On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:18:37 -0000, Dom Robinson
<useaddressin> wrote:

>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....

Even the Reg article gave £4.5 million in 2007 when it was written.
When somebody-who-really-needs-to-get-a-life made a Freedom of
Information request to the BBC in March this year it was £6 million.

Sorry that doesn't quite jibe with the £130 million cost of iPlayer
you and assorted other loonies plucked out of the air a few months ago
and the £200 million you dreamed up in this thread.

But even if it was £200m, what else do you want the BBC to do with the
money? The quibbles about paying people £6m a year are valid, but it's
always seemed to me that projects like iPlayer, or iPlayer Jr, are
exactly the kind of things they _should_ be spending their/our money
on.

I wonder if many people complained about the BBC "wasting money" on a
television service in the 1930s.

Again, while people in this country piss and moan about iPlayer, the
rest of the world sees it for what it is: a huge success, an important
future path of 'television' broadcasting and a model to follow.

Another American perspective:

"the real push into online video is being led by a surprising actor:
old-media stalwart British Broadcasting Corp".

"The BBC's remarkable success [...] has caught the attention of
broadcasters all around the world".

"The BBC has proved an unexpected trailblazer and is now a model for
companies such as Italy's RAI and Germany's RTL"

"[iPlayer is] one of the most successful streaming video services in
the world.

"Unlike youth-oriented YouTube, the iPlayer has also been a hit with
an older audience."

"From day one, the BBC's iPlayer started with the right experience"

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbi...072_556416.htm

And when that journalist mentions the heavy investment in VOD from the
BBC over the next few years he doesn't see it as a bad thing, as
whiney little knobheads here do, he's talking about it (quite rightly)
as a positive thing.

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:18:38 -0000, Dom Robinson
<useaddressin> wrote:

>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!

So if you download and/or share a BBC TV show via BT that doesn't
break any laws, eh? How's that legal career going?

>> Hell even Dom complains about the mysterious 'Microsoft connection',
>
>I didn't complain about it at all.

Oh, you were praising it? Like you were praising it the last time you
mentioned it, when you said the BBC could do it "for cheaper", but why
not "hang the expense" and have a "jolly" with Microsoft.

And you sound like you think you have a clue!

>> 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.

Oh, so again I misunderstood. You were merely _praising_ them for
"wasting money" instead of using Youtube. I see.

>> 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?

Dunno, the only show I've ever seen at Hulu.com is "This video is not
available in your region".

Martin wrote:
[..]
> 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."

What I meant was it wasn't something they bought off someone else wholesale.

However, okay. Sorry.

Martin wrote:
> Time to admit that you have gaps in your knowledge about how the BBC
> works.

I have never said otherwise. At least I /know/ that I don't know everything.

Martin wrote:
> 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.

Customers from which they don't receive /anything/ in payment for receiving
their services, so why the hell should they go out of their way to support
them?

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

Yeah, but it doesn't have to pay for the rights to do what it does whereas
the BBC do.

Nornally one would call that "stealing" but apparantly it's accepted under
the "Television Without Frontiers" directive.

Yeah, right. That's why it was set up. So people could steal content from
other providers. I /don't/ think.

In article <494f4d49$0$31184$8a667849>, me says...
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:18:38 -0000, Dom Robinson
> <useaddressin> wrote:
>
> >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!
>
> So if you download and/or share a BBC TV show via BT that doesn't
> break any laws, eh? How's that legal career going?

So when you record a programme onto a DVD or video and give it to a friend to
watch, you're committing a crime? Yeah, right!

> >> Hell even Dom complains about the mysterious 'Microsoft connection',
> >
> >I didn't complain about it at all.
>
> Oh, you were praising it? Like you were praising it the last time you
> mentioned it, when you said the BBC could do it "for cheaper", but why
> not "hang the expense" and have a "jolly" with Microsoft.
>
> And you sound like you think you have a clue!

You're trying to twist words and make them say what you think they're saying.

> >> 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.
>
> Oh, so again I misunderstood. You were merely _praising_ them for
> "wasting money" instead of using Youtube. I see.

You really should stop twisting words.

>
> Dunno, the only show I've ever seen at Hulu.com is "This video is not
> available in your region".

Go and look at the Family Guy clip linked previously, then.

In article <494f4d21$0$31184$8a667849>, me says....
> But even if it was £200m, what else do you want the BBC to do with the
> money?
>
Spend it on new programming.

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 00:23:14 -0000, Dom Robinson <useaddressin> wrote:

>In article <494f4d21$0$31184$8a667849>, me says...
>> But even if it was £200m, what else do you want the BBC to do with the
>> money?
>>
>Spend it on new programming.

How very naive, Dom.

In article <2a14l4l1n16eki3u2e96klq4arl2fojmdj>, melid
says...
[..]

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 13:08:04 -0000, Dom Robinson <useaddressin> wrote:

>In article <2a14l4l1n16eki3u2e96klq4arl2fojmdj>, melid
>says...
>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 00:23:14 -0000, Dom Robinson <useaddressin> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <494f4d21$0$31184$8a667849>, me says...
>> >> But even if it was £200m, what else do you want the BBC to do with the
>> >> money?
>> >>
>> >Spend it on new programming.
>>
>> How very naive, Dom.
>>
>?

As if they would. More like spend it on recruiting their old school friends.

In article <t6j4l45ud8ovj9n0oen0i6u4kpf5d21ht0>, melid
says...
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 13:08:04 -0000, Dom Robinson <useaddressin> wrote:
>
>
> As if they would. More like spend it on recruiting their old school friends.
>
R I C.

On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 00:27:47 -0000, Dom Robinson <useaddressin> wrote:

>In article <t6j4l45ud8ovj9n0oen0i6u4kpf5d21ht0>, melid
>says...
>R I C.

R I C H ??

On 25 Dec, 09:39, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 00:27:47 -0000, Dom Robinson <useaddres> wrote:
>>
>>
>> R I C H ??
> --

No, it was 'Ah, I see!' :)

On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 02:21:34 -0800 (PST), Dom Robinson <pickpops>
wrote:

>On 25 Dec, 09:39, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>No, it was 'Ah, I see!' :)

R I C 2 :)