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.

1. Jump to the Search Box – Ctrl(Windows)/Cmd(OSX) + K
2. Open New Tab – Ctrl/Cmd + T
3. Close Tab – Ctrl/Cmd + W
4. Switch Tab – Ctrl + Tab (Windows and OSX) or hold Shift as well to go backwards
5. Jump to the Address/Location Bar – Ctrl(Windows)/Cmd(OSX) + L

Aside from the keyboard shortcuts, I use “find as you type” constantly. It comes in particularly handy when you Google for something and end up at a huge page through one of the results. You know there’s a particular phrase on that page somewhere but it’s certainly not near the top. The absolute quickest way to find the piece of text you’re after is to just start to type it. When you do, and as you form the word, FireFox will select the first match on the page. You have to enable this option as it’s not on by default. If you find out there’s more than one match on the page, hit Ctrl/Cmd + F and the usual find dialogue will become available with your phrase already there and the first match selected.

It’s probably worth pointing out that many of these shortcuts are shared between browsers, not all but some. For example, Cmd + W is also close tab in Safari, OSX’s packaged browser and Opera.

And lets face it, Linux and OSX manage to be quite secure without the need to barage users with these ridiculous and confusing messages.  Why?  Because they are fundamentally more secure than Windows.  The painting over the cracks analagy has never been truer than with Windows Vista.  The same is also true about the interface which has gone for fancy instead of usable.  The transparency available is more than skin deep as well, try finding options that have lived in the same place for the last three versions of Windows and you’ll suddenly find they’ve gone.  Why?  Change for the sake of change probably.  Or maybe the developers just like to look busy in the office.  Sometimes when you’re using Vista, you’ll really wonder whether they have anyone working on the interface at-all.  But please, bear in mind that I only very briefly used Vista, thankfully.

Being the local IT geek means I get asked questions about IT, alot. And many of these questions seem obvious to me but obviously not to the person asking the question. Lately, I’ve been asked by more than one person why certain videos won’t play on their iPod with Video. This inevitably turns out to be a format or codec issue. So far in the UK we’ve not seen too many succsessfull video download services, so the problem hasn’t reached cracking point yet. I’m already preparing the answers to the questions that will no doubt hit my inbox, phone and face. They have an iPod which works on Windows, they have iTunes which works on Windows yet, if they download a video with DRM they cannot play it on their iPod. This is simply too difficult for many less it literate people to comprehend. More to the point, these users are the mass consumers (they own iPods afterall), they are the ones that will make or break a service. And guess what, they’ve already shown that they like iPods so they will go with whoever can supply content for that device. This may not be a huge issue at the moment, but given the imminent arrival of the Video iPod and you’ve got a problem brewing.

One of the points in that article that had me chuckling to myself were the sales figures from Amazon. Over in the states Amazon offers a video download facility yet the most popular portable player compatible with their service is less popular than an iPod power adapter, let alone the iPod itself (which is a full 62 places up the charts at number 1). I guess the point boils down to whether people want to watch these videos on their portable devices or on their computers. Given the current quality of video being offered, the TV is out of the question and for me, I don’t particularly want to sit in front of my computer to watch a film. I’m far more likely to consume a small amount of content on my iPod. And I don’t think I’m alone.

There are many reasons to argue against a closed system such as iTunes and the iPod, but one of the arguments for it is certainly simplicity. For every person that asks the question, I usually just end up suggesting iTunes and videos that use open formats compatible with the iPod and no DRM. And, of course, I throw in a suggestion of switching to OSX where alot of things seem to “just work”.

• 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.