91Èȱ¬ Trust gives provisional views on syndication of on-demand 91Èȱ¬ programmes
Post categories: 91Èȱ¬ Trust,ÌýiPlayer
| 18:52 UK time, Thursday, 13 January 2011
The 91Èȱ¬ Trust has announced its' provisional conclusions on the 91Èȱ¬'s on demand and syndication policy, after their consultation last year. From the press release:
... on-demand 91Èȱ¬ programmes should only be made available to TV platform operators through the 91Èȱ¬ iPlayer, and should not be made available on a programme-by-programme basis... The 91Èȱ¬ iPlayer should be made available in standard formats that the great majority of other TV operators can readily adopt... 'Bespoke' versions of the iPlayer should be developed only in exceptional cases.
The full conclusions are available on the 91Èȱ¬ Trust's website.
A was launched yesterday.
Reaction:
From Broadband TV News:
From Rapid TV News:
From paidContent: . Quote:
The 91Èȱ¬ has refused to help such third parties build bespoke installs of its VOD because it is fielding a burgeoning number of requests. The issue is partly cost - it has now taken its iPlayer on to 31 different technology platforms, but usually only via a one-size-fits-all web experience...
From Reg Hardware: . For trenchant opinion head for the .
Nick Reynolds is Social Media Executive, 91Èȱ¬ Online.
Comment number 1.
At 13th Jan 2011, PR wrote:So does this mean we won't be getting the iOS iPlayer App that was supposed to allow us to d/l content (like the PC/Mac client) and watch offline?
Wow, thanks 91Èȱ¬ Trust! :-/
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 13th Jan 2011, dizi izle wrote:thanx for admin very good
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 14th Jan 2011, Eponymous Cowherd wrote:What, exactly, is meant by "standard formats"? Sounds like weasel words to me. This is not the same as using formats that implement standards.
The difference is clear. A "standard" is something formulated by a standards authority which implementers of the standard are required to adhere to.
A "standard format" can merely be one that is in common use, albeit proprietary and locked (e.g. Flash).
If the 91Èȱ¬ were truly committed to "Standards" it would either utilise an existing open standard, or devise and publish its own, allowing anyone to produce their own iPlayer client for their own platform.
All this proposal seems to do is preserve the status-quo and will not improve the availability of iPlayer to non Apple / Flash based mobile devices.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 14th Jan 2011, Russ wrote:Eponymous Cowherd makes some valid points (I speak as one having worked professionally in the complex standards-setting world), and I get the impression the 91Èȱ¬ does need to be a bit more transparent about its 'standards position'. That said, my cursory reading of the Trust's recommendations is that whilst bespoke versions are not forbidden, any party demanding a 'special' should be prepared to pay for its development.
That seems a fair position to me, especially in the 91Èȱ¬'s current financial situation.
Russ
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 14th Jan 2011, Eponymous Cowherd wrote:Russ:
If the 91Èȱ¬ truly implemented a "Standard" for iPlayer distribution, be it an "open" standard, or one of their own devising (even one that involves a fee/licence to implement) then the question of the 91Èȱ¬ having to create "special" versions wouldn't arise.
3rd parties would be able to build iPlayer clients to the 91Èȱ¬'s specification and wouldn't end up with licence payers angry because there isn't a client for their device and/or suffering a working client being killed off (as in the BeebPlayer fiasco).
Unfortunately, it sounds very much to me, that they are modifying their "syndication policy" to match their current practice and the term "standard format" is being used in the "its what most people use" sense, rather than any intention to produce / use a true "standard".
In other words, the intention is to use Flash for all delivery because it is a "standard format" and Apple's propitiatory format for iThings as an "exceptional case".
In other words, push ahead with their current practice of absolute control over iPlayer implementations.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 15th Jan 2011, Paul Jakma wrote:Agreed with Eponymous Cowherd. The preliminary conclusions seem to fall short of requiring the 91Èȱ¬ to implement iPlayer in the context of universally accessible, published standards. Perhaps the consultation on the preliminary conclusions can be used to convince the Trust to tighten its language on this point.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 17th Jan 2011, worcesterjim wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 24th Jan 2011, Alex Cockell wrote:Umm, it might not be all bad. How about the following?
Our main concern is iPlayer not reaching all architectures, and tfhe Beeb want to maintain control of their client. I wonder... do other Linux distros have paths similar to Canonical's Partner repo, which is how closed source apps can be distributed? Apps are supplied as source form, and software vendors commit to supplying patches. The distro devs then package the app for the target os and release.
Adobe release Flash for Ubuntu this way, as do Skype and Oracle... do Gentoo and some of the SPARC distros have a commercial/Partner scheme that the 91Èȱ¬ could join as a software vendor, in the same way Canonical have ? That way, you have lawyers satisfied...
Same thing could be done around a possible port of an IPlayer client to Qt released to the distro release managers as soujrce ... the Beeb could then engage the Maemo and Meego communities to compile and package their app onto the two environmwnts instead of making it Symbian only. Immediate wider reach of iPlayer on Nokia phones.
They then commit to maintenance patches according to the relevant Partner programmes...
Job done.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 25th Jan 2011, TechFool wrote:Hi Nick
I'm also a bit confused as to why the 91Èȱ¬ doesn't allow the downloads of iPlayer content. Don't we already pay our TV licenses?
I use to use the iPlayer downloader for Mac to download my favourite shows and then play them with VLC player for iPad.
Now since your tech team (or 91Èȱ¬ management) has disabled/broken the iplayer downloader I rarely watch any 91Èȱ¬ content (which is a shame)
Haven't you learnt that:
"Give people what they want and they will reward you with loyalty"
Do you know whether the iPlayer Downloader will be able to work again in the future...
I don't care, even throw in ads, i just want to download when I'm in the office, to watch when I'm travelling
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 8th Feb 2011, Eponymous Cowherd wrote:I see the 91Èȱ¬ are about to release an app specifically for the iPad, even though the iPad is perfectly capable of accessing iPlayer without an additional application.
If "'Bespoke' versions of the iPlayer should be developed only in exceptional cases.", why is the 91Èȱ¬ developing an iPad application where one isn't required, yet refusing to develop an application for non-Flash capable Android devices which outnumber iPads by a considerable number?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 13th Mar 2011, U14812133 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)