EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

06.25.08

Why BBC is Microsoft Media (Video)

Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Videos at 4:52 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Ogg Theora

Direct link

Related posts for background:

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

11 Comments

  1. Faemir said,

    June 25, 2008 at 4:25 pm

    Gravatar

    That’s rediculous, how can you claim the BBC are MS corrupted when their whole system runs on linux and they have put effort into making a truely outstanding codec (dirac) instead of using more traditional prop. ones?

    In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if they swapped to using dirac for the iplayer, atleast optionally at some point.

    This is almost as bad as MS FUD.

  2. Ben said,

    June 26, 2008 at 2:44 am

    Gravatar

    Simply saying “because M$ said so” is as bad as any FUD M$ uses. If you think there’s something dodgy then provide real evidence.

  3. Roy Schestowitz said,

    June 26, 2008 at 2:59 am

    Gravatar

    Ben, have you seen the accompanying links? Here is a good place to start. I realise that some people are totally new to this and lack context/background. I’ve personally watched this closely for years and wrote about it also.

    As for DIRAC, that’s the ‘Old BBC’. The new BBC (media division) is managed by Microsoft folks, some of whom came from Microsoft.

  4. Ben said,

    June 26, 2008 at 5:33 am

    Gravatar

    No I haven’t, and it doesn’t matter. _This_ post consisted of accusations without evidence.

  5. Roy Schestowitz said,

    June 26, 2008 at 9:18 am

    Gravatar

    Ben,

    This post contains only a video (showing you a hearing at the Parliament) and 4 links. Where are accusations made? If you challenge previous posts, then be specific and I’ll gladly provide evidence. Don’t rush and shoot the messenger.

  6. RyanT said,

    June 26, 2008 at 12:19 pm

    Gravatar

    The accusation is quite blatantly in the title.

    Some of the links are pretty suspicious too – one, still being links to your own site, and 2, the fact that BBC made a documentary on Bill (a series called the Money Programme about history of many of todays biggest businesses) and while it focused more on his retirement, still had time to bring up some criticism including “talking head” sections from his critics. While it wasn’t comprehensive, it seemed to be something a little more lighter anyway rather than a hard case expose.

    Then, as already mentioned, the investment in Dirac.

    There’s been a spotty past, but even so they’ve tried, and are mostly tied by what is currently popular (flash, and at one point using Realmedia/WMP based players, which they realised they had to move away from and did).

  7. RyanT said,

    June 26, 2008 at 12:45 pm

    Gravatar

    My word….

    Watchnig that video, there is so much stuff said in the text that makes us out as no worse than the people we’re accusing of FUD.
    First of all:

    It’s easy to be a smart arse when you’re not under interview pressure and have google to hand to check the figures, while she, being a human being, is not a perfect human being, and even so did remember the rough estimate (as noted during the interview, excuses staff payment, so I don’t really see how the figure mentioned in the text is debunking or showing anything – it was clear to all it seemed that this was excusing that, and if it wasn’t, it was mentioned by her anyway).

    Unfounded claims of Silverlight wrapper (despite it’s linux based back end and the fact it uses flash, and works fine for streaming on all systems), and while downloading is a bitch to not have, you have to remember is copyrighted original works, therefore has to be protected, making it harder to get around the Linux/open source side of things, and even if they did they’d probably complain because they wouldn’t release the source of something that is meant to seal off/protect the content entirely (Firefox can get away with it because a lot of exploits are down to bugs and such, not that it has to protect copyrighted works from piracy of course – that’s down the content of the page, not the browser).

    Then the incredibly presumptive text in general that doesn’t bring up anything – it just spins and suggests FUD to make the interviewees sound suspicious when for the most part they haven’t said anything deserving of that, except for the interoperability part being on all platforms, which considering the confusion they seemed to have over what they meant, could’ve been an honest mistake or a slip of the tongue. The clip itself sadly only shows a very specific part too, not the whole thing, which would be better.

  8. Ben said,

    June 27, 2008 at 7:26 am

    Gravatar

    “This post contains only a video (showing you a hearing at the Parliament) and 4 links. Where are accusations made?”

    During the video, the subtitles were serious accusations but no evidence to back it up. Some examples:

    at 0:43 : “In fact, the IPlayer cost more than 130 Million! (See Grocklaw.net).” Your accusing the BBC of giving dodgy figures yet no direct links to any evidence, asking viewers to search through a huge site or take our word for it. (And for the record I did find the interview, 130 Million was the cost of modernising the entire BBC from tape based to digital based, Iplayer itself was about 4.5 Million.) And a real citation ;)
    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071118205358171
    look for [14:49]

    at 3:25: “Because his pals at Microsoft Told him to”. That’s a serious allegation against both the BBC and Microsoft. And without any evidence its pure FUD.

    at 3:54: “No its a monopoly tool created by Microsoft”. Well firstly that makes no sense given the context.
    MP “Why did you build Iplayer, why not use BitTorrent or BTVision”
    BBC Director “Actually Iplayer isn’t an internal BBC creation* we did use external tools”
    * Subtitle appears here

    at 3:13: “By Microsoft…”, He doesn’t actually name the various components (and why should he, it wouldn’t answer the question). And the strong implication is that using Microsoft technology is bad, probably is but unless you say why (and it has to be a good reason), or specifically link to someone who says why, its nothing but FUD.

  9. Roy Schestowitz said,

    June 27, 2008 at 7:46 am

    Gravatar

    re: first point

    BBC iPlayer protest report

    “We have 1500 fliers to distribute, that focus on the key issue with the iPlayer, and why $130 Million and 4 years of development don’t get you much when you choose Microsoft DRM.”

    http://www.defectivebydesign.org/blog/iPlayerProtestReport

    re: second point

    Bear in mind that I didn’t edit or produce the video, but just to bear in mind: Erik Huggers, group controller at BBC Future Media & Technology at the time, is a former Microsoft high-level employee who also attended antitrust proceedings in Europe (over Windows Media Player abuses, IIRC).

    re: third point

    Why would the BBC exclude the #1 rival of its new media partner then?

    Feeling the heat at Microsoft

    [CNET]: If I ask you who is Microsoft’s biggest competitor now, who would it be?

    [Ballmer:] Open…Linux. I don’t want to say open source. Linux, certainly have to go with that.

    http://www.news.com/Feeling-the-heat-at-Microsoft/2008-1012_3-6232458.html?tag=ne.fd.mnbc

    re: fourth and last point

    Microsoft has a proven track record of abuse and delivery of shoddy software which, by design, does not play nice with competitors. The iPlayer and its constituent parts are a brilliant example of this.

  10. Mark Kent said,

    June 27, 2008 at 8:01 am

    Gravatar

    The Daily Telegraph reported that up to £120 millions had been spent on the Microsoft version of the iPlayer.

    The BBC DG (the top bod, responding to a parliament questioning) could only admit to “more than £20 millions”, which indicates quite clearly that it’s a lot more, and they were not going to say quite how much. Suggesting that the BBC’s DG and his advisers would be so incompetent as to be unable to answer “what does it cost” to a parliamentary committee specifically set up to investigate the iPlayer is ludicruous. If he’s really that incompetent, he should find another job, along with his advisers.

    The Dirac codec was developed years before the Microsoft iPlayer disaster came along, which was the result of some ex-Microsoft people joining the BBC in their new “media” section, and doing a deal back with Microsoft. There has never been any real intention to support Linux, and it will never happen. This would not be in Microsoft’s interests.

    The successful iPlayer, the one built in a few weeks on the Adobe platform, after the humiliating failure of spending up to £120 millions with Microsoft for something which is so locked to a specific version of windows that hardly anyone can use it, cost a tiny fraction of the Microsoft version, and has been very succesful.

    The BBC’s main argument *for* the Microsoft solution was “DRM”, amazingly, this argument was forgotten in moments when the flash solution was pushed out. Clearly, the DRM line had been a Microsoft one.

    The key party in the BBC eventually lost his job over the whole fiasco, and rightly so in my view. I was disgusted, and remain disgusted, at the amount of my own money (licence-fee) wasted on this ill-advised proprietary junk from Microsoft.

    Ta,

    Mark

  11. Ben said,

    June 28, 2008 at 2:39 am

    Gravatar

    £120 was NOT the cost of the Iplayer. It was the cost of _modernising the ENTIRE BBC_ Previously the BBC’s archive was stored on tapes, they moved decades of film and audio onto digital storage, that was what cost the big money. Developing the Iplayer application cost £4 million.

    “Bear in mind that I didn’t edit or produce the video,”
    Dosn’t matter. Posting it on your blog without commentary is a full endorsement, if you do that you have to take responsibility for any inacuracies.

    I have no idea why they said >£20 Million to parliament, but that’s a guestimate, if you want accurate figures read the interview where he actually had them on hand. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071118205358171

    “Erik Huggers, group controller at BBC Future Media & Technology at the time, is a former Microsoft high-level employee”
    If he’s part of an evil plot to take over the BBC from within then take him down. But unless you have actual evidence he’s deliberately doing evil its pure FUD to claim he’s part of a sinister plan.

    “Why would the BBC exclude the #1 rival of its new media partner then?”
    Technical reasons, prioritising by user count, maybe they wanted to get the public response and make changes before they started porting. Who knows? But jumping to the worst conclusion without evidence is FUD. Besides the online verison is cross platform and it was worth a little teathing troubles to get hold of.

    “Microsoft has a proven track record of abuse and delivery of shoddy software which, by design, does not play nice with competitors. The iPlayer and its constituent parts are a brilliant example of this.”
    Nope, Iplayer’s online Flash version is compliant with internet de-facto standards (and its not like there is an official standard to use anyway), cross platform and pretty high quality. I don’t know if there’s any web 2.0 features people are missing but if you want to watch some BBC TV online, its great.

    The Downloadable client according to the digital grapevine (I never used it) shoddy and tied to Microsoft. But that dosn’t prove anything. You can say the same about any badly written peace of Windows software in existence.

    “There has never been any real intention to support Linux, and it will never happen. This would not be in Microsoft’s interests.”
    Iplayer has an online flash version. Its far more popular than the downloadable version (even with Windows users) and fully supports Linux. I use it and I have no complaints.

    “The BBC’s main argument *for* the Microsoft solution was “DRM”, amazingly, this argument was forgotten in moments when the flash solution was pushed out. Clearly, the DRM line had been a Microsoft one.”
    The BBC isn’t pro-DRM, if you read what they actually said http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071118205358171 its that DRM was a nessacary evil, not because of pirates, but because they needed to convince the copyright holders to allow Iplayer to allow their shows online, DRM convinced them. If they can convince them to allow their shows on the Flash version of Iplayer without DRM, nice work BBC!

    “The successful iPlayer, the one built in a few weeks on the Adobe platform, after the humiliating failure of spending up to £120 millions”
    IPlayer itself did not cost £120 million, the £120 million was spent restructureing the BBC without witch the Flash Iplayer could not have been built. I agree the downloadable Iplayer was a waste of time and money, I just don’t see an evil intent, but please, get your figures right.

What Else is New


  1. Links 18/4/2019: Ubuntu and Derivatives Have Releases, digiKam 6.1.0, OpenSSH 8.0 and LibreOffice 6.2.3

    Links for the day



  2. Freedom is Not a Business and Those Who Make 'Business' by Giving it Away Deserve Naming

    Free software is being parceled and sold to private monopolisers; those who facilitate the process enrich themselves and pose a growing threat to freedom in general — a subject we intend to tackle in the near future



  3. Concluding the Linux Foundation (LF) “Putting the CON in Conference!” (Part 3)

    Conferences constructed or put together based on payments rather than merit pose a risk to the freedom of free software; we conclude our series about events set up by the largest of culprits, which profits from this erosion of freedom



  4. “Mention the War” (of Microsoft Against GNU/Linux)

    The GNU/Linux desktop (or laptops) seems to be languishing or deteriorating, making way for proprietary takeover in the form of Vista 10 and Chrome OS and “web apps” (surveillance); nobody seems too bothered — certainly not the Linux Foundation — by the fact that GNU/Linux itself is being relegated or demoted to a mere “app” on these surveillance platforms (WSL, Croûton and so on)



  5. The European Patent Office Does Not Care About the Law, Today's Management Constantly Attempts to Bypass the Law

    Many EPs (European Patents) are actually "IPs" (invalid patents); the EPO doesn't seem to care and it is again paying for corrupt scholars to toe the party line



  6. The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Once Again Pours Cold Water on Patent Maximalists

    Any hopes of a rebound or turnaround have just been shattered because a bizarre attack on the appeal process (misusing tribal immunity) fell on deaf ears and software patents definitely don't interest the highest court, which already deemed them invalid half a decade ago



  7. Links 17/4/2019: Qt 5.12.3 Released, Ola Bini Arrested (Political Stunts)

    Links for the day



  8. Links 16/4/2019: CentOS Turns 15, Qt Creator 4.9.0 Released

    Links for the day



  9. GNU/Linux is Being Eaten Alive by Large Corporations With Their Agenda

    A sort of corporate takeover, or moneyed interests at the expense of our freedom, can be seen as a 'soft coup' whose eventual outcome would involve all or most servers in 'the cloud' (surveillance with patent tax as part of the rental fees) and almost no laptops/desktops which aren't remotely controlled (and limit what's run on them, using something like UEFI 'secure boot')



  10. Reader's Claim That Rules Similar to the Code of Conduct (CoC) Were 'Imposed' on LibrePlanet and the FSF

    Restrictions on speech are said to have been spread and reached some of the most liberal circles, according to a credible veteran who opposes illiberal censorship



  11. Corporate Media Will Never Cover the EPO's Violations of the Law With Respect to Patent Scope

    The greed-driven gold rush for patents has resulted in a large pool of European Patents that have no legitimacy and are nowadays associated with low legal certainty; the media isn't interested in covering such a monumental disaster that poses a threat to the whole of Europe



  12. A Linux Foundation Run by People Who Reject Linux is Like a Children's Charity Whose Management Dislikes Children

    We remain concerned about the lack of commitment that the Linux Foundation has for Linux; much of the Linux Foundation's Board, for example, comes from hostile companies



  13. Links 15/4/2019: Linux 5.1 RC5 and SolydXK Reviewed

    Links for the day



  14. Links 14/4/2019: Blender 2.80 Release Plan and Ducktype 1.0

    Links for the day



  15. 'Poor' (Multi-Millionaire) Novell CEO, Who Colluded With Steve Ballmer Against GNU/Linux, is Trying to Censor Techrights

    Novell’s last CEO, a former IBMer who just like IBM decided to leverage software patents against the competition (threatening loads of companies using "platoons of patent lawyers"), has decided that siccing lawyers at us would be a good idea



  16. Guest Post: The Linux Foundation (LF) is “Putting the CON in Conference!” (Part 2)

    Calls for papers (CfP) and who gets to assess what's presented or what's not presented is a lesser-explored aspect, especially in this age when large corporate sponsors get to indirectly run entire 'community' events



  17. Patent Maximalists Are Enabling Injustices and Frauds

    It's time to come to grips with the simple fact that extreme patent lenience causes society to suffer and is mostly beneficial to bad actors; for the patent profession to maintain a level of credibility and legitimacy it must reject the deplorable, condemnable zealots



  18. Further Decreasing Focus on Software Patents in the United States as They Barely Exist in Valid Form Anymore

    No headway made after almost 4 months of Iancu-led stunts; software patents remain largely dead and buried, so we’re moving on to other topics



  19. Links 13/4/2019: Wine 4.6 and Emacs 26.2 Released

    Links for the day



  20. Links 12/4/2019: Mesa 19.0.2, Rust 1.34.0 and Flatpak 1.3.2 Released

    Links for the day



  21. Caricature: EPO Standing Tall

    A reader's response to the EPO's tall claims and fluff from yesterday



  22. The EPO is Slipping Out of Control Again and It's Another Battistelli-Like Mess With Disregard for the Rule of Law and Patent Scope

    The banker in chief is just 'printing' or 'minting' lots and lots of patents, even clearly bogus ones that lack substance to back their perceived value



  23. Global Finance Magazine Spreads Lies About the Unitary Patent and German Constitutional Court

    Alluding to the concept of a "unified European patent," some site connected to Class Editori S.p.A. and based in Manhattan/New York City tells obvious lies about the Unified Patent Court (UPC), possibly in an effort to sway outcomes and twist people's expectations



  24. New Building as Perfect Metaphor for the EPO Under the Frenchmen Battistelli and Campinos

    The EPO is in "propaganda mode" only 9 months after the latest French President took Office; the Office is seen as dishonest, even under the new leadership, which routinely lies to the public and to its own staff



  25. Links 11/4/2019: Twisted 19.2.0 Released, Assange Arrested

    Links for the day



  26. EPO Still Wasting Budget, Paying Media and Academics for Spin

    EPO money continues to flow like water into hands that are complicit in legitimising the EPO's management and policies; this highlights the grave dangers of lack of oversight at the EPO, not to mention lawlessness or lack of enforcement



  27. Links 10/4/2019: Microsoft's GDPR Trouble, New Fedora 29 Images

    Links for the day



  28. Linux Magazine is Run by Advertisers, Not GNU/Linux (and It's Hardly the Exception)

    Advertising is big money — so big in fact that publications no longer care what’s true but instead focus on what text brings them more income (from advertisers, of course)



  29. Guest Post: The Linux Foundation (LF) is “Putting the CON in Conference!” (Part 1)

    Proprietary software giants with their sponsorships and gifts are more like Trojan horses or parasites striving to infect the host; how can the LF be protected from them?



  30. EPO Benefits European Patent Trolls With Dodgy European Patents

    The EPO is a stepping stone for parasitic entities looking to leverage patents for exploitative extortion rackets all over Europe; if they get their way, companies that manufacture and sell things will pay a hefty tax to those who create nothing at all and are often not European, either


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts