'Hey Beeb' – BBC Developing Voice Assistant for iPlayer App and Website

[daveak]

The BBC keeps expanding into new areas when it is already in a questionable funding environment. I'm sure the over 75s who will soon have to start paying the licence fee will not be happy at this.

The BBC is supposed to provide a service that would not otherwise exist, not compete with commercial enterprises. The BBC has no valid reason to exist beyond providing broadcasts (or related services) that would not happen if they did not exist. This does not meet that.

The blame for the loss of the free license for over 75s is firmly at the feet of the Conservative government. They have forced the BBC to have to either pay for it or scrap it as a way to place the blame elsewhere. They know the BBC cannot afford to spend 20% of its entire budget on free licences. It is a step further towards the push for privatisation so the tory cronies can rack the money in.

 

[Veinticinco]

The BBC. I swear there’s whole meeting rooms of feckless self-important flunkies sitting round tables coming up with copycat stuff. It makes you think scenes from W1A, a documentary-style comedy about the BBC inner workings, were based on reality. Pure head-shaking cringe.

 

[Porco]

Having to login is mildly irksome, I agree.
However, you're only handing over 'personal data' if you choose to provide them with genuine information (I didn't, and used an ignored email address dedicated to possible spam). Problem solved.

Indeed, and I did just that too for the rare occasions I use iPlayer. But many people won’t do that, they will hand over anything asked, because it’s the BBC - which is one small part of the list of objections I have to it.

 

[peterh988]

The blame for the loss of the free license for over 75s is firmly at the feet of the Conservative government. They have forced the BBC to have to either pay for it or scrap it as a way to place the blame elsewhere. They know the BBC cannot afford to spend 20% of its entire budget on free licences. It is a step further towards the push for privatisation so the tory cronies can rack the money in.

Thee BBC were fully aware at the last charter renewal that they would be responsible for funding the free licences from 2020.

Now that time is approaching, they're trying wriggle out od an agreement they entered.

They should go subscription.

 

[fivenotrump]

And best of all the BBC has no commercials, something that used to drive me bananas in the US. There are only so many lawyer or pharmaceutical adverts you can take when trying to watch an episode of Swamp People!

The BBC has endless annoying adverts for its own stuff.

 

[daveak]

Thee BBC were fully aware at the last charter renewal that they would be responsible for funding the free licences from 2020.

Now that time is approaching, they're trying wriggle out od an agreement they entered.

They should go subscription.

The renewal left them little choice but to agree or suffer even lower funding. Again, the government at fault. Rather than going subscription they should just receive government funds directly from normal taxation. They already have to do as they are told to ensure they get the license fee so no concern over interference beyond what already happens.

 

[Gilligan's last elephant]

The BBC. I swear there’s whole meeting rooms of feckless self-important flunkies sitting round tables coming up with copycat stuff. It makes you think scenes from W1A, a documentary-style comedy about the BBC inner workings, were based on reality. Pure head-shaking cringe.

You beat me to W1A. One of the best comedies (along with its predecessor 2012) I have see in a long time

 

[Moonjumper]

The blame for the loss of the free license for over 75s is firmly at the feet of the Conservative government. They have forced the BBC to have to either pay for it or scrap it as a way to place the blame elsewhere. They know the BBC cannot afford to spend 20% of its entire budget on free licences. It is a step further towards the push for privatisation so the tory cronies can rack the money in.

Yes, the Conservatives are absolutely to blame for the funding cut, but rather than tightening their belts, they are moving into new areas that do not suit them, nor shows any benefit to their purpose.

 

[Ruggy]

A previously functional app by a publically-funded broadcaster now demands unnecessary personal data before I can use it again? Really? There’s a long list of reasons why it is a terrible idea, both in principle and practice, in terms of usability, accessibility, privacy, data slurping, over-commercialisation...

You don't need to give them your own, accurate data though.
I have an old hotmail email address that I haven't looked at for years and I'm not sure it even works and I used that. It doesn't even have my real name or initials.
I can't remember what other information they ask for but they don't know if what you put is true or not and so this is true for just about any form you need to fill in:

You can say anything is your mother's maiden name as long as you can remember it.

You don't have to give your real date of birth. Interesting sometimes to see when you get congratulations from other sources on the date you've given and you then know who has sold their contacts list.

For telephone numbers, all 0000 usually works but otherwise pick something public like a local post office and you can use their postcode too.
For the BBC I seem to remember I used their SW1 postcode and one of their contact phone numbers.
Etc, etc you get the idea.
Sometimes, you have to give an active email because it must be verified but you can still have one that isn't in your real name and you keep it just for that purpose. I find one that is just numbers gets less spam and anyway, when you get a message beginning, 'Hello Mr. 1234' then you know you can bin it.
It's very liberating and quite good fun to realise you don't have to tell the truth and they don't know.
On one site I put my address as Rue de Ramarques and my first boss as Me Mum.

 

[Googlyhead]

Having to login is mildly irksome, I agree.
However, you're only handing over 'personal data' if you choose to provide them with genuine information (I didn't, and used an ignored email address dedicated to possible spam). Problem solved.

It also pretty much breaks the concept of Freeview Play:

Expectation/advertising/concept: navigate the TV guide and click on the program. Program plays in associated app.

Reality: click the program and get taken to a different users' account. They're going to be happy with the changing history/recommendations.
Sign out. Presented with screen to either sign up or confirm sign-in on a computer device, possibly via email.
After going through the excessive and intrusive cookies and data collection rigmarole; sign in.
Now you're at a start page trying to persuade you to watch something you would usually avoid, with no recollection of the program that you originally clicked on.

Utopia for mindless identical drones, but not when you have your own thoughts and preferences.

 

[SaxPlayer]

It always amuses me that any article, anywhere about the BBC seems to degenerate into a moaning session for those who have an axe to grind. It's a case of the "grass is always greener" and those gloom and doom merchants would be the first to whinge if the BBC didn't exist anymore or started carrying advertising. Like any large organisation, it's not perfect but personally I happily pay my 42p a day and think it's very good value for money.

I laughed hysterically at the "BBC is left wing" comment made by a few people. Just hang around for a bit and someone else will tell you how it's a trumpet for the Conservative government.

They do a difficult job and they don't get it right all the time. Live with it. That's life.

If you read the detail of the press release, this isn't a Siri or Alexa or Google Home replacement. What they're doing is what the BBC tech people have always done and that is to look at emerging technologies and see how they can be incorporated into their services. So you'll get some kind of voice service in iPlayer, BBC apps and possibly on the website. What's so crazy about that?

For those who are bleating on about not being fair in a commercial environment, the BBC have been instrumental in developing one of the best streaming services, did great work in the move to widescreen and along with Japan's NHK developed a system of 4K HDR that will be of great use to commercial entities. Take Brit Box as another example. The tech is largely developed in-house by the BBC, but commercial "rival" ITV owns 90% of that enterprise. All perfect examples of how the licence fee supported infrastructure can work to the overall good for the commercial sector.

I fear the moaners will just moan on and on whatever the realities of any given situation may be.

I'm poised ready for the moaners to hit back at me...

 

[Googlyhead]

If you read the detail of the press release, this isn't a Siri or Alexa or Google Home replacement. What they're doing is what the BBC tech people have always done and that is to look at emerging technologies and see how they can be incorporated into their services. So you'll get some kind of voice service in iPlayer, BBC apps and possibly on the website. What's so crazy about that?

Dunno about crazy, but the issue with such BBC initiatives is constantly the degradation or hinderance of user experience for the sole purpose of getting as much personal/user data as possible.
Like it states in the linked article; they intend to remove access by other assistants for the sole purpose of user data. And that's not new (iPlayer, archives...). And what's with the amount/scope of data being so much more than commercial 'rivals'?

The BBC already works with other voice assistants but it is increasingly pushing users towards its own products, partly so it can collect more data.

 

[CarpalMac]

The BBC is a joke. Extreme left wing. With agenda driven staffing. And subject matter. London centric. And unbelievably wasteful in presenter numbers. They have three women on one
show which ironically is called Rip Off Britain. They have over a dozen weather presenters and even more sports presenters. Their programmes are dumbing down daily to reflect the exhausted line up of politically correct scripting. Their mainstays like Strictly and Apprentice out stayed their tired formats years ago but the indoctrinated
watchers have nothing else but Facebook to prove theyre alive so watch it they will. And don't get me started on the scandal of how shockingly bad their weather forecasting is. A national joke. But well. It's the BBC innit. What's that? A voice software ecognition thing. Well recognise this. You're crap. You're no longer what you were. And it might set you better to look a bit newer home. Get rid of half the presenters. Stop paying them obscene pay amounts. And rethink banning free licences for the over 75s. Not all of them are Hunniford. Somerville Or Rippon.

Every single day, almost without fail, the BBC News website has a "Have your say" open on a Brexit related article. And it is the same everytime, either:
"Hate Brexit, hate xenophobes/gammons/etc.."
or
"We voted for no deal, get on with it. Remoaners/Democracy haters etc.."

Nothing in-between, it is the same bile being spat by both sides. And the BBC News team obviously just love stirring it all up. That is before I get into the blatantly biased, hate stirring reporting they demonstrate every time interest rate / growth stats and the like come out. Until he resigned they were rushing to report Tim Farron's daily thoughts on Brexit even though at the time the Lib Dems only had about 3 voters.

So much for impartial reporting.

 

[SaxPlayer]

Dunno about crazy, but the issue with such BBC initiatives is constantly the degradation or hinderance of user experience for the sole purpose of getting as much personal/user data as possible.
Like it states in the linked article; they intend to remove access by other assistants for the sole purpose of user data. And that's not new (iPlayer, archives...). And what's with the amount/scope of data being so much more than commercial 'rivals'?

I understand what you're saying. My point was general unwarranted moaning about the BBC. Your point is a valid one, however it isn't just the BBC doing that. It's exactly what commercial rivals throughout the tech industry are doing 24/7. Are you saying Netflix and Amazon Prime don't track what we watch? Of course they do!

I'm not saying that I agree with it, however this isn't something that's unique to the BBC.

 

[Porco]

You don't need to give them your own, accurate data though.
I have an old hotmail email address that I haven't looked at for years and I'm not sure it even works and I used that. It doesn't even have my real name or initials.
I can't remember what other information they ask for but they don't know if what you put is true or not and so this is true for just about any form you need to fill in:

You can say anything is your mother's maiden name as long as you can remember it.

You don't have to give your real date of birth. Interesting sometimes to see when you get congratulations from other sources on the date you've given and you then know who has sold their contacts list.

For telephone numbers, all 0000 usually works but otherwise pick something public like a local post office and you can use their postcode too.
For the BBC I seem to remember I used their SW1 postcode and one of their contact phone numbers.
Etc, etc you get the idea.
Sometimes, you have to give an active email because it must be verified but you can still have one that isn't in your real name and you keep it just for that purpose. I find one that is just numbers gets less spam and anyway, when you get a message beginning, 'Hello Mr. 1234' then you know you can bin it.
It's very liberating and quite good fun to realise you don't have to tell the truth and they don't know.
On one site I put my address as Rue de Ramarques and my first boss as Me Mum.

(N.B. - Hey @Ruggy, you didn’t write your reply outside of the quote tag of my post you quoted, so it's largely hidden, you might want to edit or people won’t see all your response, as it gets truncated as a long quote.)

All good advice, you are preaching to the converted - like I said I did similar but lots of people won’t, or won’t even think to... but the fact we can give them duff info just underlines the pointlessness of the whole thing being imposed. From my point of view there was no good reason to force it in the first place. As with many situations like this, if the advantages are so real people with choose to sign up, unnecessarily forcing it just raises my hackles and makes me feel it’s much more nefarious. Which I actually think it is.

I understand what you're saying. My point was general unwarranted moaning about the BBC. Your point is a valid one, however it isn't just the BBC doing that. It's exactly what commercial rivals throughout the tech industry are doing 24/7. Are you saying Netflix and Amazon Prime don't track what we watch? Of course they do!

I'm not saying that I agree with it, however this isn't something that's unique to the BBC.

Yes but the point is that the BBC isn’t supposed to act just like commercial rivals. They have a responsibility to offer an alternative that isn’t just aping the likes of Netflix, Amazon etc., because of the Royal Charter and licence fee.

If they want to give those up, then they can do what they want. But while being able to receive their free-to-air broadcasts requires what is essentially a form of taxation (which I agree is good value for the programming they provide) they have a privileged position that comes with different expectations and responsibilities than purely commercial companies.

And to me, part of those responsibilities should be not putting obstacles in the way of accessibility, and not slurping up user data for little to no benefit, and certainly not without a way to bypass that for people who have no interest in participating in the company’s personalisation, tracking etc, or the added hassle of sign-ins.

The idea of voice control could even be a good thing for some people - but with their recent approaches to things I just have no confidence it will be done in a good way for only the right reasons. It just feels like they are chasing some ‘cool’ tech because they can, and for frankly shady reasons that benefit them more than users, yet again.

They want to be a publicly-funded organisation yet behave like all the other commercial ones. That is the root issue I have with them. They should pick one, and deal with the consequences and advantages of the choice. Have cake or eat it, stop trying to do both.

 

[SaxPlayer]

Yes but the point is that the BBC isn’t supposed to act just like commercial rivals. They have a responsibility to offer an alternative that isn’t just aping the likes of Netflix, Amazon etc., because of the Royal Charter and licence fee.

If they want to give those up, then they can do what they want. But while being able to receive their free-to-air broadcasts requires what is essentially a form of taxation (which I agree is good value for the programming they provide) they have a privileged position that comes with different expectations and responsibilities than purely commercial companies.

And to me, part of those responsibilities should be not putting obstacles in the way of accessibility, and not slurping up user data for little to no benefit, and certainly not without a way to bypass that for people who have no interest in participating in the company’s personalisation, tracking etc, or the added hassle of sign-ins.

The idea of voice control could even be a good thing for some people - but with their recent approaches to things I just have no confidence it will be done in a good way for only the right reasons. It just feels like they are chasing some ‘cool’ tech because they can, and for frankly shady reasons that benefit them more than users, yet again.

They want to be a publicly-funded organisation yet behave like all the other commercial ones. That is the root issue I have with them. They should pick one, and deal with the consequences and advantages of the choice. Have cake or eat it, stop trying to do both.

You make a valid point there, Porco. I can definitely see what you're getting at.

At least you HAVE a point of view and can explain and justify your stance with facts which is more than I can say for those who insist on posting totally unwarranted whinging such as "the BBC is biased to the left/right*" (*delete as applicable - they get accused of both) which drives me mad. They doth protest too much, methinks.

 

[Porco]

You make a valid point there, Porco. I can definitely see what you're getting at.

At least you HAVE a point of view and can explain and justify your stance with facts which is more than I can say for those who insist on posting totally unwarranted whinging such as "the BBC is biased to the left/right*" (*delete as applicable - they get accused of both) which drives me mad. They doth protest too much, methinks.

Thanks. Yeah, I think the political bias accusations are a complex one. I do personally have some objections to how they cover things sometimes, but honestly I think there are instances of bias in all directions, and a sometimes-skewed idea of what ‘balance’ is, as they have admitted they can do better on themselves.