Sky and BBC in iPlayer deal
Agree to use HTML
The BBC and Sky are today trumpeting a new arrangement that will see the latter stuff links to iPlayer shows into its own web TV service.
And... er... that's pretty much it. Given the Sky Player's weedy traffic*, the move is likely to have negligible impact on usage of iPlayer. Meanwhile, Sky offering categorised links to already easily available BBC shows is unlikely to pull the crowds to its site.
Sky's director of on-demand Griff Parry said: "Access to BBC content along with improvements to the user experience will further support the ongoing success of Sky Player... The addition of links to content from BBC channels further demonstrates Sky’s role as a leading online aggregator with access to one of the broadest selections of online video."
The fact that the pair have announced the links as a "partnership" is the most significant aspect of the news. Relations between Sky and BBC management are poor historically. BBC suspicions about Rupert Murdoch were seemingly confirmed when he booted it from his Chinese satellite in 1994 at the behest of Beijing censors.
Sky is currently a leading objector to the BBC's commercial on-demand push Project Kangaroo, which is being examinined by the Competition Commission. Auntie's involvement with Channel 4 and ITV on that project is being handled by its commercial arm BBC Worldwide, however, separate from iPlayer.
Today iPlayer boss Anthony Rose said: "This deal further underlines our commitment to reaching new audiences by making BBC iPlayer available on as many services as possible."
A version of iPlayer for the millions of Sky set-top boxes in UK homes would be a much more interesting development. The implementation that allows Virgin Media subscribers to watch BBC shows on-demand in their living rooms now accounts for a third of total iPlayer usage. ®
*"There are hundreds of thousands of unique registered users for the service," the press release says. There's no mention of how many actually use it.
@ Tom and Ash
The "parasitic media companies" are the boys and girls who actually commission and distribute the media for you to enjoy.
Or not enjoy.
It's up to you.
Nobody is forced to engage with any of it, but if you do then the creators and participants in that piece of media, whether it's music, TV, film, whatever, deserve a return on their investment.
Or you would have everyone work for nothing? Great idea...
Also love this "internet will make things free" bollocks, no explanation of how that mechanism might work, leaving the inference that theft and pirate distribution will do it (yeah, I do know about advertising).
There really is no such thing as a free lunch - someone eventually has to pay the bill, so the arguments about freeing content and against DRM are simply naive.
You want free "TV" content, see Youtube and their ilk.
Something with narrative, production values beyond camcorder, skilled direction, production, acting etc then you need to have those who expect to be paid for their work.
Glad I've sorted that one out, no need to thank me.
IET lecture about iPlayer
Antony Rose turned up to Savoy Place to give a lecture about himself and iPlayer, he slagged off Sky Player suggesting they had borrowed the name, (he wasn't very nice about Linux either, but...).
Now excuse me but when I see Kwhatever I think KDE and when I see iWhatever I think "Apple" (not quite but we're in public)
Thank god for the internet
£15 on a tv card and I can watch and record (for posterity) anything I like from freeview on a pc rejected by a friend as it couldnt run windows anymore so I suck linux on it. Even with a lousy monitor the resolutions better than an £800 wide faced telly.
I tried sky but I like sport and not football and to pay nearly £500 pa for brownian motion seems a bit of a ripoff.
The internet, should, over time free media from the parasitic media companies like sky and then we should be free to watch and pay for what we like. Thats called taking capitalism to the capitalists and boy do they hate it!