Introducing the new BBC iPlayer(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Introducing the new BBC iPlayer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/posts/Introducing-the-new-BBC-iPlayer
51 comments
Some of the time this will be an obligation based on content rights - e.g. the BBC only have bought the rights to show Premier League highlights or the Olympics in the UK, where as in the US NBC or ESPN might have bought those rights.
Other times, this will be due to the British government not wanting to be seen to be undercutting commercial providers in other countries (there's enough pressure on the government in how the BBC is run from commercial providers in the UK).
What's more frustrating is when the BBC produces content (e.g. via BBC Worldwide or BBC Foreign Service) which isn't available in the UK. Fortunately that's fairly rare.
Other times, this will be due to the British government not wanting to be seen to be undercutting commercial providers in other countries (there's enough pressure on the government in how the BBC is run from commercial providers in the UK).
What's more frustrating is when the BBC produces content (e.g. via BBC Worldwide or BBC Foreign Service) which isn't available in the UK. Fortunately that's fairly rare.
I suspect it might go further than not be seen to want to undercut commercial providers (though in the case of this government that's absolutely true), I suspect that it might be illegal for them to do so - state subsidies and all.
Portuguese living in Germany having the same issues to watch some TV series because, of rights not being usable outside Portugal.
Not to mention how I really hate GEMA here.
Not to mention how I really hate GEMA here.
Rights.
The BBC probably gets a better price for externally produced programming if they limit their broadcast rights to the UK because the producer can then go sell the program abroad without having to compete with BBC iPlayer.
Conversely, for internally produced programming, if it's good, there's revenue to be made from selling that programming abroad. In Denmark, BBC channels are premium channels on cable.
Impossible to finance? Probably not. But it's significant cost, and despite your assertion, the BBCs fiduciary responsibility is to the UK license fee payers, not the average european citizen. That said, providing a login with your license fee receipt so those can watch iPlayer abroad would probably be doable.
The BBC probably gets a better price for externally produced programming if they limit their broadcast rights to the UK because the producer can then go sell the program abroad without having to compete with BBC iPlayer.
Conversely, for internally produced programming, if it's good, there's revenue to be made from selling that programming abroad. In Denmark, BBC channels are premium channels on cable.
Impossible to finance? Probably not. But it's significant cost, and despite your assertion, the BBCs fiduciary responsibility is to the UK license fee payers, not the average european citizen. That said, providing a login with your license fee receipt so those can watch iPlayer abroad would probably be doable.
I know that there is a cost attached, even though, from an argumentative stand point I sometimes want to wish it away...
That is where transfer payments between the publically fincanced broadcasters come in. Make one big nice platform where every EUropean can watch all the non-third-party content and then distribute part of the public broadcasting revenue to those broadcasters whose content was watched by users in other countries.
I know this is not realistic, but from my point of view it looks as if the only reason we don't have something like this is that the people in the right places just don't care.
That is where transfer payments between the publically fincanced broadcasters come in. Make one big nice platform where every EUropean can watch all the non-third-party content and then distribute part of the public broadcasting revenue to those broadcasters whose content was watched by users in other countries.
I know this is not realistic, but from my point of view it looks as if the only reason we don't have something like this is that the people in the right places just don't care.
You're seriously asserting TV as a moral right?
Hell, I can see frustration at what could or should be a commercially workable model not being in place but saying that there is some moral obligation based on the EU Freedom of Movement is bullshit and then some.
Seriously I love Europe and I love the EU but the minute TV becomes a moral right I will march on Brussels with a flaming torch myself.
Hell, I can see frustration at what could or should be a commercially workable model not being in place but saying that there is some moral obligation based on the EU Freedom of Movement is bullshit and then some.
Seriously I love Europe and I love the EU but the minute TV becomes a moral right I will march on Brussels with a flaming torch myself.
The BBC is more than TV. The BBC is a cultural lifeline. It might be less so today in the age of the internet but it still is significant.
If you say there is no moral obligation, then what is the reason for the BBC or ARD or YLE or TVE or RAI to even exist?
Publically financed broadcasting is based on the idea that the people should have some sort of neutral-ish source of information. If you strip away all the stuff that has been put on top (football rights, TV dramas and the like), it comes back to that. On a side note, it is actually a discussion that is taking place over here in Germany, whether or not entertainment is part of the mission of ARD and ZDF.
Now why should there be a magical wall on the border of the island, beyond which the British citizens don't have the right to be informed?
One could argue that it is completely irrelevant whether or not _I_ can watch the BBC, but there is a moral obligation towards the expat Brits.
If you say there is no moral obligation, then what is the reason for the BBC or ARD or YLE or TVE or RAI to even exist?
Publically financed broadcasting is based on the idea that the people should have some sort of neutral-ish source of information. If you strip away all the stuff that has been put on top (football rights, TV dramas and the like), it comes back to that. On a side note, it is actually a discussion that is taking place over here in Germany, whether or not entertainment is part of the mission of ARD and ZDF.
Now why should there be a magical wall on the border of the island, beyond which the British citizens don't have the right to be informed?
One could argue that it is completely irrelevant whether or not _I_ can watch the BBC, but there is a moral obligation towards the expat Brits.
Independent news is a different thing. I might question how or why it's the UK's obligation to provide that but I'm very proud that we do provide it through the World Service on the radio (broadcast around the world), the BBC News website and multiple regional global news channels available in most countries.
But that's a very different thing to making Strictly Come Dancing and Doctor Who available to expats and others as a "cultural lifeline". Part of leaving a country is that you do leave things behind and I don't see why TV is something people should be entitled to any more than they are to red London buses, policeman in strangely impractical hats or Ribena and Marmite.
Even aside from the practical challenges around licencing of content, I'm not sure the British TV licence payer has any interest in funding a global TV network, and even if we did would having this behemoth of broadcasting available across the world have a positive or negative impact on local stations, particularly in smaller English speaking countries?
But that's a very different thing to making Strictly Come Dancing and Doctor Who available to expats and others as a "cultural lifeline". Part of leaving a country is that you do leave things behind and I don't see why TV is something people should be entitled to any more than they are to red London buses, policeman in strangely impractical hats or Ribena and Marmite.
Even aside from the practical challenges around licencing of content, I'm not sure the British TV licence payer has any interest in funding a global TV network, and even if we did would having this behemoth of broadcasting available across the world have a positive or negative impact on local stations, particularly in smaller English speaking countries?
There is a global version of the BBC iPlayer for viewers in some European countries
http://europe.bbcentertainment.com/about-iplayer/
It's downloadable from the iTunes store and you have to pay to watch. I have no idea what content they provide: I presume it's what they consider most likely to sell or appeal to a mass audience. If you're after interesting or specialised BBC documentaries, you might be out of luck.
Regarding radio, all the BBC radio stations can be listened to live if you're outside the UK (but not through iPlayer catch-up). There's also a podcasts directory
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts
http://europe.bbcentertainment.com/about-iplayer/
It's downloadable from the iTunes store and you have to pay to watch. I have no idea what content they provide: I presume it's what they consider most likely to sell or appeal to a mass audience. If you're after interesting or specialised BBC documentaries, you might be out of luck.
Regarding radio, all the BBC radio stations can be listened to live if you're outside the UK (but not through iPlayer catch-up). There's also a podcasts directory
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts
I'd like to see them put some more effort on content delivery for their TV partners. I have a Bravia EX and half the time the iPlayer streams don't work i.e. you get sound and no video. Then occasionally we get shot down for a couple of weeks at a time with content region warnings suggesting we're not in the UK.
Having spoken to Sony and my ISP, they're both suggesting that the administrative side of iPlayer is a mess. The former tell them that the BBC regularly breaks their codecs and metadata streams and the latter suggest that the BBC rarely update their geographical IP databases.
Not a great experience.
It's bad when you have to hit the proxy torrent sites to view content you already paid for with your TV license...
Having spoken to Sony and my ISP, they're both suggesting that the administrative side of iPlayer is a mess. The former tell them that the BBC regularly breaks their codecs and metadata streams and the latter suggest that the BBC rarely update their geographical IP databases.
Not a great experience.
It's bad when you have to hit the proxy torrent sites to view content you already paid for with your TV license...
It's not just Sony. We have two LG TVs, one that's ~4 years old and one from last year. Funnily enough, the older one almost always works perfectly, the new one (a far more powerful/responsive TV, with a much newer version of the iPlayer software) barely works at all. We've complained to LG and were informed that 'a new version will be released shortly'.
my Bravia works fine for iplayer some one needs to light a fire under ITV and get there on demand service to actually work and be roll it out on to smart TV's.
I wish they made more of the programme information with links. Imagine clicking on the presenter's name and getting a list of other programmes they had done. This would be a great way to find things to watch. The same could apply with production companies and so on. This would bring in some IMDB style functionality they could build on to sell downloads of programmes currently not available. They could even start to sell movies.
I doubt the latter idea would be compatible with the arcane terms of being a "public service broadcaster".
I only recently discovered that there's another player lurking over at http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/ that has the schedule overlaid onto the live stream with the ability to easily switch back to an earlier show and a channel selection overlay in fullscreen.
I'm hoping this is going to be incorporated into the new iPlayer when watching live, because it seems mad to have this functionality missing depending on which part of the site you're watching live from.
Also, I'm hoping the keyboard controls will be improved. It'd be nice for the spacebar to function as pause/play and the left right arrows to skip in much smaller increments so they're actually useful.
The skipping increment being too large also affects my Humax HDR-1000S, where you can only jump in 1 minute blocks, which is far too big to be useful when seeking to the start of something. 10 seconds would be far better.
edit: The site's just offered me a go on the trial and it looks like most of the things I wanted have actually been implemented. Excellent stuff!
I'm hoping this is going to be incorporated into the new iPlayer when watching live, because it seems mad to have this functionality missing depending on which part of the site you're watching live from.
Also, I'm hoping the keyboard controls will be improved. It'd be nice for the spacebar to function as pause/play and the left right arrows to skip in much smaller increments so they're actually useful.
The skipping increment being too large also affects my Humax HDR-1000S, where you can only jump in 1 minute blocks, which is far too big to be useful when seeking to the start of something. 10 seconds would be far better.
edit: The site's just offered me a go on the trial and it looks like most of the things I wanted have actually been implemented. Excellent stuff!
To announce a big new release and announce vaguely that subtitle support for iOS and Android downloads is still "coming soon" is a massive kick in the teeth. At this point they should at least be able to give us an ETA.
What is it that makes it harder to support subtitles in downloads rather than streaming? I suppose I can see that with streaming you can serve up subtitled or non-subtitled streams according to user preference, but iOS has native support for subtitles in video.
Is this some kind of crappy contractual/rights-holder thing, where "mobile devices" have to be negotiated separately?
What is it that makes it harder to support subtitles in downloads rather than streaming? I suppose I can see that with streaming you can serve up subtitled or non-subtitled streams according to user preference, but iOS has native support for subtitles in video.
Is this some kind of crappy contractual/rights-holder thing, where "mobile devices" have to be negotiated separately?
I am not an iOS developer, so pardon my ignorance - but does iOS have support of http://www.w3.org/TR/ttaf1-dfxp/ ? That's how iPlayer currently supports subtitles for streaming.
Do iOS/Android natively support subtitles on video streams? If so, there's really no excuse for it.
I believe the answer for iOS is both yes and no: it natively supports text subtitles, but not DVD/Blu-ray-style bitmap subtitles.
I HATE IT when you have too many search inputs on a page, that don't give you the same results: http://cl.ly/image/3K111v1N1K1y
Still requires Flash. BBC continues its long tradition of epic fail.
I work on iPlayer. The new responsive design website will use the HTML5 + HLS player on iOS. Currently on Android and desktop we are using Flash + HDS/RTMP, but it's possible this will change in the future. The reason we are using Flash at the moment is partly to do with content protection (which involves negotiations with the content rights holder), and partly to do with the fact that there isn't a standard streaming mechanism across the different platforms we need to support. We would likely move to MPEG-DASH, for example, if it's more widely adopted across the platforms.
That's interesting. Do you know why content providers are OK for content to go to iOS without DRM (beyond client certificate checks) but not to Android or the desktop?
Part of this is a legal/rights question, so I won't get into too much details. But when I said content protection I didn't explicitly say DRM :)
You are correct that currently iOS streams are protected by client certs and that is sufficient enough in that ecosystem. On Android and desktop, there is still a need for a sufficient level of content protection, but as I said a big reason we are using Flash on those platforms is the cross-platform support and the engineering efforts at the moment. I can't really comment more on future directions around this area, but needless to say we are constantly evaluating the different emerging streaming technologies out there.
You are correct that currently iOS streams are protected by client certs and that is sufficient enough in that ecosystem. On Android and desktop, there is still a need for a sufficient level of content protection, but as I said a big reason we are using Flash on those platforms is the cross-platform support and the engineering efforts at the moment. I can't really comment more on future directions around this area, but needless to say we are constantly evaluating the different emerging streaming technologies out there.
Chromecast support please! Thank you.
What would you it rather use? HTML5? Silverlight?
What is wrong with using an establish platform like Flash? iPlayer works, and works well. I happy to see BBC continuing to improve.
I don't see anything close to resembling epic fail with iPlayer.
What is wrong with using an establish platform like Flash? iPlayer works, and works well. I happy to see BBC continuing to improve.
I don't see anything close to resembling epic fail with iPlayer.
Well, for one, Flash is a vector for viruses - why should I expose my computer to a much greater attack surface just to watch video. Secondly, Flash is often less effcient than the native implementation - on my Mac the fan ramps up frequently when running Flash apps, but rarely when running HTML5 / Javascript apps. Then there's the fact that Flash takes up space on my flash drive, which I would much rather keep for something useful.
That's just a few reasons off the top of my head. When you consider the fact that they support iPhones / iPads, they are already streaming h264, so why not do it in HTML5?
That's just a few reasons off the top of my head. When you consider the fact that they support iPhones / iPads, they are already streaming h264, so why not do it in HTML5?
Because they have to pretend DRM works.
(They know it's a lie, they have to pretend it isn't. There's basically an eternal free-floating culture war in the BBC between the sort of people who think DRM works and the sort of people who think it doesn't. The BBC is a ridiculously non-monolithic entity.)
Flash is less-worse than their original plan ... a fat client application written in C#, because of course that works everywhere.
(They know it's a lie, they have to pretend it isn't. There's basically an eternal free-floating culture war in the BBC between the sort of people who think DRM works and the sort of people who think it doesn't. The BBC is a ridiculously non-monolithic entity.)
Flash is less-worse than their original plan ... a fat client application written in C#, because of course that works everywhere.
DRM. The BBC can make it "harder" to intercept the video stream by using Flash, it is the reason most of these types of services are still on flash. This is why HTML5 DRM is going to happen, it will remove Flash from the mix, at the expense of having a binary blob from the content owners that manages the DRM.
Fair points. Flash is moderately inefficient and a vector for viruses. But it runs on practically all computers out there and works on older computers that doesn't have HTMl5 supported browsers. Hopefully this segment is shrinking but it still exists.
We don't know how their development cycle looks or their backend. There is probably a reason they chose not to do HTMl5 at this moment. It will probably come in due time. Worth noting is that Youtube mostly remains on Flash, though they do have HTML5 beta.
HTML5 is still quite a new technology while Flash is well established, despite its flaws.
We don't know how their development cycle looks or their backend. There is probably a reason they chose not to do HTMl5 at this moment. It will probably come in due time. Worth noting is that Youtube mostly remains on Flash, though they do have HTML5 beta.
HTML5 is still quite a new technology while Flash is well established, despite its flaws.
Well, there are probably between 1.5-2 billion mobile devices that don't run Flash, and we'll probably see another billion over the next two years. I don't bother to install Flash on my desktop, I just use Chrome when I need it.
Luckily BBC only have to care about British citizens. I don't know how they do mobile streaming but it clearly works on at least some mobile devices. Native app for that?
I only really use iPlayer from a computer.
> I don't bother to install Flash on my desktop, I just use Chrome when I need it.
Most people don't know, care or understand what flash is. They want something that works and don't really care if it isn't as secure as something else or use slightly more resources. HN is not really representative for the public at large.
> I don't bother to install Flash on my desktop, I just use Chrome when I need it.
Most people don't know, care or understand what flash is. They want something that works and don't really care if it isn't as secure as something else or use slightly more resources. HN is not really representative for the public at large.
I've got no experience with this, but isn't HTML5 video quite hard to do well? I hear a number of problems with YouTube's HTML5 player, whereas the Flash player works extremely well. I imagine that DRM is an issue, but performance and stability is another.
Also, isn't the iPlayer video loaded differently to most online video providers? If I remember correctly, they don't load the full video in the same way that the likes of YouTube does. Is that easily done with HTML5?
Also, isn't the iPlayer video loaded differently to most online video providers? If I remember correctly, they don't load the full video in the same way that the likes of YouTube does. Is that easily done with HTML5?
They're already happy to send out unencrypted streams to iOS users. But as with too many tech companies, if you're not using Apple you're a second class citizen.
> What would you it rather use?
BitTorrent
BitTorrent
I was more looking for a realistic alternative choice for BBC.
BitTorrent isn't.
BitTorrent isn't.
Why? There is proof to the contrary. The Eurovision Song Contest has been streamed via a decentralized peer-to-peer protocol (albeit proprietary) for some years now.
And the BBC is involved with that. So what is different here?
Furthermore, if they were to lose the ridiculous DRM requirements for programs (programmes?) which are already paid for, they could even use the actual Bittorrent protocol itself.
And the BBC is involved with that. So what is different here?
Furthermore, if they were to lose the ridiculous DRM requirements for programs (programmes?) which are already paid for, they could even use the actual Bittorrent protocol itself.
The iPlayer is pretty great and has gone from strength to strength.
Things for me that I'd like to see (as I can see some of the devs on here)
1. Content - I see no reason why the BBC doesn't put all of it's content on the iPlayer.
2. Timelimit - Abandon the 7 day window time limit, it simply doesn't fit with our modern lives, Netflix has proved that.
3. Ability to log in using my TV Licence as an ID, that way I could stream content from another country (on holiday for example, or a business trip).
Great work though guys, thank you.
Things for me that I'd like to see (as I can see some of the devs on here)
1. Content - I see no reason why the BBC doesn't put all of it's content on the iPlayer.
2. Timelimit - Abandon the 7 day window time limit, it simply doesn't fit with our modern lives, Netflix has proved that.
3. Ability to log in using my TV Licence as an ID, that way I could stream content from another country (on holiday for example, or a business trip).
Great work though guys, thank you.
They're moving it up from 7 days to 30 days at some point soon.
I'm still hoping that the BBC will take my money and let me have the iPlayer in the US. My wife is British, and would absolutely love to be able to watch all the BBC content. Let me pay a TV license fee [1], or whatever. Just take my money.
[1] For US folks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Uni...
[1] For US folks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Uni...
This has always been my position, and seems common in the ex pat community. I would pay the equivalent license fee just to get access online via iPlayer in a heartbeat.
Some of the issues were touched on by QI creator John Lloyd, when they were trying to get QI licensed for the US(only source I found was dead link referenced by wiki). There are so many differences in licensing around the movie clips and songs used in episodes between countries that what the Beeb can play under fair use in the UK would be prohibitively expensive elsewhere.
Some of the issues were touched on by QI creator John Lloyd, when they were trying to get QI licensed for the US(only source I found was dead link referenced by wiki). There are so many differences in licensing around the movie clips and songs used in episodes between countries that what the Beeb can play under fair use in the UK would be prohibitively expensive elsewhere.
I find it weird that iPlayer will let me stream over 3g but refuses to allow me to download over 3g. (On iOS).
The radio iPlayer is a bit frustrating if you wanto listen to specific programmes rather than just streaming a station.
EG: searchin for "milton jones" doesn't reurn anything, but "thank you milton" does.
Having said that, the BBC is amazing and I buy a licence despite not legally needing to. The "in our time" archive is brilliant.
The radio iPlayer is a bit frustrating if you wanto listen to specific programmes rather than just streaming a station.
EG: searchin for "milton jones" doesn't reurn anything, but "thank you milton" does.
Having said that, the BBC is amazing and I buy a licence despite not legally needing to. The "in our time" archive is brilliant.
I'm really hoping this redesign is why the Xbox One iPlayer app is delayed.
It's interesting that the iPlayer team are so open about some things but so quiet about others.
I don't expect ETAs I'm just interested to know the differences between PS4 and Xbox One app development.
Is anyone seeing the new design yet? I am not here...
It's a phased launch. Even though it's a responsive design website, we are launching it by routing mobile and tablet traffic to it first, to make sure everything works properly. There will be an opt-in mechanism on the existing desktop site later today.
Am I the only one wants to access the BBC from my Apple TV?
Indeed not.
However I don't feel that particular pain point because I can currently access iPlayer directly from my Sony smart TV, my Sony Blu-Ray player and my Virgin Media Tivo box. I can also use AirPlay to send from my iPad.
Sadly, apart from the iPad, seeking is real pain. Want to pop back to re-watch something in the last minute? Bad luck - you're skipped back about 20 minutes.
However I don't feel that particular pain point because I can currently access iPlayer directly from my Sony smart TV, my Sony Blu-Ray player and my Virgin Media Tivo box. I can also use AirPlay to send from my iPad.
Sadly, apart from the iPad, seeking is real pain. Want to pop back to re-watch something in the last minute? Bad luck - you're skipped back about 20 minutes.
We use AirPlay from an iPad - but I'd rather have native support in the Apple TV itself.
Will it be better than Popcorn Time?
http://time.com/18867/popcorn-time-is-so-good-at-movie-pirac...
http://time.com/18867/popcorn-time-is-so-good-at-movie-pirac...
Yes, well. It's not like the publically financed television stations of EUrope have FUCKING MORAL OBLIGATION to help the free movement of people throughout Europe by making the programs that connect them with their home country and that they paid for available to them. And the BBC is _by far_ not the worst offender here.
I mean, even YLE, which should be happy that anybody outside of Finland wants to participate in the madness that is the Finnish language, blocks me based on my IP!
Of course, I am well aware that I am a German citizen and thus not paying into the BBC financing. This is of course an insourmountable obstacle, today in 2014.
It's not like there was any possible way to track which countries the programmes are watched from and then install some transfer payment systems between the publically financed broadcasters of the different countries.
Admittedly, our public broadcasters here in Germany have an annual budget of only 7.5 Billion Euros, so this is impossible to finance.
Man, I'm frustrated about this. Why is the media world so broken? Who runs a television station and then makes a significant effort to _keep_ people from watching it, even though them doing so has no or negligible impact on their budget?