On 21 Dec, 11:27, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 10:04:28 -0000, "Carl Waring" <em>
> wrote:
>>
> [..]
> "One experienced web developer, who wishes to remain anonymous, described the
> project to us at the height of its Babylonian excess. He painted a picture of
> mismanagement and spiralling costs.
>
> "The disorganisation was incredible. It was clear to me that the management had
> lost track of where they wanted [iPlayer] to go," he told us.
>
> "I can honestly say it was the biggest mess I've ever worked on. There were
> individual executives within the BBC who ran their part of the project as a
> personal fiefdom, yet wanted involvement in all outside decisions."
>
> He left the huge iPlayer team as soon as his ****freelancer's contract***
> allowed."

Wasn't it a Microsoft project? Or at least partly to do with them?

And that article mentions Youtube and now they've got a bigger viewing
window as it were, as well as the fact that a well-encoded file with a
high resolution can be made very good at fullscreen, why not get them
to put the shows on there instead of wasting BBC resources?

After all, if you're a big company with lots to spend, you get to have
more than the 11-minute limit that Youtube currently allows for the
mere proles.

On 21 Dec, 10:04, "Carl Waring" <em> wrote:
> Martin wrote:
> > The BBC have to keep their thousands of contractors going somehow.
>
> Oh FFS! Given that this (as far as I know) developed by the BBC themselves,
> what 'contractors' would those be then?

LOL! The BBC are looking more like C4 every day, getting other
companies to do more of their programmes for them, and anything else
they can't do themselves.

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 06:37:14 -0800 (PST), Dom Robinson <pickpops>
wrote:

>On 21 Dec, 11:27, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>Wasn't it a Microsoft project? Or at least partly to do with them?
>
>And that article mentions Youtube and now they've got a bigger viewing
>window as it were, as well as the fact that a well-encoded file with a
>high resolution can be made very good at fullscreen, why not get them
>to put the shows on there instead of wasting BBC resources?

Yeah but then expats could view them. Bwaaaah!! LOL

BBC Prime at it's best just now. Their website has been "improved". Their
schedule website no longer covers The Netherlands. Odd considering the number of
potential cable viewers they have. Even odder still is that you can't actually
find out when episodes of series are going to be shown.

>
>After all, if you're a big company with lots to spend, you get to have
>more than the 11-minute limit that Youtube currently allows for the
>mere proles.

They could have done it for GBP40K if they had known what they were doing when
they started. TVCatchUp did.

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 06:40:10 -0800 (PST), Dom Robinson <pickpops>
wrote:

>On 21 Dec, 10:04, "Carl Waring" <em> wrote:
>> Martin wrote:
>> > The BBC have to keep their thousands of contractors going somehow.
>>
>> Oh FFS! Given that this (as far as I know) developed by the BBC themselves,
>> what 'contractors' would those be then?
>
>LOL! The BBC are looking more like C4 every day, getting other
>companies to do more of their programmes for them, and anything else
>they can't do themselves.

It's not uncommon for companies to use body shopping companies to do
software/systems work they haven't a clue about themselves and to get into deep
shit as a result.

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 06:37:14 -0800 (PST), Dom Robinson
<pickpops> wrote:

>On 21 Dec, 11:27, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>Wasn't it a Microsoft project? Or at least partly to do with them?

Well according to that article it was a "failure".

Funny. A year later and it still seems to be still around and doing
better than ever. Unlike the Reg which continues to go down the toilet
with the utter crap it publishes, supported only by its most rabid
fanboys.

It's certainly convenient for the anti-BBC agenda of that story, but
why does the "experienced" web developer wish to remain anonymous?

Is he made up? Is he lying? Oh, look:

"He left the huge iPlayer team as soon as his freelancer's contract
allowed."

In other words he was kicked off the project. His contract was not
renewed, he was not rehired, he is bitter about it and is a walking
axe just waiting to be ground.

Or perhaps he was just outright sacked for incompentence? Either way
he was not complaining while still under contract, which he could have
done, given how anonymous he wants to be.

"It was worse than Boo.com," said another (conveniently for the Reg
also "anonymous") source. Presumably a source who worked at Boo.com or
more likely a "source" that simply doesn't exist.

And what happened to Boo.com? Oh, it imploded. What happened to
iPlayer? Oh, it's still here, better than ever.

And how much did Boo.com spend? About £100 million.

And how much did iPlayer cost to develop? £6 million. So a year's
wages for Jonathan Ross or just over $1 million a year since the
project was started.

I'd really love to hear how anybody in this group whining about the
BBC could get something like iPlayer made with less than £6 million.

Perhaps the combined might of News International and NBC could do it
though. They're big. They're American. They know their shit.

Oops, no. Hulu.com cost £10 million million to develop.

I wonder why they didn't just use Youtube, eh, Dom?

>And that article mentions Youtube and now they've got a bigger viewing
>window as it were, as well as the fact that a well-encoded file with a
>high resolution can be made very good at fullscreen, why not get them
>to put the shows on there instead of wasting BBC resources?
>
>After all, if you're a big company with lots to spend, you get to have
>more than the 11-minute limit that Youtube currently allows for the
>mere proles.

So instead of "wasting resources" developing their own system (for a
paltry £6 million), you want them to waste resources paying Google
because it's otherwise totally impossible to use Youtube for TV shows?

Can you give me a list of other broadcasters doing what you suggest,
rather than developing their own systems?

In article <68lsk4djabh8n6i4n6l8v3d7qolmtl345f>, melid
says...
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 06:37:14 -0800 (PST), Dom Robinson <pickpops>
> wrote:
>> Yeah but then expats could view them. Bwaaaah!! LOL

Not necessarily. I uploaded a clip of Frank Sidebottom on Big Brother's Little
Brother when he was playing Luke from BB9 and for some reason, six months
later C4 decided to block the video in Guernsey, Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey,
United Kingdom, but allow it elsewhere and get statistics on the hits in all
other countries.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&h...&v=pYFwLVcuE78

One of the BBC's news Youtube pages can't be viewed in the UK, either.

> >After all, if you're a big company with lots to spend, you get to have
> >more than the 11-minute limit that Youtube currently allows for the
> >mere proles.
>
> They could have done it for GBP40K if they had known what they were doing when
> they started. TVCatchUp did.

When I see big companies waste a load of money, I'm always reminded of John
Hurt's line in Contact after the first ball thing fails spectacularly and
everyone thinks their chance of finding the answer to what lies beyond it all
has passed, but he shows Jodie that there's a second one after all:

"Why have one... when you can have two for twice the price!"

In article <494e6b56$0$31180$8a667849>, me says....
> I'd really love to hear how anybody in this group whining about the
> BBC could get something like iPlayer made with less than £6 million.

And the rest.

>
> So instead of "wasting resources" developing their own system (for a
> paltry £6 million), you want them to waste resources paying Google
> because it's otherwise totally impossible to use Youtube for TV shows?
>
> Can you give me a list of other broadcasters doing what you suggest,
> rather than developing their own systems?

At the time of the US elections there were full 90-minute speeches available
to view by the respective parties.

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:24:59 -0000, Dom Robinson
<useaddressin> wrote:

>In article <494e6b56$0$31180$8a667849>, me says...
>> I'd really love to hear how anybody in this group whining about the
>> BBC could get something like iPlayer made with less than £6 million.
>
>And the rest.

If you say so.

>> Can you give me a list of other broadcasters doing what you suggest,
>> rather than developing their own systems?
>
>At the time of the US elections there were full 90-minute speeches available
>to view by the respective parties.

So that's a 'no'.

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:17:13 -0000, Dom Robinson
<useaddressin> wrote:

>One of the BBC's news Youtube pages can't be viewed in the UK, either.

Which one? Or, any idea why it can't be?

Some of the stuff that is unavailable in the UK is weird. I'd have
thought a very British group's music would be viewable here, but the
'Official Depeche Mode Channel' (dmdotcom - from Basildon, USA) and DM
stuff from SireRecords/warnerbrosrecords is unavailable.

AFAIK some/all/most BBC Youtube stuff can't be viewed outside the UK.
Someone in Canada was complaining the Kermode advent calendar didn't
work, apparently because the Youtube videos are not available there.

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:14:16 +0000, Froot Bat <me> wrote:

>And how much did iPlayer cost to develop? £6 million. So a year's
>wages for Jonathan Ross or just over $1 million a year since the
>project was started.
>
>I'd really love to hear how anybody in this group whining about the
>BBC could get something like iPlayer made with less than £6 million.

I freely admit to not being very "up" on the technical side of these
things, but what is it that the BBC actually developed? Surely
iPlayer just does what any other video website does (Youtube being the
most obvious example) but with slightly higher quality video and a
different user interface?

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 17:41:52 +0000, middlelight wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:14:16 +0000, Froot Bat <me> wrote:
>
>>And how much did iPlayer cost to develop? £6 million. So a year's
>>wages for Jonathan Ross or just over $1 million a year since the
>>project was started.
>>
>>I'd really love to hear how anybody in this group whining about the
>>BBC could get something like iPlayer made with less than £6 million.
>
>I freely admit to not being very "up" on the technical side of these
>things, but what is it that the BBC actually developed? Surely
>iPlayer just does what any other video website does (Youtube being the
>most obvious example) but with slightly higher quality video and a
>different user interface?

TVCatchUp had a fully functioning system for GBP40K. It didn't filter out
expats, but then again how much money has the BBC make by doing that?

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 17:41:52 +0000, middlelight wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:14:16 +0000, Froot Bat <me> wrote:
>
>>And how much did iPlayer cost to develop? £6 million. So a year's
>>wages for Jonathan Ross or just over $1 million a year since the
>>project was started.
>>
>>I'd really love to hear how anybody in this group whining about the
>>BBC could get something like iPlayer made with less than £6 million.
>
>I freely admit to not being very "up" on the technical side of these
>things, but what is it that the BBC actually developed? Surely
>iPlayer just does what any other video website does (Youtube being the
>most obvious example) but with slightly higher quality video and a
>different user interface?

I don't know the technical side either, TBH, which puts me in the same
position of most people who whine about iPlayer. But consider that
hulu.com - which broadcasts US shows from the likes of Fox and has,
AFAICS, been very positively received in the US - cost £10 million to
develop.

The thing about iPlayer is the people who have an axe to grind will
bash it for any reason. So the fuckwit who wrote that Reg article
bashes it because the cost was £4.5 million (which is nothing for a
major project like iPlayer).

He also bashed it because it had a download option, instead of just a
streaming option. TBH, I also don't see the necessity for a download
option, and have never used it (not sure if they even still have it),
but a lot of other people seemed to like it.

Other people bashed the download option because it wasn't like
BitTorrent, where you could keep it forever and Nigel it with whoever
you like. IOW, because it wasn't illegal; because the BBC are *gasp*
compelled by laws dictating what they can and cannot do.

Other people (like the < 8 people in the UK who don't have a PC with
Windows) bashed it because the download option wasn't available on Mac
or Linux.

(I think the Linux/Mac issues have been addressed now, so people can
also complain that the BBC wasted money on formats almost nobody uses;
Mac/Linux users normally also use Windows too).

Linux fundamentalists, tiny in number but very loud, bash iPlayer
because it has some tenuous connection to Microsoft, along with 90% of
the real world.

Hell even Dom complains about the mysterious 'Microsoft connection',
and he's a freakin WinXP user. He also whines because they're not
using his beloved Youtube. And yet if they had done such a ridiculous
and amateurish thing, people would be slagging the BBC off for not
developing and innovating in-house and giving jobs to British people.

Boring cunts like Martin drone on and on and on and on about little
else but how evil the BBC is, now that he can't watch iPlayer in
Holland due to the BBC enforcing it's obligations to copyright law and
not being able to show material outside the UK. Oh, and maybe because
people like Martin pay no licence fee.

There are simply some people who will never accept the BBC does a good
job, because they have their own petty little agendas. A lot of the
BBC attacks are from right-wing loons (like certain people in this
group) of the kind who are responsible for the current financial
crisis.

Ie, people who think everything should be left to the free market, and
the BBC, like nationalised essential utilities, is 'socialist' and
therefore evil and would be better run by profiteering capitalist
crooks.

Some people in this country wouldn't recognise a British success if it
kicked them in the face. Something they seriously need. I mentioned
Hulu at the start of this, and here's this, "BBC iPlayer: An American
Perspective":

"While I’ve always had a high regard for Hulu’s smooth streaming and
well-designed user interface, I’ve been really blown away by iPlayer —
it takes the Hulu standard to a new level"

http://newteevee.com/2008/10/06/bbc-...n-perspective/

(Okay, she also thinks Little Britain is hilarious, but still...)

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 18:47:39 +0100, Martin <me> wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 17:41:52 +0000, middlelight wrote:
>>TVCatchUp had a fully functioning system for GBP40K. It didn't filter out
>expats,

Actually they do "filter out" people outside the UK.

>but then again how much money has the BBC make by doing that?

How much money has it made? WTF are you on about, you senile fucker?

In article <494e7839$0$21253$8a667849>, me says....
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:24:59 -0000, Dom Robinson
> <useaddressin> wrote:
>
> >In article <494e6b56$0$31180$8a667849>, me says...
> >> I'd really love to hear how anybody in this group whining about the
> >> BBC could get something like iPlayer made with less than £6 million.
> >
> >And the rest.
>
> If you say so.

Yeah, and it still only cost £6m to date? Hmm....

> >> Can you give me a list of other broadcasters doing what you suggest,
> >> rather than developing their own systems?
> >
> >At the time of the US elections there were full 90-minute speeches available
> >to view by the respective parties.
>
> So that's a 'no'.

I didn't say they weren't still there. I just hadn't seen them in searches
lately.

In article <494e913c$0$21253$8a667849>, me says...
> Other people bashed the download option because it wasn't like
> BitTorrent, where you could keep it forever and Nigel it with whoever
> you like. IOW, because it wasn't illegal; because the BBC are *gasp*
> compelled by laws dictating what they can and cannot do.

Bittorrents aren't illegal. And you sound like you think you have a clue!

> Hell even Dom complains about the mysterious 'Microsoft connection',

I didn't complain about it at all.

> and he's a freakin WinXP user. He also whines because they're not
> using his beloved Youtube. And yet if they had done such a ridiculous

I didn't whine about them not using Youtube.

> Some people in this country wouldn't recognise a British success if it
> kicked them in the face. Something they seriously need. I mentioned
> Hulu at the start of this, and here's this, "BBC iPlayer: An American
> Perspective":
>
> "While I?ve always had a high regard for Hulu?s smooth streaming and
> well-designed user interface, I?ve been really blown away by iPlayer ?
> it takes the Hulu standard to a new level"
>
> [..]

Do all Hulu clips feature those fucking annoying logos like the Family Guy
clip did?