BBC On Demand: Mac Users, IMPORTANT!!

[MacSA]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/consult/open-consultations/ondemand_services.html

BBC Download service

One of the questions asks how important is it that customers not using Microsoft software are able to access the service.

All Mac users need to take part in this consultation to ensure we are able to use the service properly.

 

[iGav]

Regular and wide-ranging consultations are one of the key ways the BBC Trust ensures the BBC remains responsive and accountable.

Of course they do.

 

[iBlue]

Done. Glad you brought that up.

I filled out the parts about series stacking and storage time for viewing as well. I caught up on whole seasons of several shows (in the US) via on demand.

 

[FleurDuMal]

Done, done and done.

 

[Queso]

I answered this one last night. Please do not unnecessarily Microsoft bash if you're going to answer. This isn't a crusade.

However I have the feeling that this decision has already been made, Windows DRM has been chosen, and all the BBC will do is add a line on their website that "Mac and Linux is not supported at this time". Yet another reason why Apple's refusal to license Fairplay will eventually hurt their Mac sales.

 

[After G]

I put my 2 cents in.

I also asked for non-UK viewer access.

I answered this one last night. Please do not unnecessarily Microsoft bash if you're going to answer. This isn't a crusade.

I said "Please don't use WMA as Mac and Linux can't view it without a lot of hacks. Don't let Microsoft control the Internet." Too much?

 

[FleurDuMal]

I answered this one last night. Please do not unnecessarily Microsoft bash if you're going to answer. This isn't a crusade.

However I have the feeling that this decision has already been made, Windows DRM has been chosen, and all the BBC will do is add a line on their website that "Mac and Linux is not supported at this time". Yet another reason why Apple's refusal to license Fairplay will eventually hurt their Mac sales.

You're right. I'm sure the decisions been made in all but name.

Anyway, it's a pretty silly question about MS-only. They don't need to ask that question at all. They simply need to look at the number of home owners that use OS X...

...which probably doesn't bode well for us

 

[iBlue]

I put my 2 cents in.

I also asked for non-UK viewer access.

Good choice, there's good stuff there. However you should pay for it like the rest of us do. (UK residents pay a TV license fee to cover the access we have to the BBC)
Not trying to be cheeky but I wanted to bring it to your attention.

edit:

never thought about MS bashing. I just wrote that myself and my family use macintosh and would like the compatibility.

 

[Queso]

never thought about MS bashing. I just wrote that myself and my family use macintosh and would like the compatibility.

Most here won't anyway, but I thought it needed saying just in case.

It's when the article hits Macdailynews that the fanboys will ruin everything and bombard their inbox

 

[After G]

Good choice, there's good stuff there. However you should pay for it like the rest of us do. (UK residents pay a TV license fee to cover the access we have to the BBC)
Not trying to be cheeky but I wanted to bring it to your attention.

With digital cable here we get BBC America. Does that count?

Edit: I wasn't just thinking of the US though. It said UK-only in the PDFs. More a "rest of the world" sentiment.

 

[Loge]

I will be replying, but I'm not likely to use the service in any case.

The DRM looks far too restrictive, and I'm definitely not impressed with the proposal to not allow DRM-free downloads of classical music (so much for the very popular Beethoven series).

 

[iBlue]

With digital cable here we get BBC America. Does that count?

Edit: I wasn't just thinking of the US though. It said UK-only in the PDFs. More a "rest of the world" sentiment.

Just for informations sake:

Well a TV license is an annual fee (£132) that you pay just to own a television here. (yes, I'm serious) You still have to sort out your own cable television, that's a separate thing. I was horrified at this thought when I first moved here but then I saw what the BBC offers here and the concept redeemed itself somewhat.

Either way the input on the survey is appreciated. The more mac access granted globally the better.

 

[After G]

I will be replying, but I'm not likely to use the service in any case.

The DRM looks far too restrictive, and I'm definitely not impressed with the proposal to not allow DRM-free downloads of classical music (so much for the very popular Beethoven series).

I read "non-DRMed audio" in the PDF. Either way, I pitched for no DRM across the board.

1.2 The service proposals

The BBC Executive wishes to launch a package of on-demand services. These include four
individual service elements:

A seven-day TV catch-up over the internet;
B seven-day TV catch-up over cable;
C simulcast TV over the internet; and
D non-Digital Rights Management (DRM) audio downloads over the internet.

 

[FleurDuMal]

I was horrified at this thought when I first moved here but then I saw what the BBC offers here and the concept redeemed itself somewhat.

Yeah, Celebrity Do Ball Dancing, Celebrity Fame Academy and 'whatever other tedious activity they can think is more interesting if you make a bunch of z-listers compete in it' is really worth the money.

Actually, the BBC is quite a decent service. You just have to ignore BBC One and Radio One. It's a shame that instead of offering an alternative to ITV, they instead chose to compete on the same ground. IMO, the BBC should not be spending millions on retaining established talent. The wage packets picked up by the likes of Jonathan Ross and Chris Moyles is just obscene for a public service broadcaster (actually, its obscene that Chris Moyles is still allowed to breathe, but that's another story). They should be more concerned with discovering new talent.

 

[After G]

Just for informations sake:

Well a TV license is an annual fee (£132) that you pay just to own a television here. (yes, I'm serious) You still have to sort out your own cable television, that's a separate thing. I was horrified at this thought when I first moved here but then I saw what the BBC offers here and the concept redeemed itself somewhat.

What do you get for a license besides the use of a TV and BBC shows (which are worth the funding)? The website doesn't say. There's just some hilarious stories about people trying to lie about not having TVs.

 

[iBlue]

Yeah, Celebrity Do Ball Dancing, Celebrity Fame Academy and 'whatever other tedious activity they can think is more interesting if you make a bunch of z-listers compete in it' is really worth the money.

Actually, the BBC is quite a decent service. You just have to ignore BBC One and Radio One. It's a shame that instead of offering an alternative to ITV, they instead chose to compete on the same ground. IMO, the BBC should not be spending millions on retaining established talent. The wage packets picked up by the likes of Jonathan Ross and Chris Moyles is just obscene for a public service broadcaster (actually, its obscene that Chris Moyles is still allowed to breathe, but that's another story). They should be more concerned with discovering new talent.

Well when I see (advert-free) shows like Planet Earth (and things like that) it always reminds of where that money goes. The BBC is pretty awesome from what I've seen. (but then I'm just a n00b)

What do you get for a license besides the use of a TV and BBC shows (which are worth the funding)? The website doesn't say. There's just some hilarious stories about people trying to lie about not having TVs.

Someone answered this for me a while back but I don't recall. It's just one of many fees that are somewhat annoying and probably over-kill but a necessary part of living in the UK. <shrugs>

 

[Loge]

I read "non-DRMed audio" in the PDF. Either way, I pitched for no DRM across the board.

It is in the provisional conclusions document page 11.

Basically the recommendation is to exclude classical music from the non-DRM audio downloads.

Quote -

"Ofcom concluded, and we agree, that there is a potential negative market impact if the BBC allows listeners to build an extensive library of classical
music that will serve as a close substitute for commercially available downloads or CDs. On the other hand, we believe that the BBC plays a significant national role through its orchestras and other performers that generates considerable public value, and that downloads can help bring classical music to new audiences. The MIA observed that the impact of the service would vary depending on the nature of the content offered and
suggested that the range of classical content provided should be specified much more tightly. If appropriate practical guidelines could not be formulated then it was Ofcom’s view that classical music should be entirely excluded. We considered the approach of more tightly defining the content that could be provided and concluded that it would be difficult effectively to define such a specification, and that it would likely reduce the benefit of introducing new audiences to classical music. We also considered an alternative approach to
reducing the scope – through allowing the BBC to provide only the occasional single complete work of classical music for download, offered around BBC seasons or events with high impact. On balance, we concluded that the public value was not sufficient to justify the negative market impact identified by Ofcom. Subject to consultation, we intend to exclude
classical music from the non-DRM audio downloads service."

 

[AdeFowler]

Completed. Thanks for the link.

I suggested that all users have access to the service regardless of platform.

I suggested that programmes be made available for purchase on a world-wide platform like iTunes.

 

[Queso]

BTW, I know I asked not to M$-bash on the BBC site, but I've got to get this off my chest. Why is it that so many British organisations and Government departments see Microsoft as this big benevolent trustworthy entity? I can guarantee the BBC have received hints from Microsoft that Windows DRM will be offered to other OSes in the near future. Microsoft of course have no plans to do this, they're just doing their usual trick of promising things for the next version that will never appear in order to get the sale today.

When are the people who run this country finally going to wake up? It's bad enough that people here are being completely stiffed on the price of Vista without our public bodies doing everything to ensure that we must just bend over, hand over the cash and allow M$ to shaft us.

 

[After G]

It is in the provisional conclusions document page 11.

Basically the recommendation is to exclude classical music from the non-DRM audio downloads.

<snip for sanity>

I did address this somewhat in that I asked for low enough quality (96 kbps suggested) that new listeners could get in on the listening and enjoy it somewhat but current buyers would want CDs instead due to the low quality. But that really sucks if they're really going to do that.

 

[iW00t]

At the end of the day unless we have open sourced DRM (not going to happen) it really seems impossible.

 

[joshysquashy]

What do you get for a license besides the use of a TV and BBC shows (which are worth the funding)? The website doesn't say. There's just some hilarious stories about people trying to lie about not having TVs.

the main thing is absolutely no adverts. the money they get is all from the licence. the content tends to be less consumer driven and more cultured too.

whenever we get an American program over here, there are gaps where adverts were meant to go every 5 mins, but it just carries straight on. even on non-bbc channels we have half the adverts intended! must be annoying as hell!

 

[After G]

the main thing is absolutely no adverts. the money they get is all from the licence. the content tends to be less consumer driven and more cultured too.

whenever we get an American program over here, there are gaps where adverts were meant to go every 5 mins, but it just carries straight on. even on non-bbc channels we have half the adverts intended! must be annoying as hell!

Gaps? As in they show nothing? Wow...

Well, if you pay extra, you can have non-ad TV here. But I think people's attention span here is too short to care.

But when you're used to them or you don't watch you don't really care as much. I like the style where they show the content straight through and put adverts between the shows. Especially when the adverts are disguised as shows. Makes them useful.

 

[Queso]

whenever we get an American program over here, there are gaps where adverts were meant to go every 5 mins, but it just carries straight on. even on non-bbc channels we have half the adverts intended! must be annoying as hell!

ITV and Channel 4 only have a maximum of six minutes of adverts in an hour long program. They were looking into extending that a few years back, but came to the conclusion that viewers would just turn over to the BBC to escape. So the license fee has the effect of keeping the amount of adverts across all UK channels down (except Sky One, which adopts a more American approach).

Gaps? As in they show nothing? Wow...

LOL. Not quite that dramatic. The show will fade out at the point where it should contain adverts in the US, but fade up again a couple of seconds later. We don't get three minutes of black-screen and silence

 

[joshysquashy]

Especially when the adverts are disguised as shows. Makes them useful.

Sounds like propaganda if you think you are watching a show but actually it is sell sell sell! i dont like that, i like to have control over what i buy, not someone hypnotising me with hidden advertising!!!

theyr not gaps, just a fade to black, then back again, its obvious it was an advert break they missed!