Forum.ArchosFans.com
Archos 80 G9 1.5Ghz 1GB RAM ICS 8GB: Buy now (free shipping)
Archos 80 G9 1.5Ghz 1GB RAM ICS 250GB: Buy now (free shipping)
Archos 101 G9 1.5Ghz 1GB RAM ICS 8GB: Buy now (free shipping)
Archos 101 G9 1.5Ghz 1GB RAM ICS 250GB: Buy now (free shipping)
 * Register    * Login 

It is currently Sun Dec 21, 2014 7:07 am

All times are UTC + 1 hour



Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Review on BBC click
PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 8:27 am 
Offline
Archos User
Archos User

Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:50 pm
Posts: 73
Location: Hull
This weeks Click looks at the 60 gb version

www.bbc.co.uk/click


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: Review on BBC click
PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 11:06 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:40 am
Posts: 7052
Location: Copenhagen
Cool, I posted this at http://archosfans.com/2008/11/08/bbc-video-review/


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: Review on BBC click
PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 12:35 pm 
Offline
Archos Guru
Archos Guru

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:00 am
Posts: 419
Location: Kent, UK
Wow - in depth...........


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: Review on BBC click
PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 12:39 pm 
Offline
Archos Guru
Archos Guru

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:00 am
Posts: 419
Location: Kent, UK
Just noticed you recommend about implmenting iPlayer on "open standards".

They do. The BBC is VERY big on open standards, because quite frankly there are many many people who want to bash the BBC. IIRC Anthony Rose has a 605, so he has a vested interest in it working. The 605/5 are supported by the download service which provides higher quality anyway. The streaming version uses basic flash 9, so perhaps someone might have more luck if they can tweak iplayer to think the 5 is a Wii (thus using lower quality Flash 7)?


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: Review on BBC click
PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 1:39 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:40 am
Posts: 7052
Location: Copenhagen
Nope they don't.

Flash is not an open standard. Windows Media DRM is not an open standard.

Definition of open standard: a format that does not prevent anyone from using it. A format that is publicly well documented for others to easilly implement. Including a licence holder that does not charge ridiculous unreasonable amount of money for licensing.

Is BBC's p2p streaming desktop based application an open standard? I doubt it.

The BBC needs someone to kick them in the public service requirement contract and get them to output their content on basic HTML for the Interface using basic open standards such as any basic format as direct links. Streaming could not only be wmv on mms, but H264 and Mp4 on RTSP, that would be supporting open standards.

In the interest of promoting british culture overseas, someone should kick BBC also to allow people with IP adress from outside the UK from also getting access to their content.

If the problem is bandwidth, then they need to use their brains cause there are plenty of ways to manage and pay for that.


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: Review on BBC click
PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:00 pm 
Offline
Archos Guru
Archos Guru

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:00 am
Posts: 419
Location: Kent, UK
Well you raise an interesting point RE web video. There are NO completely open ways to view video on the web. So Flash is the closest you get. And they use plain Flash, nothing weird. The reason the Archos handles it badly is because unlike yourtube it doesnt recognise the flash window, so doesnt go full screen - this is an Archos issue, not a BBC one.

If you'd like to join a lively debate about BBC openness I'd suggest joining the BBC Backstage mailing list - most members are very pro BBC and very pro open-ness. For example there are a few users complaining that the BBC uses Flash because Flash isnt available on their weird-ass 64Bit PowerPC version of Linux. Of course, many of these users have no solution to the problem, they simply expect the BBC to come up with one. Neither WMV is open, and H264 is closed source too, so I'm not sure what you point is there.

As for getting iPlayer content outside the UK - forget it. British licence payers pay for that content and the BBC is very aware that giving it to the rest of the world for free is a bad bad idea (how would you like it if your tax dollars went towards providing me free meals? You'd be very upset). Notice how BBC.com now has ads - thats just for non-UK users, so they are paying for you to use BBC News for example. BBC Worldwide is a commercial arm of the BBC and is very successful - it doesnt need to build any bridges that I'm aware of?

WMV-DRM is not there by BBC's choice - in the ideal world the BBC would like licence fee payers to have full access to the BBC archive (in fact this is currently being worked on), but a lot of the tie the content on BBC iPlayer is NOT owned (fully) by the BBC and therefore needs more protection - protection which the copyright holders DEMAND and even SPECIFY the DRM. So your choices are DRM'd content or not having it. This is also why a lot of content is missing from Streaming iPlayer - as theres no Windows DRM the BBC is not covered to play it.

iPlayer is such a massive operation, that bandwidth to the UK only causes many problems - content isnt even stored in 1 or 2 places - they use local (ie local to the viewer) content delivery networks to handle keeping data near to the user and therefore fast (for streaming anyway).

I dont think you'll find any corporation promoting openness more than the BBC - it has made some wrong turns in the past, but is 100% better at doing these things now. I mean, they have a version 1 BBC Video/Audio codec (Dirac) which in the future could be used for web content delivery, but right now thats just not reality - so they use Flash, which while not open, is at least available across many many devices allowing maximum penetration.


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: Review on BBC click
PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:11 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:40 am
Posts: 7052
Location: Copenhagen
An open standard does not mean everything has to be open source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard

I didn't say BBC should provide their content outside of the UK for free. They can monetize it using ads or make people pay for it.

They may also charge for bandwidth if they want within and outside of the UK. This would be the way to provide HD quality.

Dirac is vaporware as far as I know. It'd be cool if they did something open source that was better then ogg theora, but that is probably not possible as long as there are software patents, even Ogg Theora might have software patent issues.

So only solution is to wait for Obama to change copyright laws worldwide. Which will mean there won't be any copyrights anymore but instead intellectual propriety financed through taxes.

Sure the BBC engineers are cool and all, and their bandwidth usage is the big and stuff. But for now I wouldn't say it's satisfactory.

Danish public service DR streams using H264 and Mpeg4 on RTSP and provides everything as H264 and Mp4 downloads not only non-DRM Windows Media and Flash.


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: Review on BBC click
PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:26 pm 
Offline
Archos Guru
Archos Guru

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:00 am
Posts: 419
Location: Kent, UK
Flash is a Defacto standard which is far more important when considering getting content to users in this scenario. You can take the high ground, but the BBC has to reach its audience too. They do use H264 for iPlayer streams on the HQ mode btw.

Dirac is vapourware? The full source is on the web, ffmpeg can encode it, and I've sseen it used to decode SHD video (thats 33Mpixels per frame). Dirac is some impressive stuff, and your claim of vapourware is ignoreant and foundationless.

BBC do monetize BBC content overseas - they're called DVDs. Charging for bandwidth is a crazy suggestion - the basic infrastructure isnt there to provide the iPlayer service overseas. And the BBC isnt a technology company in that regard so has to rely on partnerships to handle those ends, and its simply not feasible.

AFAIK Obama doesnt even have the ability on his own to change copyright laws in the US (they have to vote on these things - its a democracy), much less the world. I dont recall him even mentioning copyright laws in the run up to the election, so perhaps you care to elaborate?

Yahoo for the Danish -perhaps they have better lawyers than the BBC, or copyright law is different in Denmark. But the problem the BBC has isnt the BBC - its dealing with other copyright holders. As I stated the BBC is working on providing EVERY piece of footage ever broadcast by the BBC for free to UK licence fee payers. Not the last 7 days. Not the last month. Everything. Ever. For Free.


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: Review on BBC click
PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:43 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:40 am
Posts: 7052
Location: Copenhagen
Obama has all the socialist democrats in the pocket. So unless they are all corrupted by Hollywood, he is going to sign in a new law that will probably legalize piracy. Simply encourage the monetization of downloading and uploading of intellectual propriety in other ways. Thus banning all attempts at trying to criminalize any downloading and uploading.

Charging for bandwidth is plain simple logic. BBC pays for bandwidth don't they. So why can't they also charge for it. That doesn't mean they have to make a profit on re-selling the bandwidth. At least they could charge for it differently within the UK and outside the UK.

Flash could be an open standard if Adobe made it so. They simply are not. BBC and others like it could get the governments to force them to make it an open standard. Obama probably will anyways.

Yup Denmark passed a law that allows the public service channel to digitize everything that has been broadcast on it and broadcast it from their website to everyone, excluding some imported foreign shows (to not piss off the foreign rights holders). TV Production companies and music rights holders are paid through taxes. It's a good start, but they are still far from where the laws and monetization models should be.

Look on Obama's website:

Quote:
Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan

Ensure the Full and Free Exchange of Ideas through an Open Internet and Diverse Media Outlets

Encourage Diversity in Media Ownership: Barack Obama believes that the nationÔÇÖs rules ensuring diversity of media ownership are critical to the public interest. Unfortunately, over the past several years, the Federal Communications Commission has promoted the concept of consolidation over diversity. As president, Obama will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nationÔÇÖs spectrum.

Protect American Intellectual Property at Home: Intellectual property is to the digital age what physical goods were to the industrial age. Barack Obama believes we need to update and reform our copyright and patent systems to promote civic discourse, innovation and investment while ensuring that intellectual property owners are fairly treated.


All this might be a little vague and stuff. But it basically means getting rid of the current copyright laws as they are. "Treating intellectual property owners fairly" does not mean putting kids in jail for using BitTorrent. There are plenty of ways to pay those that should be paid.


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: Review on BBC click
PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:56 pm 
Offline
Archos Guru
Archos Guru

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:00 am
Posts: 419
Location: Kent, UK
Quote:
"update and reform our copyright and patent systems to promote civic discourse, innovation and investment while ensuring that intellectual property owners are fairly treated."


While this *may* mean that pirates aren't charged 7 figures for downloading 1 Christina Aguilera song, I think you're reading too much into it if you think that Obama will attempt to legalize piracy. To get rid of copyright laws as they are is a very different proposition from getting rid of copyright laws which is what you seem to read it as.

The BBC can't even make content publishers abandon DRM. How are they going to get Adobe to open it? Why would Adobe want to? The BBC is a partner of Adobe - why would they want to upset one of their biggest partner for a reason thats just not there? Adobe could make Flash an open standard if *they* wanted to, but as the biggest browser based video playback system in the world, why would they be bullied into anything - if anyone was going to make them go more open I'd imagine it would be Google as Youtube has a bit of a reliance on Flash.

You say the BBC should charge for bandwidth - who and how? As Ive stated about 3 times now, iPlayer works because there are literally hundreds of localized content servers serving content locally in the UK only (a little like Joost was supposed to work, from what I recall of those early demo's). The BBC doesnt own those servers, it just pays for the bandwidth (I beleive Yahoo uses them too - dont know if it owns them?). To set that up worldwide would require 10s of thousands of those servers, and so far this is being paid for by 2 ads on the BBC.com site. Its just not feasible.


Last edited by thedo666 on Sat Nov 08, 2008 3:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: Review on BBC click
PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:57 pm 
Offline
Archos Guru
Archos Guru

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:00 am
Posts: 419
Location: Kent, UK
Anyway I think that all the politics and BBC bashing/defending might be a bit OT now :)

I stand by my 1st statement - what a thoroughly in depth review (end sarcasm).


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: Review on BBC click
PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 3:07 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:40 am
Posts: 7052
Location: Copenhagen
How to charge for bandwidth? Have you heard of online payments?

If you don't put the child in prison for downloading using BitTorrent or any other p2p software, then there is no other solution then simply legalizing it. It's just basic common sense.

If you legalize it, then you need to monetize it some other way. No other way makes more sense then through taxes. Now you have two places you can tax from. Through the ISP bill or through income taxes.

How big is the tax going to be? About $5 in average (based on income) per month per user. That's more then enough to monetize all the arts. And it's ridiculously small amount of money (compared to so many other taxes) to be of any problem to simply decide to implement.

Basic logic and inevitable solution to this Bush and republican problem.


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: Review on BBC click
PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 10:02 pm 
Offline
Archos Guru
Archos Guru

Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 3:51 pm
Posts: 1268
Location: US
[quote="thedo666"]Wow - in depth...........[/quote]


The term "review" appears to be very broad in scope. ;)


Top
   
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 

All times are UTC + 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Hosted by Forumatic™