"Does the Â鶹Éç still believe in digital?": yes
Nick Thomas, an analyst at Forrester Research, has posed the question on paidcontent.co.uk
The simple answer is yes: we have responsibilities for digital switchover, we are investing in digital infrastructure and we will continue to provide great digital content and services.
Mark Thompson that the Â鶹Éç is not in retreat from digital content and that we know this is not what audiences want. In fact over on silicon.com today they've just published
The proposals announced this week are about providing clear focus in key priority areas to provide greater long term value to audiences and a more open approach to a wider online market. Doing fewer things to an even higher standard. Â鶹Éç Online is very much part of the Â鶹Éç's future and we remain absolutely committed to the web as a third platform alongside TV and Radio.
Â鶹Éç Online reaches 53% of the online audience with 28 million users a week. As our third medium, it needs to meet Â鶹Éç standards for quality, impact and effectiveness even more than it currently does today. The proposals also state that as the internet comes to the living-room through television sets, it will become more important still--and indeed, one day, may be the only platform and delivery system that the Â鶹Éç needs to fulfil its public purposes. You can read the full details of the proposals .
Kerstin Mogull is Chief Operating Officer, Â鶹Éç Future Media & Technology.
Comment number 1.
At 4th Mar 2010, cping500 wrote:Well TINA rules, doesn't she, Kerstin? The switch to digital TV is in full swing, and radio is soon to follow, and if Canvass does not go ahead the manufactures will, as they are doing, installing the 'net in the TV. But curiously the 'Sixites' can't find R6 other than on DAB! Grandad me thought they advertised themselves as the 'connected' generation.
Incidentally I see a private Kangeroo is in the pouch at the moment.. If it grows up it will be a disruptive technology (which is I suppose the REAL reason why the Trust rejected it.)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 4th Mar 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:The problem with the Digital religion is that it includes both reasonable quality and absolute rubbish quality.
Digital Radio (DAB) uses really out of date technology and we appear to be stuck with it - why? It is a really quite inefficient and low quality way of broadcasting sound.
We are also seeing the same thing in TV (incl. HD) too - multiple channels using a low bit rate and an inefficient compression technology - why?
We need honesty not marketing hype. We deserve to use the latest technology not twenty year old technology we need an evolving technology strategy - where is it?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 4th Mar 2010, dennisjunior1 wrote:Kerstin Mogull:
Yes, Â鶹Éç stills believes in Digital....
(D)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 5th Mar 2010, Lens wrote:"The proposals also state that as the internet comes to the living-room through television sets, it will become more important still--and indeed, one day, may be the only platform and delivery system that the Â鶹Éç needs to fulfil its public purposes."
You see, the Â鶹Éç often makes statements like this, but then on the other hand does things like cut off a chunk of people who are already consuming the output of, and interacting with the Â鶹Éç in this way. It just makes me think "hot air" (and I realise, sometimes expel it).
In order to achieve that ambition, it might be advantageous to develop more open technology, rather than secretive proprietary arrangements with a closed set of established "big player" partners and device manufacturers.
The thing about open technology is that it often has reciprocal benefits. Sometimes the pluses are more obvious for purely commercial enterprises (e.g. driving traffic), but I can think of dozens of ways it could benefit the corporation. Not least that you harness lots of people's enthusiasm and ideas - for free. The types of software and devices being developed will be years ahead of the consumer goods equivalents, and beyond what is feasible to develop in-house.
If it's zero cost to the Â鶹Éç, it helps to fulfil the public purpose, even in a small way, why not? Really, I would love to hear why not.
Put the piracy/freeloader argument to rest, see how people can innovate with Â鶹Éç content and services at the core, you might be pleasantly surprised.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 5th Mar 2010, Nick Reynolds wrote:Lens - you may find this post interesting. Although it's about content management on Freeview HD many of the arguments in it could also apply to your comment. You may also be interested in this recent comment.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 5th Mar 2010, Lens wrote:Nick - thanks for the links. I'm aware of those posts, indeed extracts from my comments on the latter are quoted in the article from The Register which was subsequently blogged about.
If you feel they missed the point I would be genuinely interested to hear a more in-depth discussion of the rationale.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 5th Mar 2010, Nick Reynolds wrote:I'm probably straying into areas where I shouldn't but...
The Â鶹Éç is not against open technology. I'm told that much of the iPlayer is built on open source products. But in order to get Â鶹Éç content on all platforms we have to work with everyone including big player partners and device manufacturers. If we didn't there'd be no iPlayer on wii for example.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 5th Mar 2010, Trev wrote:#7
To say that the Â鶹Éç Iplayer is built on open source products is not true. IPlayer uses the propriety Adobe Flash technology. As I understand it Adobe have published the interface so that anyone can write thier own player. Fortunatly Adobe have always been very keen on making thier product work on a wide range of platforms.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 12th May 2010, U14460911 wrote:All this user's posts have been removed.Why?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 12th May 2010, U14460911 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 20th May 2010, talat wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 24th May 2010, hd2010 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)