TV on your computer, you need a
broadband package that is suitable for that. Not all are.

Agreed.

======================================

Please always reply to news group as the email address in
this post's header does not exist. Alternatively, use one of the
contact addresses at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On 2009-07-18, Java Jive wrote:
But not eveyone, myself for example, wishes to have Flash on their PC,
and iPlayer downloader will not work in W2k.

I'm afraid this still isn't true.

http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.u...p_requirements

"Supported Windows versions:
Windows Vista Home Premium, Business, Ultimate, or Enterprise including 64-bit
editions and Vista SP1.
Windows XP SP2 and SP3, Tablet PC Edition SP2 and SP3,
Windows 2000 SP4
Windows 2003 Server"

If you're referring to the old Kontiki-based iPlayer Download Manager, then
fair enough - this was XP only, but it has been superceded by the iPlayer
Desktop software for some time now which is much more cross-platform (I use it
on Ubuntu Linux).


On 18 Jul 2009 10:54:21 GMT, Mr Premise
wrote:

I'm afraid this hasn't been true since December 2007. iPlayer is now mostly
based on Adobe Flash and Adobe Air technologies, both of which are compatible
with Windows 2000.


======================================

Please always reply to news group as the email address in
this post's header does not exist. Alternatively, use one of the
contact addresses at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html


--

In article , Java Jive
writes

Flash does disadvantage one while *most* of the content that uses it
is worthless.

That is a judgement on the content. It's nothing to do with the format.

1) Having it means that you often have to sit and wait for
irrelevant corporate videos to play, etc.

Not true.

Concerns such as... ?

2) It has been used for security attacks on PCs

So has the operating system. So has Java. So has Javascript. So has HTML
(even!), when Microsoft produced several vulnerable browser releases in
the early days of IE.

If you want your computer to be wholly safe, why would you connect it to
the Internet in the first place?

It's just another straw man.

Working with "the default software" on most computers means
Windows-only, Microsoft-only. That's something which people tend to
get very anxious about, immediately slinging around accusations of the
BBC making special deals with Microsoft to 'restrict' access to their
content, abuse of monopolies, etc etc etc.

3) There are de facto standard file formats that can be played on any
computer using the software that comes with that computer.

That is just ignorance. There are no such things. If you transact with a
web site you receive a datastream. Your computer creates the 'file
format' locally (if it saves the stream as a file at all). It gets
pointers as to what to do with the file, but there are many examples
where what's received is not identical to what's stored.

The usual structure of video+audio encoded datastreams in a 'container'
(e.g. MP4), either as an incoming datastream or a stored file, means
there are a huge number of permutations.

Microsoft and Apple (to name only the two biggest players in the desktop
market by volume) both include media players with their operating
systems, however the supported formats are commercial decisions for both
companies, and only a subset of those two lists are supported by both,
and even then with significant differences in the presented output.

One good example of this is QTVR. This is nominally a video format
structure, but when correctly displayed by Quicktime, you get spherical
and cylindrical panoramic photographs shown in a 'movable' viewing port.

At the time of writing MS' Media Player, although it claims to handle
the QT container, doesn't read the headers correctly, and tries to
present it as video. Obviously, this is not helpful!

There are similar issues when decoding DV files (AVIs), where hard-coded
workarounds in WMP for things like pixel shape lead to strange results
on playback (unless you present it _exactly_ the way MS are expecting
it). When you know you've got the correct data in the header fields, and
WMP is ignoring them (and stubbornly displaying your video in the wrong
aspect ratio), it's exasperating!

Who's to blame? in the case of QT, both MS and Apple are doing what's in
their commercial interests, and neither has much interest in adjusting
their code to suit the other. One can thus understand, in the case of
iPlayer, the BBC has opted for a cross-platform third party technology,
as it eliminates the finger-pointing issues entirely. It's not so long
ago that they only supported the MS player, which rightly infuriated
Mac-owning (or Linux using) licence fee payers across the nation.

Furthermore, the iPlayer activity is important enough for the BBC to get
Adobe's attention commercially. Whatever we think of Auntie's growing
girth, she's nowhere near big enough to convince Microsoft to change
course, for example to make QT support work correctly in its proprietary
player.

Thus the iPLayer/Flash solution is a good one for all concerned.

Whether the BBC should be doing it at all, however, is another
matter entirely...
--
SimonM
----- TubeWiz.com -----
Video making/uploading that's easy to use & fun to share
Try it today! (now with DFace blurring)

All I know is that, within about the last year or so, I have tried to
stream/download BBC programmes on W2k without using Flash, and it
wasn't possible. IIRC, I even contacted the BBC's helpdesk about it.

On 19 Jul 2009 10:51:11 GMT, Mr Premise
wrote:

I'm afraid this still isn't true.

http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.u...p_requirements

If you're referring to the old Kontiki-based iPlayer Download Manager, then
fair enough - this was XP only, but it has been superceded by the iPlayer
Desktop software for some time now which is much more cross-platform (I use it
on Ubuntu Linux).

======================================

Please always reply to news group as the email address in
this post's header does not exist. Alternatively, use one of the
contact addresses at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:09:43 GMT, SpamTrapSeeSig
wrote:

That is a judgement on the content. It's nothing to do with the format.

A judgement also as to whether it is worth increasing the
vulnerability of your PC just to play it.

1) Having it means that you often have to sit and wait for
irrelevant corporate videos to play, etc.

Not true.

True

So has the operating system. So has Java. So has Javascript. So has HTML
(even!), when Microsoft produced several vulnerable browser releases in
the early days of IE.

But I have to have the other things, while I don't really need Flash.

3) There are de facto standard file formats that can be played on any
computer using the software that comes with that computer.

That is just ignorance. There are no such things.

There are various Mime types, MPEG standards, etc, for both streaming
and storing data.

[big snip of barely relevant material]

Thus the iPLayer/Flash solution is a good one for all concerned.

A matter of opinion.

======================================

Please always reply to news group as the email address in
this post's header does not exist. Alternatively, use one of the
contact addresses at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html