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. There is No 'New Microsoft': Under Nadella, Patent Extortion Against Linux/Android Carries on

    Kyocera is again being targeted by Microsoft, using patent aggression, with a secret settlement being reached whose negative impact on Android remains to be seen



  2. Patent Propaganda, Glamourisation, and Erosion of Citizens' Rights in the Process

    An overview of recent coverage about patents, demonstrative of inherent bias in the world of patent practitioners and the journalists whom they misinform



  3. Corporate Media Should Stop Grooming Black Duck by Calling it 'Open Source' and Repeating Its Lies

    Black Duck uses gullible (or easy to manipulate) journalists to spread its marketing talking points, which grossly overstate risks of using Free software



  4. Links 6/7/2015: Linux 4.2-rc1, YotaPhone Picks Sailfish OS

    Links for the day



  5. Microsoft Windows Unsafe at Any Speed, by Design

    More timely reminders that Windows is simply not designed to be secure, irrespective of version, status of patching, etc.



  6. After Moonlight Dies and Even Microsoft Abandons Silverlight, the Abusive Monopolist Keeps Pushing for Other Microsoft Lock-in, Injecting OOXML Traps Into Free Software (Moodle)

    Despite a long history of Microsoft formats being proven guarantee of digital obsolescence, Moodle allows itself to become Microsoft prey and a Trojan horse for OOXML in classrooms (for children)



  7. Links 4/7/2015: Mostly (Geo)Political Catchup

    Links for the day



  8. Links 3/7/2015: KDE Applications 15.04.3, Ubuntu-Flavored Compute Stick

    Links for the day



  9. Patent Lawyers and Their Firms, Still Desperate to Protect the Status Quo, Manipulate the Media

    Patent lawyers are besieged by gradual tightening of patent scope and recklessly fight back (e.g. by saturating the media) to secure their revenue sources, derived from (and at the expense of) actual scientists and true market producers



  10. Amid Controversy, Political Scrutiny and Increased Media Pressure Željko Topić and Benoît Battistelli Allegedly Cancel Today's Trip to Zagreb (Croatia) Where Topić Faces Many Criminal Charges

    The Croatian press comments on the recent declaration from the Council of Europe and Topić's not-so-sterling status in his home country, where he is wanted for alleged crimes



  11. Microsoft Gradually Embraces, Extends, Extinguishes Linux Foundation as a Foundation of GNU/Linux

    By liaising with (or hijacking) existing members of the Linux Foundation, as well as by paying the Linux Foundation, Microsoft turns the Linux Foundation into somewhat of a Windows advocacy group



  12. Microsoft India Still Lobbies and Lies About Free Software in Order to Knock Down Policy That Favours Free Software

    Microsoft continues to bully Indian politicians who merely 'dare' to prefer software that India can modify, maintain, extend, audit, etc.



  13. Patent Lawyers and Corporate Media Nervous About New Patents Barrier/Reality (Less Patents on Software and Business Methods)

    The rich and the powerful, as well as their lawyers (whose job is to protect their money and power by means of government-enforced monopoly), carry on whining after the Alice case, in which many abstract patents were essentially ruled -- by extension -- invalid



  14. Translation of Pierre-Yves Le Borgn' Speech Against EPO Management and New Parliamentarian Interventions

    More political fire targeting the EPO's management, adding up to over 100 parliamentarians by now



  15. Links 2/7/2015: KDE Plasma 5.3.2, antiX 15

    Links for the day



  16. Links 1/7/2015: OpenDaylight Lithium, OpenMandriva Lx 2014.2

    Links for the day



  17. Munich Press, Münchner Merkur, Slams the Munich-based EPO

    Pressure on Benoît Battistelli to leave (or be fired) grows as the cronies whom he filled his office with have become a huge public embarrassment to the decades-old European Patent Office



  18. The Shameless Campaign to Paint/Portray Free Software as Inherently Insecure, Using Brands, Logos, and Excessive, Selective Press Coverage

    Some more FUD from firms such as Sonatype, which hope to make money by making people scared of Free/libre software



  19. National Insecurity and Blackmail, Courtesy of Microsoft

    British members of parliament (MPs) outsourced their communication to the number one PRISM company and they are paying the price for it; The US Navy's systems continue to be unbelievably insecure (Windows XP), despite access to the world's biggest nuclear arsenal



  20. Microsoft Keeps Shrinking

    As the era of shrink-wrapped software comes to an end so does Microsoft, whose effort to become a 'cloud' company with online operations has been miserable at best



  21. They 'R' Coming: More Microsoft Money for the Linux Foundation

    The problem with having Microsoft in a Linux Foundation initiative, the R Consortium



  22. Speculations About the EPO's Possible Role in DDOS Attacks

    Readers' views on who might be behind the attacks on this site amid confirmation that it's on the 'targets' list of the EPO



  23. Links 30/6/2015: Linux Mint 17.2, OpenMandriva

    Links for the day



  24. Techrights Confirmed as a Target of EPO Surveillance, With Help From Control Risks Group (CRG)

    Unveiling the cloak of secrecy from long-term surveillance by the European Patent Office (EPO) and a London-based mercenary it hired, bypassing the law



  25. Google's Fight to Keep APIs Free is Lost, Let's Hope Google Continues Fighting

    SCOTUS refuses to rule that APIs cannot be considered copyright-'protected', despite common sense and despite Java (which the case is about) being Free/libre software



  26. Patent Trolls in the Post-Alice World

    A round-up of news about patent trolls in the United States, some of whom are are doing well and some of them not as well



  27. DDOS Attacks Against Techrights

    Information about some of the most recent DDOS attacks against this Web site and the steps to be taken next



  28. The Patent System Not What it Used to be, Large Corporations and Patent Lawyers the Principal Beneficiaries

    A look at some recent patent stories and what can be deduced from them, based on statistics and trends



  29. After Intervention by the Council of Europe Comes a Detailed Summary of the Situation in the European Patent Office (EPO)





  30. IRC Proceedings: May 31st - June 27th, 2015

    Many IRC logs


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