BBC Quietly Announces Linux/Mac iPlayer

Keir Thomas writes "When the BBC released its new iPlayer watch-on-demand service, there were many complaints about the fact it was Windows-only — the equivalent of current BBC broadcasts only being watchable on, say, a Sony television. The good news is that the BBC has announced a Flash-based player for Linux and Mac due by the end of the year. (The announcement is buried half way down the page.) The bad news is that it will probably only offer streaming, and not the ability to download programs, like the Windows client has. Quote: 'It comes down to cost per person and reach at the end of the day.'"

Version that has fewer features is unacceptable

[Shisha]

I don't quite believe the BBC is serious. If the Linux / Mac player has fewer features than the Windows player, then maybe BBC will let people with only Mac / Linux computers at home to pay a lower license fee? Unless the versions are equal in terms of quality I will consider refusing to pay the fee in full. A bit of civil disobedience might be in order.

(note to non-UK readers: every household with a TV has to pay BBC a compulsory license fee of about GBP 120 per year)

Stream only?

[Alsee]

There's no such thing as "sending a stream". Physically impossible.
The only difference between a "download" and a "stream" is whether the person who receives the data choses to save it or not. As far as the sender goes, either the transmit the data or they don't send the data. There is no physical difference between sending a "stream" and sending a download. If the person watching the video tells his computer to save the data, then it is a download. Period end of story. They just have to have their software instructed to save the data.

The idea that you can ever "send a stream"... that something can be "streaming only", it is a total fiction, physically impossible. Yet brain damaged idiots persist in ignoring or fighting the laws of physics. When you get in a battle with the laws of physics, you will always lose and the laws of physics will always win.

Streaming only. Idiots. It'll take about 1.3 minutes after it goes online before people start saving the "stream".

-

Good news?

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't good news. This is the BBC attempting to skirt around its responsibilities to the British public because someone somewhere in the higher ranks has aligned the corporation with Microsoft. Someone at the top has made a lot of money out of this. This along with the BBC losing its objectivity, dumbing down its programming, pandering to the lowest common denominator like commercial TV and ripping off viewers with its phone ins. Something at the BBC has gone rotten.

Hopefully the BBC's watchdog will slap them down in the upcoming 6 monthly review. If iPlayer is not going to be *properly* cross-platform then the BBC shouldn't be doing it. Especially when they want to offload 2000 employees because of a supposed lack of money.

Re:flash

[rucs_hack]

I'm not really concerned that this player doesn't allow you to download the content. After all, the content expires on windows after a while anyway. Current bcc streaming options include the option (on those I use) of resuming where you left off listening/watching beforehand. That's more than adequate for my needs.

In fact I prefer the idea of a flash based web player. The problem with an installed player is that it only works if installed (obviously), so I can't just watch anywhere when I want.

Re:flash

[arivanov]

Just do not get me started there. The Beeb nowdays is a well behaved and obedient UK govt lapdog. Just read the coverage of this summer fires in Greece on the beeb and in other non-UK media and spot the differences. They are very interesting.

Re:flash

[ray-auch]

The requirement on the BBC is to be cross-platform (platfrom neutral) not non-proprietary. This is a big step forward in meeting that requirement.

Re:flash

[mykdavies]

Well here's one difference:

"summer fires greece site:msnbc.com" - 18 hits
"summer fires greece site:bbc.co.uk" - 1320 hits

but I don't think that's the point you're making. Looking at the articles returned, I don't see anything odd about the BBC coverage; the key topics seem to be the same as other sites: lots of people and land affected, long-term environmental consequences, accusations of arson. I don't see what you're getting at.

Re:Stream only?

[CubicleView]

Not the entire story. Yes you can record a video "stream" and call it a "download", it'll give you the same file. But you can't download a video and start watching it before the download is complete. Streaming a file implies that the data is been sent in a specific order to allow for this.

Re:Only Sony TV?

[mattpalmer1086]

Whoosh!

That was the whole point of the Sony TV metaphor, poor as it was. The iPlayer is not based on open standards, it's software/protocol is locked in to Windows only. Rather like a hypothetical situation where you could only receive certain TV programmes on a TV made by a single manufacturer...

whatever

[m2943]

The BBC seems a bit out of touch if they think that Flash isn't downloadable.

In any case, it is hard to understand why they don't simply make the stuff available as MPEG4. But, hey, maybe their audience will do it for them.

Re:Equivalent?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wasn't saying whether it was right or wrong, just pushing my finger through the big gaping hole in the analogy. But, hypothetically, if NTSC (US style) TV sets were a small percentage of the market (5-10%) and PAL (European style) sets were the other 90%, I don't think it would be unreasonable for BBC to devote more resources to the PAL viewers. I say that as I write this on a Mac.

cost per person

[aristolochene]

I pay > £120 for my TV licence - and live in a major city. If I lived in the middle of nowhere I would receive the same TV shows for the same price. Yet the "cost per person" of delivering TV to remote ares is far higher.

For that reason the "cost per person" argument doesn't wash. As a public service broadcaster with a good history of technological innovation the BBC *should* be providing the same services to people who don't want/can't afford to use windows.

Define "Linux"

[ozbird]

"Linux" covers a multitude of sins... Which architectures exactly does the new Flash-based iPlayer support? (Given my own negative experiences with the amd64 Flash plug-in for Firefox, I suspect the answer is more or less just "x86".)

So, change it.

[malevolentjelly]

I find it disturbing that- although the most popular consumer linux distro is London-based Ubuntu- the player is targeted only at windows users.

"We need to get the streaming service up and look at the ratio of consumption between the services and then we need to look long and hard at whether we build a download service for Mac and Linux..."

So push up those numbers, people. If you're running Linux or mac, make sure to use that web-based iPlayer. Show the BBC that you're not a fringe market. Let your numbers be heard. I assure you they will pay attention to where their hits come from.

It's funny that they switched from one closed source unaccessible technology to another. Flash is just barely linux compliant- even Silverlight will likely beat it in interoperability. If they want to use Microsoft's technology solutions, they should use Silverlight, so Ubuntu users will at least have Moonlight.

Re:flash

[Ed Avis]

Yes, they should be platform neutral. That surely means not depending on a single proprietary platform such as Flash.

Re:flash

[evilviper]

Flash is just as much a proprietary standard as Microsoft Windows (and more proprietary than Silverlight).

The Flash video formats are well understood, and largely standard. I fail to see how Silverlight is any better.

The original standard for Flash video (FLV) used a slightly modified h.263 video codec with MP3 audio, which was quickly reverse engineered by open source players. Flash 7 added On2's VP6 codec, which is proprietary, but at least there are dual suppliers you can license it from.

Future versions of Flash (v.9+) will be switching to 100% standard video and audio formats, using h.264/AVC video, MP3 or AAC audio, and the MP4 container. You can just create a file in Quicktime with its default settings, and Flash (beta versions) will play it.

My objection to Flash video is not the format, but that the source of the video is heavily obfusticated thanks to needing to embed an SWF player app, and only it knowing where the file is. Meanwhile, every non-Flash video is directly embedded in the web page so 3rd party plug-ins can handle them all... JUST NOT FLASH.

If every web page author would simply provide an alternate way to access the video, a direct link to the FLV file (in addition to the embedded SWF player) I would have no objection to Flash. Instead, I just never watch videos on websites that use Flash.