BBC iPlayer on Android update

Rather than shutting down beebPlayer, why didn't you buy it? You say how you don't have the resources to develop an app. There's already an app with a great interface that works well. I'm sure you could buy it off the developer for less that it would cost the BBC to develop it yourself.

What you have failed to address is the difference in approach between Android and Apple devices. If you are convinced that Flash is the right approach why are you not waiting for Flash to be available for the iphone/ipad before deploying to that platform?

There seems to be no real explanation as to why the Apple streams couldn't have the minor changes needed to allow them to be accessible on Android.

How it can it be most efficient to deliver iPlayer for android to version 2.2 phones, when by Google's own figures android 2.2 is on barely a handful of phones (mostly unofficially)?

A significant proportion of the android phones out in the marketplace at this time (and probably for the foreseeable future are stuck at 2.1 or below (https://nexus404.com/Blog/2010/06/17/android-market-share-numbers-show-version-2-1-growth-what-android-fragmentation-50-of-android-users-flock-to-newer-version/google-android-user-share-full-sizejpg/%29.

So how does developing for 2.2 offer the best value for all of the android phone owners who currently don't have access, and are unlikely to ever get access due to handset owners being unwilling to upgrade android versions? To not even attempt to provide for android 2.1 owners is selling the entire process short.

This is the 2nd time the BBC have effectively denied me content that I pay for with my licence fee - once on XBMC (which contrary to your internal discussion papers is not limited to old xboxes - it's on PC, linux, mac, etc.), and now on my HTC Desire (a phone launched in the uk less than 3 months ago).

Did the BBC make an estimate of how much effort it would take to supply HTML5/MP4 (minus MOV) as a web-app to pre-Android 2.2 phones?

Why not develop a website based on standards, as that will undoubtedly provide the best support across all platforms. If a web browser does not support the standard, well then nobody is to blame but the developer of the browser. Also, I am sure a lot of people would prefer an iPlayer in which half the features works to not being allowed to even try on your device.

You say you shut down beebPlayer because it wasn't a licensed distributor? Why didn't you make it a licensed distributor then? Just say to Dave that he's licensed to continue to provide the service as long as he doesn't profit from it or allow it to download as opposed to stream. Doesn't cost you a penny, and keeps everyone happy.

On a side note, isn't that exactly the kind of thing that BBC Backstage should be enabling?

Er, so how come there's an official Symbian iPlayer app? This just doesn't sound right.

The HTC Legend is 3 to 4 months old, it will get Android 2.2 before the end of the year from HTC and then whenever Vodafone roll it out. The normal take a 4-6 weeks so far after HTC.

The next problem is Flash 10.1 is only available for ARM 7 CPU devices. My phone though brand new, will get Android 2.2 but has an ARM 6 CPU so Adobe won't give my Flash 10.1! An awful lot of ARM6 Andorid phones exist currently and still being sold that will never get Flash 10.1, is Flash 10.1 really the solution ?

On my phone currently I have Flash lite from HTC, I can watch videos from YouTube and other sites in high quality and full screen no problem for fps etc so it can be done now. Other apps like Beebplayer (which the BBC killed off) and myPlayer (which hopefully the BBC won't kill off) allow me to unofficially watch the BBC HQ on Wifi, ok quality on 3G. Again the phone is capable, the output from iplayer and live tv is already working but not via a BBC approved viewer.

I don't understand the logic that says the BBC can't support or provide service to the majority of Android users who won't get Flash 10.1 when via solutions already exist.

If you really want to make one website that works on everything why not just use a standard (even one with patents like h.254). You already use this on the iPhone and iPad and it would be trivial to make it work on android devices as well.

All android devices are able to stream content in this format and that will mean you don't have to test each devices individually before you allow them access, because Google won't like them have access to the whole of the android operating system (bits like maps and market) without meeting some conditions, one of which is the ability to stream content in these formats. This means there are only a few devices (mainly tablets at the minute which are only not accepted because the screen resolution isn't officially supported yet) which are no certified, and even these are able to stream the content properly.

Instead of going down the route of using close source software again like you did for the first version of the iPlayer website why not just get it right first time. It took you so long just to get something workable on the desktop, even even now I have flash randomly crash in the middle of programs because flash on linux sucks.

Why not just use open standards. There is no problem with rights managements really because to be honest anyone who wants to download something illegally will do it whatever restrictions you put on the content (there is always a version in high quality with no DRM anyway, it's called TV, that's where most of the copies available for download on the internet come from, not from the iPlayer). The majority of people don't even realise there are places you can download TV programs for free anyway.

I know this isn't technically incompetency because I know someone working on the iPlayer, however you really need to just sort out one solution and stick to it. Just create a version of the site that works using HTML5 video tags with H.264 + ACC streaming behind it (you already have these stream available, just need to change the container format) and then just serve that. It will soon be usable on the desktop and will also work on iPhone, iPad and all android devices.

You say you want one version to serve to all platform and yet you still bother to make one version for the desktop (flash based), one version of big screens (flash based on Wii I think, html style on ipad and ps3) and another version for android (flash based). For the mobile market you still only cater for a tiny share so at the current rate you have about 4 versions floating around and you'll need more version to support platforms like palm, windows phone 7, budget and mid end phone (3gp) and others.

Just make the obvious choice in front of you and just use HTML5 video. It will be simpler for you and much more cost effective.

Personally I think the argument against an HTML version for android, using the bigscreen layout and without flash hasn't been well made. I have disabled flash on froyo because it was a hog and it means I get less advertising. I don't see a reason to enable it other than perhaps iPlayer but there are more disadvantages than advantages at the moment. Is it a DRM issue? A codec issue?

Bob

While I'm glad to see a fairly thorough response to a number of the issues about mobile iPlayer raised by commenters, you seem to miss the key point that many are making:

I may be wrong, but as I see it, Android is quite capable of playing streams that are already available (and I don't mean the iPhone stream). However, the current web-interface provided to Android browers prevents us from accessing it, pushing the flash version only. Beebplayer was just an interface to these other streams.

Dave Johnston (beebplayer) explains it best (https://davejohnston.posterous.com/beebplayers-secret-sauce%29:
"...the most important thing about iPlayer is that it also caters for mobile phones, primarily those running the Symbian operating system (i.e. most ‘dumbphones’ made by Nokia, Sony-Ericsson and so on.), and provides mobile streams for these phones in a 3G streaming format designed for small screens and delivered over RTSP....
"...This is where beebPlayer came in – allowing Android phones to access the streams intended for simpler phones by simply reading the appropriate URLs"

I agree that supporting the huge number of devices is an impossible task, and that a web-based interface is (possibly) preferable in its ease of maintenance. But we're not necessarily asking for new streams (even if modifying the iPhone stream would be trivial) - it's just an interface we need!

As you say, the mobile iPlayer website is modular, so, please let us access the low-bandwidth / low-capability streams. It wouldn't be the best quality avaiable for (most) Android devices, but at least it's *something*! Beebplayer has proved it's possible and in demand.

I don't think anyone with any technical know-how believes the "wait for Flash" excuse, as we all know that there are existing streams that will work on Android either as-is or with little modification. So please don't insult our intelligence

If it's simply because the Flash client enables stricter DRM enforcement, PLEASE JUST BE HONEST ABOUT IT. Then at least we'll all be arguing about the real reason, not the smokescreen.

It seems to be that if the DRM rules being applied for Android were also applied to Apple devices, there would be no iPlayer on Apple devices. So if you're allowed to do it for Apple, why can't you do it for Android?

Nick,

You even quote the relevant sentence that you seem to be trying to ignore people alluding to.

"The fact the new site is limited to Flash-enabled devices is a sore-spot,"

Anyone with an older Android phone. SOL. Anyone with a current FroyoPhone who dislikes Flash (whether on principle or, as post #11 says, due to performance issues), also SOL. Anyone with Froyo but the wrong processor, SOL.

Like with the iPad app, it looks like you're focusing on products not yet readily available, at the expense of an existing install-base.
Don't expect people to be too happy about this.

Ah, come on, guys. Stop complaining about the fact that your three-week-old Android phone can't play the new Flash-only iPlayer. That's outdated technology. Bin it and buy a new one that's man enough for the job. Never mind about the environment; copyright is far more important. And it's good for the economy to buy stuff you don't need!

threedaymonk is absolutely right.

We should stop these mealy-mouthed complaints.

It's wrong of us to challenge the way the BBC defames us as potential pirates when we demand that our "reasonable time-shifting expectations continue to be met."

It's wrong of us, having phones with the exact same capabilities as the iPhone to expect to be able to watch BBC content made available to the iPhone.

It's wrong of us to suggest that this preference for certain classes of device might be market interference by the BBC - like many others, I bought a non-approved device and must live with that.

It's wrong of us to suggest that the BBC has deliberately and measurably taken action - and indeed, spent licence payers' monies - to ensure that their service is incompatible with these devices.

I now realise I'm mistaken on all these points.

Google official chart showing Market share of Android versions: https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_GTM_W5mVPTU/TDuZX7I2-PI/AAAAAAAAAH8/1tSYEfsZHbA/s1600/versions.png

The BBC is making a rod for its own back, there is a way of supporting many different OSs - open source.

Yes, there will be many applications that give an inferior experience not up to BBC quality standards, but so what?

Ladies and gents,

There's an "easy" way to get non-Flash, HTML delivered iPlayer on your chosen device: Ask the BBC to issue you an SSL/TLS client certificate, which presumably will require you to sign some kind of "I won't be a pirate, yarr" contract.

Be interesting to see how the BBC could justify refusing such requests, and I don't see how the BBC can charge for it (indeed, the BBCs' position, stated in its previous blog, is that its strategy is not to charge for its anti-piracy systems).

After a couple of hundred of such requests, the BBC may or may not wish to reconsider its piracy position.

Nick, would you be able to give us the contact details for the relevant dept. in the BBC? I asked this in the other blog, but you must have missed my question.

"The BBC iPlayer is available on lots of platforms and devices - here's the current list. I'm surprised that you cannot access any of these."

I'm pretty sure he will have access on the desktop but the issue is that he will likely have one mobile phone although it is perfectly capable and used to have access (through the now gone BeebPlayer) it has been taken away in favour of something that requires Android 2.2. For the majority of current devices they will never get 2.2 unless you root the devices and install a custom ROM, which obviously voids the warranty.

Also, I've gone through the process of putting Android 2.2 on my HTC Desire and Flash player is still not available to me. It's currently only available to Nexus One users it seems. To me this seems unfair that I can't watch the iPlayer even though my phone is basically a HTC branded version of the same phone.

Nick, you say "Bob - your chart is interesting but doesn't give any sense of how big the market share of Google Android is as a whole". It's about 10% and growing. Compare that to the current market share of the small list of antiquated Nokia devices that you support, and I'd bet it's very favourable. I don't actually see a single Nokia phone on your list that is still for sale. I'm not saying you should stop supporting them, but don't pretend that continuing to support obsolete devices is worth bragging about.

I too don't believe any of the reasons you have given so far about why you went down this route. I don't believe you think Flash is the only solution, because you know that the iPhone streams work on Android given the right client (i.e. beebPlayer). I don't believe you even think Flash is the best mobile solution - you guys aren't stupid by any means, and you must realize that a flash intermediate layer is unnecessarily demanding for a mobile device. I don't believe you are worried about cost, because there was a free solution already. I do believe you think that the iPhone is worth the special effort because of it's media coverage if nothing else, but I don't think that would actually cause you to cripple the Android versions in the way that you have. So what is the actual reason?

@Nick Reynolds
"so the BBC should deliberately give people a poor quality, inferior experience?"

No, the BBC should give the superior experience with official applications, but it shouldn't stop other developers giving people an inferior experience, when the alternative is no experience at all.

I'm a Nexus One owner, running on Android 2.2 with Flash installed. The iPlayer website is OK, but it doesn't have any live TV or Radio streams, which means I find myself switching back to BeebPlayer for those anyway. Videos are not significantly better.

mmillmor, the iPhone streams don't work natively on Android, as the mov container is not supported (Android would be capable of understanding the video inside it, H.264, but this is irrelevant). Actually, beebplayer allowed access to the "Nokia" streams, which are also H.264 but in a supported container. The downside is that they are much, much lower quality than the iPhone streams (176x96 resolution!).

Nick, again, I'll ask my question. If we're not allowed to develop apps which access the iPlayer XML feeds directly, why can't we have web-based access to the Nokia/WM streams instead?

If I spoof my user agent to look like a N96 (I'll try it later), then I should be able to access the streams that were previously only available through beebplayer (there are no iPhone header shenanigans, as far as I am aware).

I understand that it's not the best quality and won't work for every device, but then you just need a "Your device is not supported, but you can try _here_ at your own risk" type message in. In fact, surely any phone should be allowed to *try* using the Nokia streams....

I'm afraid my comment does not follow the general thread but it DOES address a point in the article - and I can't seem to find any other way to bring it to the BBC's attention. David said:

"The BBC routinely looks for unauthorised usage of our brand and our content across all platforms and when we encounter it we work to resolve the issue. If on investigation we find that a company's service proposition does not adhere to our standard licence terms and conditions, we will take steps to remedy the issue."

Have you seen this: https://bbgnews.co.uk/uk/index99.html ? I followed a link to it from about.com because I couldn't believe it was 'As seen on the BBC'. I think it constitutes unauthorised usage of your brand.

As a .uk domain it comes under Nominet's jurisdiction, and their Policy (https://www.nic.uk/disputes/drs/?contentId=5239%29 is pretty clear that it's an Abusive Registration if it is used 'in a way which has confused or is likely to confuse people or businesses into believing that the Domain Name is registered to, operated or authorised by, or otherwise connected with the Complainant'. (3/a/ii)

Which it clearly is. Scumbags!

@foolonthehill, thanks for the clarification. I really never noticed the lower quality as being an issue. It is mobile after all. I don't expect HD.

@mmillmor Agreed - both the 3G and wifi Nokia streams work great for me. When I'm watching Have I got News For You on the bus on the way home, it's the content I want, not HD-see-every-hair image quality. But then fortunately I can still watch it, as I still have beebplayer installed (at least until Google uses its "kill switch" to remove it from my HTC...)

@Iain That's terrible! They've even edited the favicon to BBG!

Nick,

Would you do me the favour of giving us a contact address in the BBC to obtain the needed TLS client certificates for access to the HTML video iPlayer? It's a friendly request which I'd be very grateful if you answered, or else it's an FOI request, as you wish.

It seems to me that the BBC wants to standardise on Flash as a platform for iPlayer delivery. Ok - that's somewhat valid. Not the most inclusive or open choice, by a long way, but relatively well-deployed. I understand, but don't agree with the decision and the logic holds so far.

But, then, there are popular devices that don't support flash. Notably just about all current Android devices, and iPhones. The latter will likely never support flash; most currently bought Android devices will not either.

The BBC already provides iPlayer content in a manner that these non-flash devices are capable of consuming, but that content is specifically and deliberately denied to all but Apple's iPhone devices.

We are told that this is to avoid "the associated testing and support effort." That it's a matter of priority and not of principle. That it's all about 'quality of experience'.

Nick, is that a fair summary of the situation, as described?

I find these arguments hollow. The BBC has never cared about the quality of my television set or tuner cards. Why should they?

Reconfiguring the service that iPhones receive such that ( a large number of currently owned) Android devices can access them is a trivial change, reversing a deliberate blocking of all non-iPhone devices. No extra encoding required, no app building either.

The logic still holds if you're planning on closing down the iPhone service too. I don't think you are, though.

Or, if a significant reason for preferring flash and not supporting current Android phone is content protection. You know, that's a valid argument; again, I don't agree, but stating it straightforwardly would be much preferred to the self-justificatory, and illogical, post above.

Someone else is "epically, fumingly angry" too: https://dropsafe.crypticide.com/article/4195

"And if like most people you’re on Android 1.5, 1.6, or 2.0/2.1?

If so, the BBC have just taken away your content from you. Digital switchoff. Get used to it."

techbelly,

Flash is a client-side delivery technology. That the BBC wishes to involve itself in the client-side details, and the good/bad of that is one thing.

The point is that there were 3rd party apps that were making use of the same streams. *No one* is asking the BBC to support those apps. The problem is the BBC *deliberately* goes out of its way to make changes to frustrate those 3rd party apps.

To see how wrong this is, imagine if the BBC changed its broadcast TV signal willy-nilly so as to try make it so that only BBC TV sets could receive the signal. The crux of the issue is that, when it comes to online-delivered TV, the BBC thinks it should approve any and all TV sets.

As Nick has pointed out before, the BBC Trust are holding a consultation on syndication, which closes soon, which covers these issues. People may wish to give their opinion on that as well.

Oh, and bear in mind the BBC intends to spend public money developing and promoting a DRM-infested IPTV set-top-box - Project Canvas.

It's a saddening repeat of the BBC's decision to marginalise uses of the iplayer plugin on XBMC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbiplayer/NF13735685?thread=7320127&skip=0

Many constructive comments were made and complaints submitted - but no change. The community has moved on and found work arounds - the BBC stayed still and gave nothing back.

The BBC's 'platform-neutral basis' leans heavily towards a group of devices built on controlling and limiting content delivery - so completely contradicts the "BBC Online Service Licence". Also take into account the Apple products and service plans are the highest cost in the market then we have further contradictions.

If the BBC had announced they would no longer support the Apple products because they do not support flash then we could agree with the arguments - alas this is not so - resources are tied up with supporting that platform and all other platforms have to 'fit in' or 'catch up'.

Perhaps Google have just come to the BBC's rescue - all you need is a gmail acocunt :-D

https://services.google.com/fb/forms/appinventorinterest/

Sign up and invent an app - probably be able to fund it by selling a couple of BBC development iphones and ipads on ebay - lol

I like all the comments bashing flash (Although I have the nexus one, and currently running flash, even so, on some sites it is SLOW AS HECK, anyway), but the problem with running with HTML5 video is that the spec isn't finalized, so they may encode their video in H.264 (A horrible and patent encumbered format btw, which firefox doesn't support) but then when the spec is released, it could state that WebM is the standard.

At the moment flash is still really the only way to go, even if the iWhatever devices don't support, and will never support it.

Not an android question per se, but in several places you mention "BBC iPlayer should enable licence fee payers' ... does this mean that future iPlayer (any platform, though probably most likely mobile) will enable licence fee payers, temporarily out of the country, to watch iPlayer?

"but the problem with running with HTML5 video is that the spec isn't finalized"

It's only finalised when there are are 2 complete implementations released in production quality browsers.

At the minute the spec doesn't mention any specific codec and isn't likely to. If you compare this to the image tag (<img>), it also never mentioned what format the image should be in. The standard group of images just emerged from where formats all the browsers supported. Currently all browser support H.264 (Firefox and Opera do this if codecs are installed on the host OS) and most support WebM, also known as V8 (IE does this if the codec is installed, and Safari doesn't do it but as it uses QuickTime for rendering I'm guessing it will work if there is a V8 QuickTime codec installed).

Take this as a similar situation to jpeg, gif and png. There are all supported by browsers and are pretty much guaranteed to work, however none of them are mentioned in the spec.

Matt, You mean VP8. In the context of Google technologies, V8 is a JavaScript engine, used with Chrome/Chromium.

Can anyone explain why the Listen Again radio functionality is disabled for mobile users outside of the UK? Up until about a month ago I was able to use the Listen Again player on my Android device running 2.2 and flash but now it redirects me to the iPlayer, which is of course disabled in my country. So now I have to listen to everything through my normal desktop PC :-(

Nick, the issues of BBCs' support for Android access to iPlayer are intrinsically embedded with the BBCs' decision to try tightly control access to iPlayer (for whatever reasons). I don't see how you can separate them. This blog post is explicitly about beebPlayer; it's explicitly about the choice of Flash (i.e. about the BBCs' reluctance to provide supported access to anything but low-res streams); it's explicitly about the syndication policy. All those are products of said desire for control.

Project Canvas, which we know will specify DRM for what may become the next-generation of TV, thus very likely *robbing* the public of their long-held rights, is another manifestation of that desire for control.

PS: There may be many differing views within the BBC about all of this, there may be many different factors influencing the decisions, but to the outside world the executive decision and its consequences are essentially all that matters. And it reflects on the entire organisation.

"Matt, You mean VP8. In the context of Google technologies, V8 is a JavaScript engine, used with Chrome/Chromium."

Sorry, cause I mean that. Acronyms do my head in.

Thanks paul!!

It's asking for trouble in the long run not to offer compatibility with Google TV's WebM format, especially since YouTube is now supporting VP8.
https://www.fsf.org/news/free-software-foundation-statement-on-webm-and-vp8

No-one has raised the significant security problems that Adobe products pose.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?ie=UTF-8&q=adobe+zero+day
https://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/198575/adobe_fixes_flash_zeroday_with_massive_security_update.html

I would not want to install Flash on any computer I used for Internet banking. Should I get a second mobile then purely for iPlayer viewing?

If the BBC moves towards a restrictive DRM protected system for iPlayer (presumably chasing ad revenue) it will offer a poorer service to subscribers and I would expect the BBC Trust (or its replacement once the government abolishes it) to scrutinise these choices very carefully.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"What do you think the reason is?"

I'm going to suggest the DRM reasons that people have stated many time in these comments which has so far received no response.

I wouldn't be as bothered if the BBC just came out and said these were the reasons, at least they are being honest.

I used to enjoy the BBC app on my iPhone. I really did spend a lot of time on there keeping up with the events of the world while commuting to work. I recently purchased an Android phone and was glad to see that I could get the same access I used to get on my iPhone. Luckily, for me, I haven't had one single problem- from getting the app on this new site I found called xxx that amazingly seems to be the antithesis of all Android app sites out there and it's very clean and no ads. It just lists the apps, which makes it really easy to find the BBC app I wanted.

I must be lucky because I have an Android phone with the latest version and everything just clicked for me. I really just wanted to express my appreciation from "across the pond" that you've done what needs to be done to be accesible by a great majority of people that use mobile technology. THANKS MUCH

I had submitted an FOI request about the beebplayer removal and received the following response https://blog.szlwzl.com - am very disappointed that the app was removed as it is simply using the streams already in use. Why not use twitter's model of an open API so that people can write their own applications and expand your audience? I think this is a really big mistake and is very disappointing to see from the BBC

Coming late to this argument... I'm sure that in a few years, this will all be resolved, maybe with cross-platform apps like those enabled by BONDI. In the meantime, there are a a lot of annoyed licence-fee payers.

The annoying thing, over all, is that you seem intent on not answering straightforward questions.

Everyone accepts that supporting the wide range of mobile devices is difficult. But actively preventing third parties from helping in this seems counter-productive.

Everyone accepts that with limited resources you have to devote your efforts to the most popular devices. But it's far from clear that your list of supported devices represents the list of most widely deployed smartphones in the UK. If you know better, perhaps you'd care to share that data.

To say that Android is best supported by a Flash option, when you have gone out of your way to make a non-Flash option for iPhones just seems partisan. Especially when a lot of technically-minded people say that you could make the iPhone (or Symbian) streams available to the Android platform with minimal effort.

And, finally, the iPlayer help doesn't mention Android phones at all. It does explain how to use iPlayer with iPad, so it can't simply be argued that it's out of date. Many HTC Desire users will be surprised that they have a YouTube app, but no iPlayer: couldn't you at least have the decency to give them an indication about why this is.

From a tweet by Paul Battley (threedaymonk): "Google has just discontinued the only Android phone that can actually use the BBC iPlayer."

Ooh! Native smartphone apps have finally been approved by the Trust.

So, when do we get a real iPlayer presence on Android? One that works on older smartphones, or for those who find Flash a resource hog?

iPlayer and now a News app for 'i' products? Nothing for Android devices? Unfortunately, the BBC, like much of the world, is VERY Apple-centric. Not ALL license payers are Apple customers (and never will be). Grrr...

Firstly whole heartedly agree with Post #1, #2, #3, #4... #63, #64.

BBC you are failing the fastest growing mobile market segment.

PLEASE SORT IT OUT.

only just got a desire and froyo with flash, iplayer is decent over wifi, doesnt work on 3g (unless you trick it by start playing by wifi then turn wifi off and let it retry via 3g) but thats mainly down to t-mob. my real gripe is if you start a show and then want to do something else the audio from the program stops as the browser shuts down, this is where a dedicated app (ive only tried myplayer) works much better as it plays in the background and allows you to start a progamme over 3g. also no resume support when you go back to a show

Hi, couple of quick questions relating to this. I've got an HTC Desire running 2.2 on T-Mobile, after upgrading from a G1.

1) Why are you blocking me when I try to play a programme on the 3G data connection I pay for?

2) Will you be stopping development on iOS specific applications as part of your approach "to build a scalable website that works in the phone's web browser"?

Why are people focusing on the iPlayer and... Microsoft vs. Apple, Android vs. iPhone, This Technology vs. That Technology?

What I'd say is that the BBC forever bang on about how changes to the iPlayer are somehow an improvement for the user or better value for the licence fee payer, even when it's patently clear that this isn't always so. It seems to me that the development and deployment of the iPlayer is fundamentally driven by BBC policy and politics. Why won't they just admit it? I think it's a bit like some of the problems that have arisen with DRM over recent years - in trying to control use of the iPlayer, the BBC have prevented many genuine, fully paid-up BBC viewers from accessing it. The problem is that, unlike DRM where people can generally access their chosen media in several different ways, BBC output is only available via the BBC. I'm a strong supporter of much that the BBC does, but the iPlayer fiasco has severely diminished this.

I have received an updated FOI answer after my appeal. It shows that some within the BBC wanted to help out Dave Johnston with beebplayer but unfortunately it seems not everyone agreed..

https://blog.szlwzl.com/foia-internal-review-ir2010026

Hi David,

To save me another FOI request[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]- please can you let me know about the following:
"If on investigation we find that a company's service proposition does not adhere to our standard licence terms and conditions, we will take steps to remedy the issue."

What are the standard licence terms and conditions?
How did beebplayer not adhere to those terms?
Is it possible for third party applications to adhere to these t&c's?

BBC - how about porting the iPlayer client to Maemo?

Android Overtakes IPhone

taken from

https://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/11/01/android-overtakes-iphone/

Ok, so its in the states, but what happens there happens here, it would be good to see andriod only news and iplayer apps, as its the platform of the future in my opinion and im sure other!

Google Inc.’s Android platform has taken the lead in the U.S. smartphone market, according to several new reports by technology research firms.

In the third quarter, devices with the Android operating system were installed in 44% of smartphones, while Apple Inc.’s iPhone came in second place with 23%, according to market research firm, NPD Group. RIM’s BlackBerry trailed behind in third place with 22%.

I've got a HTC Legend, a fairly recent (less than 12 month old) Android phone. Today my phone was updated to Froyo 2.2 (hooray!) so with joy I went over to BBC Sport and then BBC iPlayer. I can't play videos due to unsupported content.

I have Flash, Sky Sports site works for example. It is Flash Lite by HTC as Adobe, who were originally support a lot of android phones, have gone back on its work and only supporting high end phones. Flash sites work, YourTube in HQ is great, SkySports looks great and many other sites. However not the BBC. I use 'Beebplayer', the app the BBC got banned on Android to access BBC iPlayer and Live content. Beebplayer has a place where the BBC won't deliver its services. A similar app exists not banned as yet, both work brilliantly on 3G or Wifi.

The BBC policy of banning this app and cutting off many of its UK customers / licence fee players is extremely disappointing and short sighted. Your policy and statements are wrong;

"Enabling Flash on Android 2.2 devices also means that all current and new devices that support Android 2.2 can get BBC iPlayer."

No it doesn't as others have said above. You need to update you policy to say we will provide iPlayer to Android 2.2 high end phones that Adobe let us support. The BBC supports any iPhone regardless of hardware spec and my phone has a newer / faster generation ARM cpu to early iPhone's which you still support.

Dear Mr Madden,

First off, I love the iplayer and think you guys are doing a great job. However, I've moaned/made a suggestion on the forum here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbiplayer/NF7331806?thread=7890039

Executive summary: I'm disappointed that you've cut off myPlayer without providing a decent alternative. It's ridiculous that iphone owners can download programmes and other license-paying phone owners can't - it's an unfair double standard.

It doesn't even necessarily warrant an app - just for the mobile download you can get from the desktop iplayer to work on phones that don't have an apple logo on them.

Please? Surely you can't be that cash-strapped. If there's some legal reason, an explanation somewhere would be nice.

Cheers,

G

It's clear that the BBC have no idea of their mobile strategy. It will probably come as a shock to them to discover that there are millions of Android handsets running Android 2.2 that can't run Flash 10.1...

As a license fee payer, I am disgusted how the BBC seem to have cuddled up to Apple iphone that has no flash support, and at the same time excluded the already much larger (and sky rocketing) Android user-base down a road that only supports a small subset of high-end phones, whilst actively blocking Android apps that mimick iPhone functionality and streams...

ALL Android handsets could be iPlayer capable using the same streams that you already provide to iPhone, however it seems you don't want that to be the case. I can only assume the decision is bewing made by some iPhone wearing execs that don't want the Android riff-raff to have what they have.

Well done BBC, you've now stopped myplayer from working. So I have a handset that is less than 12 months old, it has Froyo 2.2, it has Flash 10.1 lite but I cannot view any BBC content.

Can David Madden or anyone from the technology team please explain the latest strategy or NOT providing content and having a three tier operating model.

1, Apple, no flash but we'll support you anyway
2, Adobe approved handsets, though they are too lazy to support handsets than could work. The demo'd Flash 10.1 on ARM6 but pulled it.
3, Anyone else we don't want to support, probably the bulk of handsets available.

Flash 10.1 Lite works many of your competitors websites streaming video full screen.

The killing of 3rd party Android iPlayer clients is, frankly, disgusting behaviour by the BBC. I can, kind of, see the reasoning behind the action against myPlayer because it used BBC branding (even though it stated it had nothing to do with the BBC) and also allowed the user to save programmes.

BeebPlayer, however, studiously avoided BBC branding and only permitted the user to stream content (that intended for Nokia phones)(3gp).

The BBC claim that these excellent 3rd party iPlayer clients were killed off because they broke the BBC's syndication policy, specifically the part about redistribution.

Obviously neither application "redistributed" anything (unless you count the bit from the screen to the user's eyeball), but I assume that neither developer had the resources to defend themselves against the BBC's attack lawyers and had little choice but to submit to these bullyboy tactics.

What is really sickening is that it is likely the cost of bringing this action against these developers was borne by licence fee payers.

The BBC refuse / cannot be bothered to provide Android compatible streams (little different from those supplied to Apple devices), deliberately block access to other streams that Android can play (3gp) by detecting the Browser OS and throw the lawyers at any 3rd party developers who try to circumvent these restrictions.

What gives? Why is the BBC deliberately trying to prevent Android device owners from accessing iPlayer content? Claims that this isn't the case will no longer wash, the evidence is just too strong.

Is it something personal against Google? Is there a deal with Apple? Something smells very bad and rotten about this.

The BBC are the content creator (/commissioner) and the content deliverer. The BBC are, however, not the content receiver. I am.

It is hopefully my decision, as licence payer, to determine the means by which I receive content (FM radio in the car, DAB in the kitchen, iPod Touch, PC laptop, Freeview box, PVR, digital TV, old mobile phone when out and about - you get the idea) and the quality of signal I am prepared to accept. If I am in an area where reception is poor, I simply live with the quality that I can obtain.

I purchased an Android OS (2.1) phone a couple of weeks ago (released to market 3 months ago - can't afford an iPhone), and now find that it will never be supported to receive an iPlayer feed despite the technology and infrastructure already being in place to make this a possibility. Further, any attempts to allow me to receive content on this device from a non-profit, non-commercial third party will be barred by the BBC.

The BBC's approach to iPlayer content delivery on Android casts a hefty shadow over the notion of Public Service Broadcasting, tax-payer licencing and public access.

Have got HTC desire hd from 3 and can access BBC iplayer
From the my3 website and it works well

A shame the BC has now finally pulled the plug on myPlayer - it just looks like a real case of 'not developed here'.

The myPlayer service was superb and something the BBC should have been offering already. It really does seem like a dog-in-the-manger approach to cut off service from someone who had done the Beeb's job for it, done it quickly, done it well, and done it for free. It worked well, did not compromise the BBC brand in any way at all, and provided a superbly functional option for downloading and off-line viewing.

I am writing to the Culture Secretary and BBC Trust to express my feelings about the shameful way the BBC has handled this, and why it is restricting my legitimate access to its output in a way that was harming no-one's interests, and for which I have paid my licence fee.

Maybe the BBC has concernes about the lack of restriction in terms of geography or time permitted by myPlayer, but if so it should find a way of dealing with the problem that allows it to continue to serve the legitimate majority, rather than penalizing them.

In any event, anyone overseas intent on ripping off BBC content for gain will find other perfectly practical alternatives, while those of us wanting to watch programmes we are entitled to watch, but to do it in a convenient and timely fashion (eg on trains) are prevented from having legitimate access.

Alex

Personally I'm only interested in the radio/audio content on iplayer, something that really has no hardware limitations with anything can act as a web browser. My concern here is that the BBC is doing this as it has agreed something with Apple for exclusivity. Is it a coincidence a new ipad iplayer app has been launched for worldwide paid subscriptions? Is this a sign of take money and ignore the overwhelming views of the licence fee payer?
In regards the different sizes and power of handsets, my TV in the bedroom is significantly smaller than the lounge and doesn't do HD is that to be removed using the same logic?
I'm sure if something was released open source then the beeb would get a fine app developed for free.

My HTC Magic has just been updated to Android 2.2 (Froyo). The BBC iPlayer FAQ state this as the *only* requirement for iPlayer.

I can confirm, as previously suspected, that iPlayer does not work on this device, even though it meets the BBCs requirements.

Easy workaround for my Desire, Browser >> Menu >> More >> Settings, uncheck mobile view. Reload www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer. Hey presto, full iplayer site, on 3g as well!

HTC Desire running 2.2 on T-Mobile.

Re @alex's comments about myplayer... remind me, wasn't it a streaming client?

Surely then any "syndication" it's doing is purely to the user's eyeballs. In other words - acting as a client.

Like a TV card.

Just frustrated that the issue is still ongoing, and there are enthusiasts who want to help...

Having read through all the comments I have to agree that the myplayer (that was free) was far and away the best app I have ever used. The interface was intuitive and the function was fantastic. I read through this blog to try to get some idea as to why the BBC would force the developer to pull the full functionality of the app - obviously, I failed. It would appear that in this case an app had been developed that offered eveything the BBC were trying to achieve in providing mobile content to Android platform devices and it hadn't cost them a penny - great news in these time of austerity!! Could someone please explain?

Umm - thinking generally about how commercial software is distributed in the Linux world - through "Partner" mechanisms, such as Sun Java, Skype clients and even Adobe's software...

What's to stop the Beeb engaging these Partner teams and therefore the release managers associated with the Maemo, Meego, Moblin, Symbian and Android projects, and getting their help when it comes to compiling native iPlayer clients onto those platforms.

For example - with Flash, I believe Adobe supply the source code to Canonical, along with packages, and work closely with Ubuntu developers and release managers during maintenance and release of updates. Same as happens with Sun Java...

A lot of Linux distributions have Non-free repositories which this work takes place for. If the Maemo community has the same - the Beeb could save a lot of money.

Thoughts?

Is there an easy answer to this?

I have seen an announcement that the BBC iPlayer is functional on Android 2.2 smartphones (e.g. Galaxy Tab which has Flash). I also know that radio streams can be received via the iPlayer outside the UK, at least on PCs.
My question is why a test of the iPlayer on the Galaxy Tab failed abroad (not licensed ...)?

The BBC is so in bed with apple that it's no wonder that they are making it hard for android users to use iplayer. The BBC even rolled over and and set up a load of non industry standard edit suites based around a semi pro product just because it was based on apple computers. Oh well, who wants democracy anyway?