Re: [backstage] iPlayer on Intel Mac
Meant to reply to the previous... In my case Windows Media Player was v9. I've upgraded to v11, and I'm now getting access to the exe. On 8/1/07, James Bridle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [New thread] I'm getting the same on my Mac Pro, booted in XP SP2 - 'Sorry, something's wrong' even though all boxes are ticked. Will have a look at the browser's ident. If anyone wants to send me the exe, I'd be very grateful. I have a login and all, so I don't think there's anything wrong with that... Christopher Woods wrote: What's your browser's user-ident? Maybe one of the Mac-supplied drivers in their driver package is altering the user-agent somehow and the bbc site isn't authorising access on that basis. Only a guess... Is your XP install updated to SP2? If all else fails, I'm sure someone could send you BBC-iPlayer_Setup.exe (which updates to the latest version periodically anyway)... -- *From:* David Wood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]] *Sent:* 28 July 2007 09:30 *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk *Subject:* Re: [backstage] iPlayer Today? On 7/27/07, James Bridle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Looking forward to seeing what it looks like in XP on my Intel Mac... Doesn't appear to work on my MacBook, both booting into an almost freshly installed XP SP2 and through XP via Parallels on Mac OS, through Internet Explorer, or through Firefox with IE Tab. When I come to download, the site is giving me the rather odd message of: Sorry - to use the BBC iPlayer you need the following - Windows XP - Internet Explorer - Windows Media Player ...where all the requirements are ticked. (Using with non-IE Tabbed Firefox or directly from Mac OS turns the relevant ticks into crosses, which is what you'd expect.) According to the instructions, this is when the kontiki app should kick in and install... I can vaguely see why it might not work through Parallels, but I'm not sure why booting directly into XP doesn't. Hrmmm. -- http://www.sleepydisco.co.uk
Re: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting
On 02/08/07, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: secondly who buys a PVR that DRMs your recording?! My friends tell me that their Sky+ boxes are highly restrictive. Again, who (that is assuming sanity) buys the ridiculously overpriced monstrosity that is Sky+ ? On that note, what type of Pirate (Arrgh, me hearties) downloads DRMed Music? People are often falling foul of FairPlay DRM because they want to have more/different devices than Apple deem necessary. That's a regrettable side effect though; the people that the restrictions attack are the novice users doing friend-to-friend copying, and one of the friends in that case is 'downloading.' I don't even own an iPod (over-priced junk for people who care about style over substance; a bit like the iPhone), and I know how to remove FairPlay DRM. I expect that everyone else on this list does aswell. Personally I think that' s a deliberate move by apple in order to please rights holders, whilst annoying consumers as little as possible. And seeing as iTunes has started selling DRM free music with EMI, I think that there is no point targeting apple over DRM; as much as I dislike their products. If your anti-DRM targets are bittorrent and PVRs you're aiming in the wrong direction. Savvy users will have no problem getting unrestricted files; no one is debating that (any more) - but its important to defend novice users, who are the victims here. And Savvy programmers will create one click programs that will strip MS DRM from the BBCs On Demand content for everyone else within a few months, maximum. Vijay.
RE: [backstage] More iPlayer(/jam) protesting
-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/
RE: [backstage] More iPlayer(/jam) protesting (plus Sky+ comment @ Vijay)
Well that's me told! Very interesting to have the thoughts of someone who worked on Jam... The reason I thought it was a bad move to make at the time was that it seemed that all of a sudden, the BBC was having to vow to a sudden burst of criticism from other companies, which seemed a little orchestrated, and given that they'd invested so much time and expense it was frustrating both for me as a user and for the people who worked on it to see it just get shelved. I was just viewing this as a joe-regular licensepayer though, so it's fascinating to get your side of the story. Never realised it used an MS solution (never really used it that much, as I had little personal use for it! I did have a little delve once or twice though but nowhere deep in the minisite). Reading what you say makes me think of the Domesday Project which, almost doomed to fail before it even ever got off the ground, but that was probably because of the technological constraints... My school had a copy of it for a while though and I thought it was absolutely brilliant. While I'm writing this, thought I'd reply to Vijay's comments re. Sky+ - you were saying about how nobody in their right mind would get a Sky+ box... I'm waiting 12 months and then most likely getting Sky+, because it's the best of a bad selection of offerings - the interface is very nicely worked out (going to any other digital platform from Sky is so frustrating), its PVR functions don't delete shows unless you run out of space for new ones, and the quality is far better than anything else. Although the drives are crypted and locked to the box, I'm *sure* there has to be a way of decrypting them... But at the end of the day, the Sky+ interface even offers a feature to 'copy to tape' (or DVD recorder, I guess!) albeit via its decent quality analogue connections, so it's still better than the iPlayer! And, now that Sky have dropped their £10/pm fee for the Sky+ features for all customers, the V3 box has gone down in price too and it won't be much longer until it's £30/40/free! I'd love to have a TiVo setup for Sky, but that idea died about a month after Sky started advertising TiVo for its Sky Digital platform when they moved to their own system. I can't live without Discovery Channel (and Nat. Geo... And Zone Reality... And decent-quality digital terrestrial channels, too!) - and I just wish I could timeshift for when I'm out, because all my mates have had Sky+ for years (as does my housemate) (Soon, my precious!) Part of me couldn't forgive myself for handing over more money to Murdoch for a long time, but Sky is a closed system and you know that when you sign up, so there really is no other *good* _standalone_ solution other than getting Sky+ for PVR functionality (or getting a DreamBox and spending ages fiddling to make it work on Sky, plus all the other associated costs). Freeview on the other hand is an entirely different kettle of fish, but, and it's suffering the same fate DAB suffered, the quality now is so dire I'd rather get Freesat - or even get Sky with two mixes, as it'd only be marginally more expensive for the first year than a Freesat setup! -Original Message- From: Deirdre Harvey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 02 August 2007 11:46 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] More iPlayer(/jam) protesting -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. snip - 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/
Re: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting
On 8/2/07, Christopher Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Calm down dear, it's only a mailing list. What's wrong with discussing the (faint) possibility that it may happen (though most likely won't) in the future? Sorry, I forgot to add a smiley face. I agree with you. It makes more sense to use DRM when you want to charge for programmes which aren't already available without DRM. (Assuming you think DRM is effective, which it isn't). The BBC is restricted to certain cable stations in the US. Given that, you could say that DRM for UK citizens isn't pandering to The Rights Holders, but to future income streams in other markets. Pay-per-play over the Internet would increase the potential US market, for example. It at least makes some kind of logical sense. Encrypting and restricting programmes in the UK which travel over 2.4GHz (wi-fi), but not those via 800 MHz (tv), doesn't. DRM restricts a UK citizen from downloading a programme using iPlayer and uploading it to YouTube so that a non-licence payer can watch it without paying. But a UK citizen doesn't have to use iPlayer. They could use a DVD recorder, a PVR, a USB tv receiver, etc. All cheap, available and familiar devices. Your mom can do this. Cracking the DRM isn't necessary (although that will be done too). -Original Message- From: Stephen Deasey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 August 2007 23:28 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting On 8/1/07, Christopher Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With regards to worldwide takeup, I too thought the iPlayer was a UK-only thing, but I've heard rumblings about it becoming a paid-for service outside our borders in the future (I know of no ETA though). Don't know as to the authenticity of that, maybe a BBC bod could give me the partyline on that? What are you, some kind of conspiracy nut? Just because it makes no sense to wrap programmes in junk-DRM when higher quality, unencrypted, unrestricted versions are beamed directly to convenient digital recording devices in houses throughout Britain, don't get confused and think it's just a scheme for bbcamerica.com to expand their VOD market using the web. Because it's not! - 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/ - 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/ - 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/
RE: [backstage] More iPlayer(/jam) protesting
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. I wouldn't be pleased either, but of course this never happened. A core requirement (thrashed out through years of wrangling, I believe) for the Digital Curriculum project from the Department of Culture, Media n' Sport was that no more than 50% of ICT-compatible learning 'outcomes' would be covered by the commissioned work - leaving *plenty* of space for the market to move around in and produce competitive work in. Never mind the fact that Jam produced learning materials for and in minority languages such as Gaelic and Welsh that the commercial sector wouldn't have gone near in a million years due (to the lack of profit margin). Of course, having had this concession made to them, the private e-learning sector was still narked that Jam was producing a lot of genuinely excellent learning content that was streets ahead of what they were producing. So they went to the EU, who went to the Trust, and we got shut down. Unlike the Murphy's... Paul (ex-BBC Jam) - 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/
RE: [backstage] More iPlayer(/jam) protesting (plus Sky+ comment @ Vijay)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Woods Sent: 02 August 2007 12:18 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] More iPlayer(/jam) protesting (plus Sky+ comment @ Vijay) Well that's me told! Very interesting to have the thoughts of someone who worked on Jam... sorry, some of us old jammers are kind of narky :) anyway, you have some other thoughts (which I think are more the general consensus from staff if the mailing list was anything to go by) The reason I thought it was a bad move to make at the time was that it seemed that all of a sudden, the BBC was having to vow to a sudden burst of criticism from other companies, which seemed a little orchestrated, I can see why one might have had that impression. It was certainly one I shared. I also thought it looked bad for the beeb to bow to commercial pressure like that. but to my mind it wasn't a battle to fight, and we stood some chance of losing it even if we had right entirely on our side. and given that they'd invested so much time and expense it was frustrating both for me as a user and for the people who worked on it to see it just get shelved. yeah, I found this an interesting issue, because I wonder at what point you're just throwing good money after bad. Should we have persisted even when politics, technology, and (IMHO) content had collaborated to ensure we would be wasting even more money on something that might still be taken down or might not be any good? to my mind, nowhere near that amount of money would have been wasted had the project been run intelligently from the start. - 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/
RE: [backstage] More iPlayer(/jam) protesting
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Tweedy Sent: 02 August 2007 12:19 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] More iPlayer(/jam) protesting 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. I wouldn't be pleased either, but of course this never happened. Well it was announced that it would happen, thereby scaring the bejasus out of independent companies. Had it not been for the ridiculous original ground grab then possibly some of the later problems would not have come to pass. A core requirement (thrashed out through years of wrangling, I believe) for the Digital Curriculum project from the Department of Culture, Media n' Sport was that no more than 50% of ICT-compatible learning 'outcomes' would be covered by the commissioned work - leaving *plenty* of space for the market to move around in and produce competitive work in. Well IMO if they'd had any sense they would have steered well clear of rubbish like learning outcomes, but regardless. because of the way the things was announced there were political wranglings that put in place many conflicting requirements that attempted (rather successfully IMO) to hobble jam. I won't claim for a moment that the indies were lily white in what happened. Never mind the fact that Jam produced learning materials for and in minority languages such as Gaelic and Welsh that the commercial sector wouldn't have gone near in a million years due (to the lack of profit margin). jam attempted to a lot of good things. some incredibly smart people worked on it. but... Of course, having had this concession made to them, the private e-learning sector was still narked that Jam was producing a lot of genuinely excellent learning content that was streets ahead of what they were producing. genuinely excellent? ye gods! on that I'm afraid we will forever disagree. I sometimes wonder if all the talk of the European Court of Justice is just a way of quietly putting some really woeful content where nobody can ever see just how crappy it was. So they went to the EU, who went to the Trust, and we got shut down. even on a strategic level I think the Trust were right. given how resticted jam was by its technology and the core requirements(/hobbles), starting it all again made sense to me. but then I thought it was crap. perhaps if I'd rated it I would have thought it was a waste. - 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/
Re: [backstage] More iPlayer protesting
Again, who (that is assuming sanity) buys the ridiculously overpriced monstrosity that is Sky+ ? As is often the case on this list we seem to be leaps and bounds ahead of the general learning curve of the general public. Sky+ might not make sense to the sane people here, but they have shifted a not inconsiderable 2.37m units of it - around 25% of their subscriber base have opted for it. That's the thing - most people just like technology that works, and don't care about _how_ it works, or what it _will_ or _won't_ let them do, or the philosophy behind that, because they just use the product 'as is' all the best, martin - 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/
Re: [backstage] More iPlayer(/jam) protesting (plus Sky+ comment @ Vijay)
On 02/08/07, Christopher Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And, now that Sky have dropped their £10/pm fee for the Sky+ features for all customers, the V3 box has gone down in price too and it won't be much longer until it's £30/40/free! I'd love to have a TiVo setup for Sky, but that idea died about a month after Sky started advertising TiVo for its Sky Digital platform when they moved to their own system. I can't live without Discovery Channel (and Nat. Geo... And Zone Reality... And decent-quality digital terrestrial channels, too!) - and I just wish I could timeshift for when I'm out, because all my mates have had Sky+ for years (as does my housemate) (Soon, my precious!) Part of me couldn't forgive myself for handing over more money to Murdoch for a long time, but Sky is a closed system and you know that when you sign up, so there really is no other *good* _standalone_ solution other than getting Sky+ for PVR functionality (or getting a DreamBox and spending ages fiddling to make it work on Sky, plus all the other associated costs). Freeview on the other hand is an entirely different kettle of fish, but, and it's suffering the same fate DAB suffered, the quality now is so dire I'd rather get Freesat - or even get Sky with two mixes, as it'd only be marginally more expensive for the first year than a Freesat setup! Oh, I also hand my money over to Mr Murdoch for Sky, but I didn't bother with Sky+ as they charged extra for it (I'm not aware of any price drop, but now you've mentioned one, I'll have to look into it); instead I got together some old PC parts lying about, and built my own: http://www.mythtv.org/
