 |
msmobiles.com/f
dicussions about Microsoft Smartphone and Pocket PC phone
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
msmobiles.com_robot
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 16777215
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
thelondonthing
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 236
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 9:07 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Wow - another poorly researched article from msmobiles.com with all the wisdom and insight of diarrhoea - what a surprise.
First, let's start with your headline. There is nothing - NOTHING - in the article that says "the two handsets were chosen because they're the best Windows Mobile handsets available". There's nothing that implies this on any level, and there's nothing for you to be able to legitimately infer that from the information given.
I happen to know a great deal about BBC iPlayer - in fact, I was involved with it during its gestation many years ago as the 'BBC iMP', or "Interactive Media Player". Although I'm not directly involved with the project these days, I still stay well informed on developments with iPlayer, and the BBC's own blogs also give a very open and transparent account of how iPlayer is progressing, what's coming next, and why decisions are made.
Indeed, to anyone who has bothered to read these blogs and articles, it is obvious that the BBC's decision to limit access to certain devices - such as the Nokia N96 and Samsung Omnia - is so that testing can be carried out under reasonably controlled circumstances.
The mobile version of BBC iPlayer is still very much in its infancy, as development has previously focused on improving the user experience of iPlayer on computers, and rolling out to other platforms where users can watch on larger displays, such as the Virgin Media cable network, and the Nintendo Wii console.
Recent months have seen iPlayer rolled to Apple iPhone and iPod Touch, and more recently mobile telephony handsets, such as the Nokia N96.
However, by limiting the availability of iPlayer to specific devices, the BBC can limit the number of variables to which the product is exposed during testing; although we talk about the "Windows Mobile" platform, there are multiple versions (v5, 6, 6.1 etc) currently in use, and manufacturers manipulate each version to include their own customisations, user interfaces etc. In early testing on a new operating system, you want to be able to identify core issues with the fundaments of that platform, so that problems that will likely be common to other devices on the same platform can be isolated and resolved. Once the basics are covered, you can move on to a wider scope, such as identifying issues with builds from specific manufacturers, or conflicts with third-party software.
This isn't rocket science - this is just basic product development.
The BBC have built a very sophisticated architecture for iPlayer, and dozens of leading public service and commercial broadcasters from the US, Japan, xxxxxx, Australia, and a range of other countries have consulted with the BBC to draw on the expertise in digital programming distribution that has been applied during the iPlayer project.
iPlayer has been a huge success in the UK - too successful, in fact for many of the UK's top internet service providers, who are extremely vocal in their disapproval for the massive increase in bandwidth usage that is eating into their profits, caused by iPlayer's extraordinary popularity.
So to say that the BBC is "ineffective" - when it is advising other world broadcasters on how to do things, when its work is now so successful that it's become too popular for its own good, and when it's widely regarded as one of the world's most respected broadcasters (thanks in no small part to the excellent BBC World Service) - is just plain ignorant. It shows a staggering lack of knowledge on the subject matter that you've posted - and as I've demonstrated, your ignorance extends not only to BBC and iPlayer matters, but also to the heart of your article's point.
Your article is based on the premise that the BBC will not at any point allow more than these two "handpicked" 'best of Windows Mobile' handsets.
We know that's not the case. We know this because the BBC has already stated on its iPlayer blog that the purpose of starting with one handset is for testing, and that support for new handsets will be added later as development continues. In fact, Richard Titus - Future Media Controller for Audio and Music & Mobile for the BBC Future Media and Technology division - has himself stated that they "will be extending the [iPlayer Mobile Beta] portal out to other compatible devices in the coming weeks".
And let's not ignore that little nugget either - iPlayer for mobile devices is a project in beta. Only two days ago, the BBC Internet Blog announced that the 'iPlayer on Mobile' project had officially launched its site in Beta.
For god's sake, any idiot can see that this is a product in development - the choice to limit availability of the product to specific handsets is part of the product's development and testing. They haven't chosen these handsets because they're the best and all the rest can sod off - they've chosen two devices that they can work with and test the platform, and which are sufficiently popular with consumers that the engineers and testers can have a good sample of users to work with while they continue to make improvements before the product is made more widely available.
The BBC will already be testing iPlayer on numerous other smartphone devices behind the scenes, before they will also be 'officially' announced as compatible with iPlayer on Mobile - at which point the BBC can offer proper support to users for those new devices, something which they can't do if they haven't had the opportunity to test it properly on compatible devices (i.e. smartphones, with wi-fi etc).
Honestly, "Edward J R", I've picked apart your articles with almost laughable ease before - you really need to learn about the value of researching something before you try to comment on it, because when you try to make a point about something that you so obviously know nothing about, you just make yourself look like an idiot.
Try and find some pride in what you do, man. And if you can't do that, then try finding something you're actually good at. Something unrelated to mobiles phones though - you suck at that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EJR
Joined: 18 Mar 2004
Posts: 2629
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
come on, thelondonthing, maybe BBC has not said it explicitly but indirectly by selecting only these 2 phones, BBC pointed out which Windows Mobile phones - according to them - are the best ones.
Regarding opinions on BBC, please, I have them from friends in private broadcasting in UK - that is being damaged by UK. Why for example BBC was spending millions of public money on advertising Dr Who in cinemans in UK? BBC is indeed ineffective - at least from the point of view of private broadcasting companies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carter
Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 16
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
sigh......
the BBC is head and shoulders above any other broadcaster in the UK (for obvious reasons) and the iPlayer is awesome... and it is clearly still in development for mobile platforms.
this is just another typical sensationalist msmobiles article, without any first hand information and the usual jumping to conclusions :\ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OscarTheGrouch
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 21
Location: New England States
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thelondonthing wrote: | Wow - another poorly researched article from msmobiles.com with all the wisdom and insight of diarrhoea - what a surprise.
<...stuff deleted...>
Try and find some pride in what you do, man. And if you can't do that, then try finding something you're actually good at. Something unrelated to mobiles phones though - you suck at that. |
Wow, that's a lot to read! I've printed it out and placed it in my bathroom so that I can read it the next time I visit my crapper. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thelondonthing
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 236
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EJR wrote: | | come on, thelondonthing, maybe BBC has not said it explicitly but indirectly by selecting only these 2 phones, BBC pointed out which Windows Mobile phones - according to them - are the best ones. |
If you're going to reply to my comments, I think the least you can do is read them.
I spent quite some time explaining why this has nothing to do with identifying the "two best" Windows Mobile handsets - they've chosen two WM handsets that are reasonably popular so that they can test iPlayer on the platform while getting 'real world' data from actual end-users.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
They've said as much themselves. They've also explicitly stated that more handsets will be added in the coming weeks as development continues. They haven't chosen the 'best handsets' - they've picked two popular, modern Windows Mobile handsets.
If you're testing mobile software, you don't test it on the crappiest, oldest
devices you can find, and you don't test it on every single model available at exactly the same time. You start off by identifying problems that are going to be common to many models - otherwise, you just end up encountering the same problems over and over again.
I really don't know how much simpler I can make this for you to understand - it's not about picking the best handsets, it's about managing the software development process. How is it that a site dedicated to mobile software and hardware knows nothing of how the former is developed for the latter?
| EJR wrote: | | Regarding opinions on BBC, please, I have them from friends in private broadcasting in UK - that is being damaged by UK. Why for example BBC was spending millions of public money on advertising Dr Who in cinemans in UK? |
The BBC has a responsibility, as part of its Royal Charter, to ensure that its services reach the widest possible range of licence fee payers in the UK. In order to meet that obligation, it is entitled to advertise its services to existing audiences (through its own television, web and radio services) and to potential new ones (through outdoor and press advertising, and through promotional spots in cinemas and at events).
Boosting the popularity of high-profile programming like Doctor Who, Planet Earth and Spooks also helps to increase merchandising sales; the profits generated from selling DVDs, clothing, toys etc through the BBC Worldwide commercial division are returned to the BBC itself to spend on new content and services; in the 2007/8 financial year, BBC Worldwide generated profits of £117.7m.
While your assertion that the BBC spends "millions of public money on advertising Dr Who" sounds sufficiently dramatic, the BBC spends far, far less on advertising than private commercial broadcasters. In fact, you're not even right in saying that "millions" were spent - the BBC actually spent £500,000 on advertising Doctor Who. That's half a million, not "millions", and is more than paid for by the £117.7m in BBC Worldwide profits.
So in fact, you're rather misrepresenting the situation in saying that the BBC is spending millions of public money on advertising- technically, it's true, but you're missing out the bit where the money spent on advertising is more than paid for by commercial sales. Moreover, the fact that spending money on advertising generates profits that not only pay for the advertising itself, but are also reinvested into new content and services, would seem to prove that the BBC spending money on advertising can only be a good thing.
You also seem to be forgetting that everything that the BBC does has to meet a Public Value Test, which assesses the potential impact of BBC services on the commercial sector before the independent BBC Trust makes a decision on whether or not to approve those services. Only a few weeks ago, the BBC Trust turned down a proposal by the BBC to launch a £300m 'local broadcasting' service across the UK, which would have seen the BBC launch new 'hyperlocal' services including dedicated news services for smaller broadcast areas than are currently covered by the 'regional' broadcast areas. The proposal was turned down on the basis that the BBC's service would have a significant negative impact on existing local newspapers and web services, and that that impact on the commercial sector would be too great to justify allowing the BBC to go ahead with its plans.
With the BBC having to account for its commercial activities - to justify their viability, and to ensure that there is no major impact upon the rest of the commercial sector - and the fact that the BBC's advertising is clearly a success in terms of generating money to pay for itself, I really don't see what your point is.
| EJR wrote: | | BBC is indeed ineffective - at least from the point of view of private broadcasting companies. |
That doesn't even make any sense.
If you're arguing that the BBC has a negative impact upon existing private commercial broadcasters, then you can't at the same time argue that they are 'ineffective'. If your point had been correct, then you would in fact be arguing that the BBC is having a huge effect on the commercial broadcasting sector, while at the same time having no effect on it at all.
And if you're saying that the BBC is ineffective in that it doesn't do anything to help commercial broadcasters, well, that's not the role of any public service broadcaster, anywhere in the world, so holding the BBC to account for something that isn't in its remit seems pretty stupid.
As mentioned above, the BBC does already take into account the impact of its services on the commercial sector. The Public Value Test ensures that the BBC doesn't enter into new markets without first ensuring that the commercial sector will not be screwed if the BBC's services are approved.
This is why the original proposal for BBC Three was turned down (and why the BBC Three that we have today is so different from the channel that the BBC originally wanted to launch), why the BBC Local services proposal was turned down a few weeks ago, why the BBC Digital Curriculum was forced to close before it really got started (that would have been worth hundreds of millions of pounds, but the commercial sector kicked up an enormous fuss about it until the BBC finally terminated the platform)... need I go on?
You characterise the BBC as a vast, bloated, outdated, lumbering mass that p!sses away cash without a second thought, and which doesn't give a damn about who it crushes as it goes along.
I don't know if that's your ignorance of the facts, or if you're deliberately trying to misrepresent them, but the reality is quite different from your assessment.
The BBC is in the middle of a cost-cutting exercise to save 15% across every department, to improve efficiency and to create a leaner and more focused organisation. This is a process that any large commercial organisation would find extremely challenging, and indeed, I'm not at all certain that any commercial organisation has ever made changes of this nature across every single department at the same time.
The BBC has to account for everything that it does if there is to be any impact on the commercial sector, and if that impact is to be too great, the BBC gets its plans turned down.
The BBC's own commercial operations generate profits that more than cover advertising spend, leaving millions left over to invest in new programming and digital services, such as iPlayer on Mobile.
And as discussed above, if you set aside this absurd notion that the BBC has handpicked the two best Windows Mobile handsets, you'll see that it's chosen two strong, popular handsets on which to begin the Windows Mobile roll-out of iPlayer on Mobile, and that the BBC has already unequivocally stated that new handsets will be added in the next few weeks as development of the program on that platform continues.
So... what was your point again? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kieranEire
Joined: 12 Oct 2005
Posts: 282
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am not sure why your knocking the BBC for this Edward. The things you are knocking it for are the things that are its strengths. You such be happy the BBC are providing iplayer for WM surely. Their model of development is no different than that say of Opera 9.5. Something you explained while reveiwing it.
Dr Who for example has been very successfull. Their web portal I think is the best available, certainly most upto date. The only problem I can see with the BBC is the lack of impartiallity of the news services world wide. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thelondonthing
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 236
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kieranEire wrote: | | I am not sure why your knocking the BBC for this Edward. The things you are knocking it for are the things that are its strengths. You such be happy the BBC are providing iplayer for WM surely. Their model of development is no different than that say of Opera 9.5. Something you explained while reveiwing it. |
At last, a voice of reason.
| kieranEire wrote: | | Dr Who for example has been very successfull. Their web portal I think is the best available, certainly most upto date. The only problem I can see with the BBC is the lack of impartiallity of the news services world wide. |
I'd have to disagree with you there - BBC News is widely regarded as the world's most impartial news content provider. Indeed, the BBC World Service is hugely respected across the globe, even in countries that - shall we say - aren't huge fans of Western nations.
In fact, it was specifically to build upon the BBC's extraordinary reputation for genuinely balanced and impartial reporting that they decided to introduce a dedicated bulletin for the US, where the BBC's news services have been growing in popularity at an alarming rate, fuelled by an increasing thirst among American audiences for news without an agenda. The performance of the BBC World News America bulletin has exceeded expectations.
It was for the same reason that they launched the BBC Arabic television news service in the Middle East; in spite of the dislike or hatred of many states in that region for Western nations, the BBC is so highly respected that the BBC World Service continues to maintain its popularity in the Middle East, and the BBC Arabic channel has got off to a strong start during its first year on the air.
In fact, so greatly respected is the BBC's reputation that a BBC Persian television news service will also shortly be launched, primarily for Iranian audiences. I'm sure it doesn't need to be pointed out what Iran's opinion is of Western nations.
No other broadcaster in the world can boast that level of respect for its brand and its reputation - a reputation that enables it to transcend even apathy and bitter hatred between nations.
Of course, the BBC makes mistakes - no-one is perfect, and mistakes happen to everyone all the time. But as far as BBC News goes, mistakes are corrected swiftly, and everything is double-checked - literally: anything to be broadcast on BBC News outlets must be confirmed by two sources before going on air - so mistakes are relatively few in number compared with many other news outlets that will often air unsubstantiated or unverified reports in the race to be the first for breaking news.
So, while I completely respect your opinion on the BBC's impartiality, kieranEire - indeed, the beauty of the BBC is that every service user's opinion matters, and everyone is encouraged to have their say - I personally can't say that I agree with it, and I think the facts speak for themselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kieranEire
Joined: 12 Oct 2005
Posts: 282
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I'd have to disagree with you there - BBC News is widely regarded as the world's most impartial news content provider. Indeed, the BBC World Service is hugely respected across the globe, even in countries that - shall we say - aren't huge fans of Western nations. |
Even the BBC admitt bias and have as many critics as fans.
http://www.shieldofachilles.net/2007/06/bbc-news-biased-why-you-should-care.html
Though thats for another place. The original point by Ed is weak |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
