> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Christopher Woods > Sent: 01 August 2007 22:21 > To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk > Subject: RE: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting
<rant> > The BBC's been forced to bow to commercial pressures more > than once in the past; anyone remember the Jam debacle? I remember it well, being unfortunate enough to have worked on it. jam ran on a custom-built Microsoft player. [you know, because there was no existing technology that would allow us to develop animation and video content and release it online]. We licensed this player from them and any changes to the (restricted/crappy) functionality involved massive payments to MS. >That > was the Trust telling them to stop doing what they were doing > because it was inflicting losses on other commercial entities > doing a similar thing. I can see why if I were a small company making educational software for kids I wouldn't be pleased to have to compete with the BBC suddenly inserting itself into my market and offering to cover the ENTIRE national curriculum for nothing. Clearly that kind of empire building is going to have a negative impact on existing markets. Why must BBC management persist in making these grand sweeping gestures? Why not just start a small pilot project in online educational content and learn from there? Wouldn't that be more sensible (and more in keeping with how such projects are run without a licence fee) than starting some giant project when you don't have any of the requisite skills in house? They had just about managed to employ a team capable of delivering jam (particularly on the technical end) when it was cancelled. Around the time jam was cancelled the beeb announced its intention to run a project that would document ALL the societies in the world in every medium possible. Why? Why make declarations like that? It's foolish and ties the corporation for years into expensive white elephants. Maybe it will be great, but why not start small and see how you go? These kinds of stupid ego-driven mistakes are part of the reason we are now shackled with the ridiculous PVT system which can't but have a huge impact on the BBC's ability to innovate effectively (since that appears to be its aim) >Frankly, I disagreed with their > decision, if the BBC's doing it then it's obviously for a > better reason other than to just push other companies out of > business, it's for the education of our future generations... > But hey, commercial pressures. Well frankly, I agreed with their decision. jam had become utterly obsessed (probably as part of last year's "we are storytellers, not broadcasters, so we can fire all the people who actually know how to do anything") with narrative. So you had what were effectively Flash games that could only be played in one order. It was the old "giving people a choice, no matter how meaningless = interactivity" I also don't think future generations benefit if the BBC is the only educational game in town because all the others have been put out of business because they don't have the funds to compete. There was a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth about the removal of the service, but it all smacked a bit of "won't somebody, please, think about the children". </rant> PS down with developing iPlayer for only one OS and one browser both owned by the same monopolistic company - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
