My first experience of this was with BSKYB when I upgraded my satellite system to high definition. To get the same channels I already had, I had to pay £10 a month extra. It’s a curious setup they have that favours no one apart from Sky themselves. If you subscribe to Sky Sports, for example, you can get Sky Sports HD for £10 a month. However, if you don’t already subscribe to Sky Sports you don’t get Sky Sports HD even if you pay the £10 monthly fee. You pay for the content once, and then again for a slightly better version of it.

Sky continue their cash grab by charging for the same content a third time on mobile devices.

This is a practice that’s been working its way into the media industry for some time. If you buy a copy of a song, for example, you don’t have infinite rights to enjoy that song. The media industry lobbying and control groups have been pushing against practices such as backing up and porting for years. If you want to listen to a song in your car, they want you to buy the CD. Want to listen to the same song on your iPod? They want you to download it from iTunes.

So how is this impacting the app store?

Like many stories this month, it’s all about the iPad. The iPad has introduced a new dimension, a new opportunity for developers to exploit. Unfortunately some have chosen the shortest, quickest path to exploiting this opportunity, by lazily porting their apps to the iPad and selling it as a separate app. It’s the Sky HD situation all over again, and developers have fully embraced this analogy by giving their apps a “HD” suffix of prefix.

I’ve come across this already on iPad. Having already paid for apps like Plants Vs Zombies (which I’ve already bought on iPhone and OSX, paying twice), Angry Birds, Flight Control, I find it a bitter pill to swallow that I have to re-buy these games for iPad. Especially since in this specific examples the move to iPad hasn’t really brought anything to the experience, they are fairly lazy ports. Conversely, many apps have simply updated in place to provide iPad support. Air Video, WordPress and others have put time and effort into updating their iPhone apps for iPad and have given it to existing customers for free. This makes you really value the app, and fills you with confidence when considering purchasing an app from the same developer.

The net effect of this approach, and this applies to all three examples above, is that the content (either the apps, or the media) becomes devalued in the eyes of the consumer. If we’re paying for the same content through multiple channels, we will come to value the delivery mechanisms more than the content itself. In the mind of the consumer, we are paying for the delivery mechanism rather than the content being delivered.

This may be the intention of content creators, however, I doubt it. What it does do is align itself with the mindset of pirates, who place very little value on content – it’s not unusual for pirates to invest time and money into the process of illegally downloading content.

To say that this approach is encouraging piracy is perhaps a tad disingenuous. I don’t think it’s something that can be dismissed out of hand either. It leads to an environment where consumers are hesitant to invest in content, particularly content that may be tied to a particular delivery method or medium.

Fortunately, there are some moves to enabling a “content anywhere” approach. Notably some DVDs and Blu Rays now include a downloadable copy of the movie. As it stands, it’s an imperfect solution as the downloadable content is heavily wrapped in DRM and tied to a specific platform (Windows in most cases). This is charging for two delivery methods, on two platforms, and as such comes very close to completely missing the point.

A better example is that of Steam. Steam launched their client on OSX a couple of weeks ago and have been steadily adding to the library of games available on the platform. As part of the launch, Valve announced a feature that meant you could buy a title on one platform and then play it on any other. So if you buy a title on OSX, you can then play it on Windows, and vice versa. Definitely a step in the right direction. The big surprise for me came when Half Life 2 was released for OSX. I bought the retail box version of Half Life 2 on the day it was released for Windows and registered it with Steam. Upon logging in I was given the option to re-download Half Life 2 to play on OSX. A physical game I bought several years earlier for a different platform. it’s a glimpse of how content consumption should work, and means that the content I bought and paid for several years earlier still holds some very real value.

Surely this is how content producers wish their content to be viewed, rather than simply something that accompanies a platform.

Make Money From Your Blog or Website

This post was originally published on The Oak Innovations Blog. Follow me on Twitter.

(click to enlarge)

I’m sure you’ve thought the same thing more than once if you’re internet experience is anything like mine.  Any thoughts on refinement?

Photograph by sflovestory.

Make Money From Your Blog or Website

This post was originally published on The Oak Innovations Blog. Follow me on Twitter.

Anywho, there are two new pieces of iPlayer news. Firstly, the Windows only, badly designed, almost unusable, ill-conceived download version, went offline due to a database problem. No one noticed.

Secondly, the ability to download shows by spoofing your user agent, that I hinted at earlier, has been removed. Confirming that this was an oversight, and not an attempt to give the iPlayer some usable functionality (perish the thought!).

Make Money From Your Blog or Website

This post was originally published on The Oak Innovations Blog. Follow me on Twitter.

The interface for finding content is largely un-changed. So my comment about a filter being applied without the user every actually realising its there still applies. I also stand by my comment stating the browsing screen should display more information about the programme. It seems particularly pointless to have the time remaining on a show when it’s presented in this format, essentially the BBC interface designer saw fit to include it as the second most important piece of information about a show, second only to the title. Surely the programme is either there, or not there, it’s not as if I can rush to download it and watch it later or anything, I’m on a Mac.

Unlike the catalogue browser, the flash video player is brand new. As far as Flash Players go, there’s very little to go wrong. The technology, interface, infrastructure and platform are all established. And for the most part, the iPlayer does a pretty decent job. The quality is certainly up to scratch. If you have Flash version 9 installed you can even go into a proper full screen mode. While you can definately tell you’re watching a web broadcast, it’s not bad enough to annoy while watching a 30 minute TV show. Switching back and forth between minimised and full screen versions can cause problems though, with the feed dropping out and the picture disappearing on occasion. I was also surprised to come across a number of other bugs, from the interface freezing through to a cryptic message telling the me the video couldn’t play and I should try later, despite the fact I was half way through a show.

The other noticeable thing is the speed. Generally, I didn’t have any problems streaming the content. However, I am on a particularly fast cable connection and it is reasonably late at night, so I’m not fighting for bandwidth. I did still experience some stuttering and the spinning dots of doom. This is largely down to the way the BBC have chosen to implement the streaming. YouTube, for example, allows you to download the entire video (cached locally by Flash) before watching it. So essentially, you can experience the entire video without any break ups at all. The iPlayer seemingly takes a different approach, instead choosing to stream absolutely everything to you on the fly. So if you do happen to have a slightly slower connection, you can’t pause it to allow some buffering. This might be a pain and I’m convinced it’s down to the BBC trying to prevent people downloading the source files, which it’s very easy to do with services like YouTube. Apart from the possibility of a stuttering/pausing picture, the other downside of this approach is that jumping between segments can take longer than it should.

The other noticeable aspect of the design is that the BBC clearly isn’t in the business of trying to increase page views. YouTube, for example, goes out of its way to related content to you, essentially trying to keep you on the site for as long as possible. The only thing the iPlayer does to this affect is list two different episodes of the same show when you’ve finished watching. The one thing they do do is brand each show. This means that before the show have to sit through a 10 second channel ident. Now I know the BBC spent millions of pounds creating these idents, but I really don’t need to see them every time. Especially when I’m watching the same ident for the fourth time in ten minutes because the player keeps crashing and I have to restart the show. This follows some of the navigational options and makes it clear that the BBC want to retain the current branding they apply to each channel individually. Personally, I think this is a mistake. If they want to compete with some of the bigger online video providers, I’d like to see them unify the channel branding for the purposes of navigation, and remove the stupid idents. The other angle we can look at this from is that fact that the iPlayer clearly has the capability built in for preceding, and presumably proceeding, a video with content. Rolling this out to other countries as an ad-supported service may have been on the mind of someone, somewhere.

Overall, I quite enjoyed the Flash iPlayer. While it looks like one of the sleekest players out there, it’s functionality can’t quite live with the best and the method of finding content is still clunky and confusingly branded and labelled. It’s also never going to be a great tool for finding new content, partly because of the poor navigation in the catalogue and partly because it lacks the social aspects of something like You Tube. I’d like to see some sort of RSS feed so I can easily see what’s available along with these features.

Have you experienced the new Flash iPlayer? What do you think? Or, if you have any questions, drop them in the comments.

Make Money From Your Blog or Website

This post was originally published on The Oak Innovations Blog. Follow me on Twitter.

ProBlogger “Community Consulting”

I’ve been a reader of Pro Blogger for a long time. Its a very useful resource on blogging written by one of the most respected sources in this growing industry. A while back they ran a community consulting feature where the readers of the ProBlogger gave constructive criticism on another reader’s blog. Fine. Mobilising a blog’s readership to help someone out is a great idea and has been used in other areas of media for a long time. However, yesterday Darren Rowse, the blogger behind Pro Blogger announced that for the next round of community consulting, there would be a charge.

I commented on the post, and said the following:

It seems like a fair price, my only concern is that by charging, and by charging 250 (it’s not cheap), you’re unlikely to attract the sort of bloggers who really need it. i.e. the ones who are struggling, and who’s blogs don’t generate enough income to justify it.

I would have thought that when you started the original idea one of the aims would have been to help out blogs who are struggling. If they’re struggling, they probably can’t afford the 250.

The other thing I would say is this. It’s all very well to say that it’s worth the 250 because you get exposure, advice, links etc. but to then say that Skellie deserves to get paid for running it, regardless of the fact that she gets the same as the site being reviewed (apart from the advice, of course), seems a tad contradictory.

At this stage I should point out that the charge is $250, with at least part of it going to Skellie (of Skelliewag) for doing the running. Skellie responded directly to me in the comments with the following:

@ Simon: I have to disagree with your logic. Yes, not every person can afford to pay $250 for something, but that’s what the consultation is worth. It’s like saying: “A ticket to a talk by Seth Godin shouldn’t be $1,000 because not everyone can afford that.” Things are worth what they’re worth — individuals can choose to buy or not. This is a blog about making money online — it seems a strange place to criticize someone for innovating in how that is done.

(I should also point out that I won’t be getting a link back to my blog from the review posts and will be doing a lot of work behind the scenes as well as summarizing and adding to the review. I think it’s unfair to suggest someone shouldn’t be paid when you’re not privy to the terms of the work.)

It’s a fair comment, and I wasn’t suggesting that Skellie shouldn’t get paid. The contradictions were coming from other comments made against the post, not from Skellie and Darren. There were comments saying, essentially, that this “consultancy”is worth $250 because of the links and traffic you will get from Pro Blogger. My point was that if they can assign some sort of intrinsic value to the links, traffic, exposure etc. then Skellie is already indirectly getting paid (although she says there won’t be a link back to her site from the review, her site was linked to on the page publicising the review). Personally, I don’t have a problem with paying Skellie to administer the consultancy, in fact I would expect to get paid if I were doing it. My issue was that some readers gave some intrinsic value to links, traffic etc. when purchased by the site being reviewed, but not for the person running it. It’s probably worth pointing out that Skellie herself, in the post “How to get 1050 subscribers in 3 months” says:

I highlight this figure (1,050 subscribers in 3 months) to show that you don’t need to have big money, the perfect niche or a staff of writers to quickly develop a 1,000+ network of loyal readers. This blog exists within a mature and crowded niche, I’m its sole author and I’ve spent nothing on marketing and promotion.

(not my emphasis)

So clearly, you don’t need to have big money, unless you want the help of ProBlogger, and the ProBlogger community.

I also think it’s morally questionable to charge for a service that will ultimately be performed by the community. This is debatable and I’m not really sure which side of the fence I sit on, but there is a question to be asked, and answered. My biggest problem with this, however, is that by charging many of the blogs who need the most help will miss out. While $250 isn’t a huge amount (especially for those of us currently enjoying the weak dollar) it’s still not cheap. The way most bloggers work, this one included, is that the budget I’m willing to spend is directly proportionate to the amount the blog earns. So if this is true of other bloggers, which I suspect it is, only blogs earning enough to pay for the consultancy will go for it. An analogy I use in another comment is that of schooling. If we charged for education, it would perpetuate the success of successful families. To explain, imagine the situation. Only rich families could send their children to school, only people who have gone to school wil have the level of education necessary to get good jobs, and only those with good jobs could afford to send their kids to school. I doubt Darren’s aim when coming up with the community consulting idea would be to exclude those that need the most help.

Like I said, morally questionable, even on a blog that is, for all intents and purposes dedicated to making money. The second example seems, on the face of it to be far more clear cut.

GameSpot

There are numerous reports around the internet today that one of the senior editors at GameSpot, a leading gaming website owned by C|NET, has been fired. Journalism is a fickle medium, so this may not surprise you. What should shock you is the reason. It appears, at the moment, that Senior Editor Jeff Gerstmann has been fired for giving a negative review to a game that is one of the site’s major sponsors. The game in question is Kane and Lynch, which hasn’t exactly been setting the world on fire (warning, that’s a link to Meta Critic which aggregates review scores. It is, however, another C|NET property, so tread carefully), which is was splashed all over the GameSpot homepage.

The video review Gerstmann gave was especially scathing, but seems in line with the consensus. GameSpot is lucky enough to have a very active and very vociferous community. Strangely, there aren’t any threads in the user forums discussing this. Hmmm, I wonder why.  Turns out there are lots of threads at GameSpot and other sites discussing the news.

This episode, if it turns out to be true (the fact the Gerstmann has confirmed he has been fired but not why, combined with the fact that the Kane and Lynch advertisment has been pulled, certainly adds weight), violates the sacred separation between marketing and journalism. In fact, just the suggestion that this has happened has probably irrevocably damaged GameSpot’s image. I think someone needs to remind them, listening to your advertisers is all well and good, but without an audience, no one will want to advertise with you.

Update:  ValleyWag has a piece up covering Jeff Gerstmann’s dismissal.  It seems as if a commenter on their blog is an insider from GameSpot and points to a change in management leading, eventually to this incident.  If this is indeed from an GameSpot insider, there are more worrying  things on the horizon for one of the biggest names in the business.  Most notably the suggestion that AAA titles should be given more attention, which the commenter seems to suggest means higher review scores.  So far comments from C|NET, the parent company, have done little to dampen the fire and this story looks to be heading to more mainstream outlets over the weekend.  So expect a backlash.

All this on top of FaceBook’s new policy of tracking everything you do on every website so they can better monetise your pageviews. I can actually feel the blogosphere collapsing under the weight of opinions.

Make Money From Your Blog or Website

This post was originally published on The Oak Innovations Blog. Follow me on Twitter.

So the only question that remains is, how will the BBC mess this one up?  Well, I can immediately think of two ways.  firstly, they could use this as an excuse to stop developing a “proper” iPlayer for other operating systems.  Flash players have some drawbacks, namely the quality and size of the image available.  I can’t image sitting through an entire episode of Doctor Who if it’s only being displayed on a tiny You Tube like player.  So how else can it go wrong?  Well, the BBC have proven in the past that they like to seriously over complicate things.  Just look at the current iPlayer interface.  This really causes a problem when it comes to an “inline” flash player.  How do you find the content you want?  You can’t subscribe and automatically download the content like you could with a stand alone player, so getting word out that there’s new content available could be a challenge.  I would suggest RSS but I can’t see the BBC’s audience being tech savvy enough to understand and utilise feeds in this way.

Can you see any potential pit falls with this approach? We all know how easy it is to get the source videos from sites such as You Tube, so how will the BBC combat this?

Make Money From Your Blog or Website

This post was originally published on The Oak Innovations Blog. Follow me on Twitter.

1. Wi-Fi – An obvious choice, but I don’t want some half hearted implementation, I want it all. Considering the new iPod is running on a version of OSX, presumably similar to that of the iPhone, why not have a web browser built in, using the multi-touch input method? They would have to be carefull not to tread on the iPhone’s toes, but a simple web browser over Wi-Fi would be a MASSIVE selling point, and would blow things like the Nokia 770 out of the water. And while we’re on it, what about purchasing direct from iTunes. Picture the scene, you’ve bought a subscription to your favourite TV show but are stuck in a seedy hotel on “business” and missed the latest episode. Never fear, you grab your iPod, fire up the hotel’s Wi-Fi and grab it there and then.
2. Remote Control for Apple TV – If the new iPod looks anything like the mock-ups we’ve seen, it’s going to be very similar to the iPhone. Something I’ve always thought about the iPhone’s interface is that it would make a fantastic universal remote control. I can’t see Apple allowing it to interact with equipment outside of the iTunes fenced garden, but how good a remote would it make for the Apple TV? Perfect match I say. Better yet, how about wirelessly streaming content from the iPod to the Apple TV? Got you thinking, haven’t I!
3. Direct Encoding – This is a long shot to say the least. We’ve seen it on devices from Archos, and it works reasonably well, but on an iPod? I can think of more reasons why this won’t happen, than reasons it will, but I would love it.
4. Speakers – Ha! I hear you cry. Speakers in a device this size would be rubbish. And yes, you’re probably right, they would be. But still, any portable speakers you buy for an iPod are rubbish anyway, so why not save the extra cost and bulk and build them right in. Anything you can use in a hotel room without making tinny noises would do me.
5. Outputs, Outputs and Outputs – If I have my entire digital content library on my iPod, which I will, I want to be able to get it off easily and enjoy it. As good as the screen may be on the new iPod, it’s still not ideal for watching video content for prolonged sittings and likewise earphones aren’t always the best way to enjoy music. I want optical, HDMI, composite, A2DP and every other conceivable option. I want them all to work, all to be officially supported and all out of the box. And while we’re on the subject of formats, this iPod HAS to support more audio and video formats than the old current iPods.

There were a few things that didn’t make it onto the list. One of the more realistic is Bluetooth. Bluetooth would allow content to be easily shared between iPods and other devices as well as supporting A2DP. One of the really long shots is the support of a subscription model, where content is rented and not bought. Although this would represent a fairly major change to iTunes, and not just the iPod. I’d also expect some serious battery life out of this thing, even with all the additional functionality. And it has to have the best screen ever made, simple as that. The last two are gimmes though, as no doubt Steve Jobs will claim both to be true during any product presentation.

So that’s my wishlist. I need a new iPod anyway, so I’ll probably pick one up if it’s even half decent but you know what they say, aim for the stars and even if you fall short you’ll land on the moon! What would you like to see in the iPod?

Make Money From Your Blog or Website

This post was originally published on The Oak Innovations Blog. Follow me on Twitter.

1. Open it up – Yes, this is the obvious one but I’d be negligent if I didn’t point it out. Of course, you could argue the BBC is being negligent by making it an issue in the first place, and that’s an argument I’d throw my weight behind. It is such a shame that the iPlayer is Windows only, it really is. The BBC had the opportunity to take the moral high ground on this issue but didn’t. I’m also worried that the noises currently coming out the BBC on this issue, aren’t entirely positive. Certain sources are saying the aim is to get a version out for OSX and Linux in six months, this isn’t the case. The only official word says there are six monthly reviews. There’s a big difference there. It’s also worth bearing in mind the amount of time it took to get the Windows version up and running, a full two years.
2. Simplify (or remove) the DRM – I am willing to accept that DRM may be a necessary evil. I personally think the current implementation of DRM is way off the mark, not just for the iPlayer but across the entire industry. Unfortunately, vendors saw that they could lock content down tighter than ever before and went over board. How they can justify putting putting more constraints on a downloaded file than there is on a CD is absurd and deeply flawed. The BBC’s iPlayer DRM is flawed for a completely different reason. It’s utterly confusing. You have multiple expiry periods to deal with, that change when certain actions occur. I know DRM and it confuses me, the non tech savvy are going to have an uphill struggle trying to understand it.
3. Single Sign-On – Quite why the BBC force you to link your iPlayer account to a BBC.co.uk login, and then make you sign on twice is beyond me. Is the technological challenge of only allowing certain BBC.co.uk account holders access to the iPlayer insurmountable? Despite the fact that many other sites have segregated areas for certain users (e.g. pro areas). Not only do you have to sign on twice, but you also have to complete the forms to create the accounts and remember the logon details.
4. Better, more consistent interface – I’m really over the whole “three windows just to watch a video” thing with the iPlayer. For me, it’s a complete failure in interface design. Considering every page is essentially a web page with various embedded objects, why do you need three separate windows?  A start would be giving users working links to easily navigate between the pages. Forget about all the fancy gradients and Web 2.0 colour schemes, why didn’t they spend any time actually thinking about usability?  Although the BBC just generally seems to be more about style than substance these days.
5. Offer streaming – What year is it?  2002?  We all have broadband and companies seem to have the technology to send us content of a decent quality quickly, see Joost, so why can’t the BBC?  Considering the vast resources and piles of money extracted from the British public, streaming is the least they could do.  I don’t like having to wait for shows to download before watching them, I don’t like having to plan my viewing an hour before I actually do it,  it really defeats the purpose of delivering content over the internet.

I can think of quite a few other failings of the iPlayer, and other sources have also been fairly critical of it.  And rightfully so.  Those of us located in the UK are forced to fund the iPlayer through out license fee, they could have at least delivered something decent and at the very least, something that can be accessed by all computer users.  Can you imagine the uproar if the BBC suddenly announced their TV channels would only work on Sony TVs?

Have you been “lucky” enough to get in on the iPlayer beta?  What are your thoughts?  How could they improve it?  Drop a note in the comments.

Make Money From Your Blog or Website

This post was originally published on The Oak Innovations Blog. Follow me on Twitter.

Installation

Firstly, a disclaimer. Despite the best efforts of the BBC, I was running the iPlayer on a MacBook through the excellent Parallels Desktop. This didn’t cause any problems in and of itself but is worth pointing out. Probably most relevant to this review is the fact that my XP installation is pretty bare. It has everything that comes with Windows, FireFox, Safari, IE 5.5 and IE 6. That’s it. It is also fully up to date (or so I thought) and has ClamWin AntiVirus and ZoneAlarm Firewall installed, updated and running.

If the online video movement is to gain traction, installation needs to be as quick and painless as possible. Joost provides a decent model, it’s a standalone application that you install, run, login and then that’s it. With the iPlayer being built as a plugin to Internet Explorer, it was never going to be as straight forward. This isn’t a commentary in the BBC or Microsoft, it’s simple maths. Joost is one app that’s stand alone, the iPlayer relies on Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player and the DRM layer.

Installation did not go as smoothly as I had hoped. Firstly, there were reasonably complicated instructions in the invitational email which meant I had to not only sign up for, and get a user name and password for, the iPlayer Beta but also the BBC.co.uk site itself. Why they can’t just tie one to the other is beyond me. This caused a problem after installation where the iPlayer has to be manually refreshed after logging in (again, why?). Getting this application up and running is a multi step process. Firstly you have to download the iPlayer library, then the player itself and finally and Windows Media updates that may be required. The library installation seemed to work but upon first accessing the application I encountered one of the infuriating IE script errors. It’s one of those useless errors which sets you off on a continuous loop that can only be escaped by killing the task through Task Manager. After running the new iPlayer library shortcut that found its way onto the desktop (I don’t remember saying to put anything on my desktop) the library fired up, which was of course empty. To cut a long story short, I had to install one more component as well as an update to Windows Media. The later came as somewhat of a shock as I had a fresh download of Windows Media Player but a few short days ago.

As an aside, I think I may know why the iPlayer is yet to be ported to Windows Vista. I write a while back that Windows Vista goes a bit overboard when it comes to the security warnings and if the iPlayer installation on XP is anything to go by, most users would just give up after the 80th Vista prompt. Off the top of my head I think I came across three prompts, some modal and some appearing at the top of the viewport. But after all that, I finally had it all up and running.

The Interface

If you’ve been following the iPlayers development at all, you would have no doubt noticed the modern, sleek look. High contrast colours, gradients and sans-serif fonts, yes it’s a Web 2.0 style all right. Whether you take to the look is always going to be a personal thing. I like some aspects but not others. Some of the images such as the delete and help buttons have a distinct low-rent feel to them, which lowers the perception of quality in my eyes. It’s also worth noting that there are three separate areas to the iPlayer. Firstly there’s the Library, which is where your stored and downloading content is held, then there’s the catalogue browser which is where you select new content, and lastly there’s the player itself. It’s best if I cover these as separate entities.

Your first point of call will be the catalogue. It’s fairly standard faire. You can browse by channel (BBC1, 2, 3 and 4), day of the week (for the past seven days only), category or by show title. Initially I found it slightly confusing that the listings by date are automatically filtered into morning, afternoon and evening. You really have to look around the interface to find this option and it’s not immediately clear that the filter is even there. There is a nice rollover effect which lets you know how long you have to download each show, personally I would have preferred more details on the show but that doesn’t fit with the BBC’s focus on DRM, and not usability. Overall, it’s fairly easy to use once you get used to it. The speed does seem to take a hit at times, which I am convinced is down to the BBC’s servers and nothing locally, and that can get frustrating. There is also a handy search feature and the multi-classification allows for easy browsing.

No doubt you would have now found a show you want to download and have set it off. At this point it will be added to the Library. The Library displays a list of shows currently downloading and those that have completed. Shows that have downloaded are accompanied by a play button, which is where the simplicity ends. Once you have started watching a show, the “new” label is replaced by a bar which indicates something. I have no idea what it indicates, but it must mean something. Each show is grouped by series and can be expanded to reveal a summary and size. You can also see the expiry date and length of the show in the Library. I’ll come back to Expiry a bit later, because it’s anything other that straight forward.

Ok, so you’ve got your show downloaded and now you want to watch it. Cue another IE window containing the Windows Media Player and a whole bunch of options. The video is initially a small Windows Media control in an IE pop up but can be expanded to fit the full screen or you can spawn a new stand alone Windows Media Player window. The full screen option didn’t work correctly for me, with the video bunched up in the top left hand corner, only filling about two thirds of the screen. Which is a pain.

Overall the interface does a job. It could have done with a usability expert at an early stage, because some strange decisions have been made. The most baffling is the need for three separate windows. They are all essentially IE windows and seem almost completely unrelated as far as the iPlayer is concerned. They can spawn each other, but that’s where the interactions end. For example, if you are viewing your Library and decide you want to add another show, there’s no easy way to do it. You have to fire up another IE instance and go back to the iPlayer yourself. There is a link to the page in the Library, but it’s a dumb link and doesn’t even log you in. Essentially, by the time you get to watch a video you will have a minimum of three IE windows open, and for no good reason. It seems tome that the BBC have gone for the prettification before getting the fundamentals of usability down. I mean, why have everything at your fingertips when you can spread it across three windows right? As a very minimum I’d like to see a catalogue tab in the Library for easily adding shows, and a way to open a full screen version of the video also directly from the Library. I can’t tell you how much of a pain navigating the three windows becomes.

Content

There are two aspects that need to be considered when evaluating the content. Firstly, we have to consider the shows the BBC have decided to make available. Secondly, there is the quality of the shows in terms of audio and visual fidelity. Seeing as the content is downloaded to your machine at a rate of approximately 130Mb per 30 Minutes, I had set my expectations above that of Joost. The reason is simple, Joost streams content over your internet connection so you would expect smaller file sizes and more aggressive compression. My initial impressions are the iPlayer videos are better quality than Joosts. It’s not a gaping chasm, and I’m sure most people won’t even notice, but there is a difference. Probably more noticeable is the fact that the iPlayer doesn’t stutter or skip, which Joost can do on anything other than a ninja internet connection. There also seems to be an increase in sound quality over Joost. You can clik the image to the left to see a full screen capture of an iPlayer screen (warning: it’s large).
As for the shows currently available, I was a little disappointed. I don’t think this reflects entirely on the iPlayer selection but more on what the BBC is currently producing. There is a load of kids shows, some of the popular soaps, a handfull of prime-time shows and then lots of fillers. I was hoping for a wider selection, even if it was only to celebrate the beta launch, but instead had to make do with some Doctor Who reruns, a few reality TV shows and an episode of Little Britain I’d already seen. I had a look at the BBC schedule and I couldn’t seen anything I’d rather see on there, so I guess they did a decent job.

Summary

I think it’s important to remember that online video of this nature is still very new, and this service itself has only very recently hit beta, so I’m going to try and go easy on it. It does some things well, the quality is good and the selection of programming is representative of what’s currently available across the BBC network. Certain aspects of the interface are also well designed, the catalogue, when taken in isolation works well and guides you along to the program you are looking for. Where it may fall down is where you aren’t necessarily looking for something specific, but I’m sure that’s more down to the beta nature of this release and the lack of a full editorial team to flush out what’s currently available. Downloads are also reasonably quick and, excellently, subtitles are available on most shows. I also like the ability to add multiple downloads to my queue but the absence of some sort of prioritisation system is an oversight.

Some of the less successful aspects would have come across in the bulk of the review. I still have a real problem with the DRM restrictions and some of the technology involved. I could go on Bit Torrent right now and get a copy of a BBC TV show faster than iPlayer can provide it, in better quality and with a smaller file size. Alternatively, if I don’t want to keep the file, which I don’t, I can fire up Joost and watch however much I like without any of it being saved. One the one hand I can understand the BBC’s decision not to stream content, but of they don’t want people to keep the files surely that was the easiest, and most universal, way to go. There is also a nasty taste left in my mouth when I think about how complex the entire thing is. Downloading and watching a video, even without the overly long and complicated installation procedure, is a multi-step process. I’m struggling to think of any other video provider that is quite so complicated (Joost, nope. YouTube, definately not. iTunes, nowhere near).  Another thing worth pointing out is that this is clearly not ready for widespread public consumption yet.  Crashes are frequent and often unrecoverable, script errors are even more common and some feature don’t seem to work yet.  There are also some performance issues.  I put these down to the beta nature of the product, so I won’t hold them against the iPlayer.  It’s to be expected when dealing with a true Beta application, as opposed to the ready-for-release betas we tend to see in the We 2.0 world.

I mentioned earlier that the DRM controls can be a bot confusing, so let me explain why. When you are browsing the Catalogue, moving your mouse over each show lets you know how long you have to download it. Confusingly, this is not the amount of time you have to watch the show once it has been downloaded. The amount of time you have to watch a show appears in the Library, and this changes depending on whether you have started to watch it or not. Therefore, you have three distinct expiration periods on a show, just one show. If this service gets popular I can’t imagine how complicated it’s going to get when you’ve got more than a handfull of videos. To add to this already confusing situation, some of the shows you’ll be able to re-download, yet others you will not. It’s all dependent on the first expiry date (not the second, or third). I have a degree in computing, and I’ve been using the internet for many, many years, including all forms of DRM and, I don’t get it. And if I don’t get it, how do they expect the average BBC viewer to get it?

Anyway, those are my views on the iPlayer. I’ve broadly covered the DRM controversy before but when you see it in action, it’s not only terrible on a freedom of use level, but also on usability level. If you have any questions or views, drop them in the comments. And before you ask, I don’t have any invites to give away.

Make Money From Your Blog or Website

This post was originally published on The Oak Innovations Blog. Follow me on Twitter.

• Firstly, I am assuming there will be some form of proprietry player involved.  If so, why the reliance on Windows?  And more specifically, Windows based DRM which has already been shown to be ineffective, overly restrictive and easy to crack.  Personally, I pay the license fee so I’d rather the BBC use a stronger means of DRM so those who don’t fund the BBC, can’t easily crack their protection.
• I pay my license fee and I cannot restrict how the BBC spends my portion of it, therefore, I would not expect any restrictions on content I helped to pay for in the first place.
• If only the BBC would look at their own content.  A search for Linux Security on the BBC website returns 28 results.  Apple Security returns 56.  These are two platforms that the BBC are shunning.  Yet, the platform the BBC are choosing seems to have a whole bunch of results.  Windows Security returns 372 results.  Bearing in mind that many users of the BBC’s site and services are far from IT literate, actively encouraging them to use a platform that is, judging from their own content, seven times more insecure than its closest rival, is at best irresponsible and worse negligent.
• The BBC have a poor track record with delivering content to me.  Considering I’m an OSX user, I am pretty much limited to Real Player, a piece of software many consider to be badware.  Of course, even if your running Windows, Internet Explorer and the required media player, it’s still difficult to use and unreliable.  Not to mention that, despite the fact we all have broadband (or at least all those of us who expect to watch video online) the quality is absolutely shocking.  I don’t think they’ve heard of compression.
• I’m unsure as to what will and won’t be crippled by DRM.  The BBC currently offers news, sport and other content for free download and live streaming without any restrictions.  Some are even in a decent format.  Take the unbearable breakfast podcast, you can get it in MP4.  Why can’t I get everything in MP4?  They obviously have the technology, just maybe not the common sense.
• The cheapest new Vista license I could find is £100, and thats an upgrade from XP.  The cheapest linux license is free.  A Mac Mini is cheaper than any machine running Windows Vista fully.  Why is the BBC inflicting this additional cost on its already financially drained public.  And, almost like mirroring the license fee, you cannot get away from the charge.  Next, we’ll get pop-up messages on the BBC website warning that Linux detection vans are patrolling our area.

If you are as outraged by the entire thing as I am I would suggest filling out the form here and emailing pvtconsultation.ondemand@bbc.co.uk with your feedback.  And just as a closing thought, the proposal makes specific mention of “the BBC must not, therefore, limit consumer choice”, which, it seems, only applies to content and not the platform you choose.

Make Money From Your Blog or Website

This post was originally published on The Oak Innovations Blog. Follow me on Twitter.