Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 33 of 33
  1.    #21  
    not so keen on travel at the moment- have had to get to glasgow (scotland) from vienna via munich (train), amsterdam (overnight train), newcastle (overnight ferry) and edinburgh (train again) - bloody volcanos.
  2. #22  
    On other platforms you would have the info to help.....on the Pre as of this moment nothing!

    Had a reply from the BBC mobile team and the answer is ...........................no.
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by nsabournemouth View Post
    On other platforms you would have the info to help.....on the Pre as of this moment nothing!

    Had a reply from the BBC mobile team and the answer is ...........................no.
    Remind me why I fund the BBC with my taxes again?
  4. laze's Avatar
    Posts
    265 Posts
    Global Posts
    266 Global Posts
    #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by SqyArc View Post
    Remind me why I fund the BBC with my taxes again?
    You need an almighty slap in the face. Seriously? The BBC's a freakin' bargain!
    You're invited to follow me on Twitter
  5. #25  
    Do you work for the bbc laze. Indeed the bbc does produce some good tv programmes including news and documentries but it is far from a bargain. It is wholly inefficient with taxpayers money.
  6. #26  
    I'm just saying - iPlayer works on iPhone, BlackBerry, Android, Symbian (both Nokia & Sony Ericsson flavours), Maemo and Windows Mobile - there's hardly a single modern phone OS that the BBC doesn't support except for Palm and WebOS for which they state there are currently no future plans.

    I'm not convinced that waiting on Flash 10 for WebOS will actually enable us to watch iPlayer - especially not in high quality. It will likely be choppy & incredibly system intensive which will affect the battery as well as the performance. Having a dedicated stream like the other platforms do is a much more elegant & logical way to bring streaming media to a mobile device.
  7.    #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by laze View Post
    You need an almighty slap in the face. Seriously? The BBC's a freakin' bargain!
    Damn right - I'd pay the license fee just for Radio 4.
    You don't have to like everything the BBC does, or believe its the most efficient organisation in the world to recognise it produces some quality programmes in both television and radio that are often distinct form commercial rivals.

    I'm not aware of any commercial radio programmes producing quality history programmes such as "in our time", ethical debates such as the "moral maze", and commisioning new radio drama such as the daily "afternoon play" - though if anyone has any recommendations available via the net I'd be glad to hear them. Equally "the today programme" in the morning and "pm" in the evening keep me up to date with news and current affairs in a more in depth way than any of the commercial rivals.

    Equally i accept that it also spends a large part of its budget on non distinctive programming that keeps a sufficient general audience share to keep support for the service through a license fee at reasonable levels (eg "strictly come dancing", "doctor who", "eastenders").

    More constructively, can someone post a link so we can request a WebOS app ourselves (the more who do the more likely it will happen).

    Also have any developers had a chance to look at the APIs metioned above? And more importantly is anyone going to give it a go?
  8. StevenX's Avatar
    Posts
    457 Posts
    Global Posts
    492 Global Posts
    #28  
    Some of us don't like either the distinct or indistinct BBC programs however. I personally hardly ever watch BBC channels, and I don't listen to radio.

    I'd say I watch BBC less than 5% of the time watching TV. To me, that's not worth 145.
  9. laze's Avatar
    Posts
    265 Posts
    Global Posts
    266 Global Posts
    #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by StevenX View Post
    Some of us don't like either the distinct or indistinct BBC programs however. I personally hardly ever watch BBC channels, and I don't listen to radio.

    I'd say I watch BBC less than 5% of the time watching TV. To me, that's not worth 145.
    And you don't visit any of the BBC's websites either? I'd pay a tenner a month for the BBC News website alone (i.e. the license fee).
    You're invited to follow me on Twitter
  10. StevenX's Avatar
    Posts
    457 Posts
    Global Posts
    492 Global Posts
    #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by laze View Post
    And you don't visit any of the BBC's websites either? I'd pay a tenner a month for the BBC News website alone (i.e. the license fee).
    No.

    The TV programs they produce are stuffy and dated for the most part, and cater to an older audience mostly. Insipid documentaries, songs of praise, and springwatch are all that spring to mind when I think of BBC's TV output.

    Radio, I feel, is a dated medium. In the digital age, where I have Spotify, Grooveshark, YouTube, as well as my iTunes/Zune/whatever library, radio doesn't figure into the equation. Again, a lot of the output is pretentious, uninspiring and irrelevant.

    And for news (and yes, you may criticise this) I grab the Metro for free on my way to work in the morning.

    With a wealth of free information available all around us, I for one resent paying 145/year to subscribe to something which I don't use, and for services which are being offered elsewhere for free (ad supported) in much better forms. If I could opt out of all BBC services, I would. 145 is a lot of money, and the value which certain people get out of it is absolutely minimal. Especially certain social groups and demographics, who aren't well served or represented by BBC's output. Indeed, there have been a number of studies and campaigns regarding this, which I'm aware of.

    Spotify does radio better. For free.
    Channel 4 (the only station I regularly watch) has much more interesting, engaging content. For free.
    4OD works every bit as well as iPlayer, for free.
    And there are thousands of news sites just like the BBC's. For free.

    This isn't about them being inefficient with my money. I don't care how poorly it's organised as a company. I just don't agree with being forced to pay for something I don't like, want, or use and which doesn't represent a large number of its "customers," (perhaps, ironically, because it's obliged to), no matter how well or poorly it's run.

    EDIT: Ahh, I see you do work for BBC. I could've sworn you'd previously said you didn't when asked in this thread, but it appears not.

    Anyway. Enough about the BBC I think? Any updates from developers on these projects?
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by StevenX View Post
    No.

    The TV programs they produce are stuffy and dated for the most part, and cater to an older audience mostly. Insipid documentaries, songs of praise, and springwatch are all that spring to mind when I think of BBC's TV output.

    Radio, I feel, is a dated medium. In the digital age, where I have Spotify, Grooveshark, YouTube, as well as my iTunes/Zune/whatever library, radio doesn't figure into the equation. Again, a lot of the output is pretentious, uninspiring and irrelevant.

    And for news (and yes, you may criticise this) I grab the Metro for free on my way to work in the morning.

    With a wealth of free information available all around us, I for one resent paying 145/year to subscribe to something which I don't use, and for services which are being offered elsewhere for free (ad supported) in much better forms. If I could opt out of all BBC services, I would. 145 is a lot of money, and the value which certain people get out of it is absolutely minimal. Especially certain social groups and demographics, who aren't well served or represented by BBC's output. Indeed, there have been a number of studies and campaigns regarding this, which I'm aware of.

    Spotify does radio better. For free.
    Channel 4 (the only station I regularly watch) has much more interesting, engaging content. For free.
    4OD works every bit as well as iPlayer, for free.
    And there are thousands of news sites just like the BBC's. For free.

    This isn't about them being inefficient with my money. I don't care how poorly it's organised as a company. I just don't agree with being forced to pay for something I don't like, want, or use and which doesn't represent a large number of its "customers," (perhaps, ironically, because it's obliged to), no matter how well or poorly it's run.

    EDIT: Ahh, I see you do work for BBC. I could've sworn you'd previously said you didn't when asked in this thread, but it appears not.

    Anyway. Enough about the BBC I think? Any updates from developers on these projects?
    I think Channel 4 may have receive some of the licence fee too, although in one big chunk rather than every year.
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by StevenX View Post
    No.
    Radio, I feel, is a dated medium. In the digital age, where I have Spotify, Grooveshark, YouTube, as well as my iTunes/Zune/whatever library, radio doesn't figure into the equation. Again, a lot of the output is pretentious, uninspiring and irrelevant.
    I guess those are fine for music but what about everything else? I hardly ever listen to music and when I do it is from my own collection but I like to listen to news, drama, comedy and documentaries, apart from the odd podcast the only place to get this is Radio 4.

    As has been said by others I would gladly pay 10 a month for Radio 4 alone. The TV drama and documentaries from the BBC and CH4 are just a bonus but one for which I would be happy to pay twice as much again.
  13. StevenX's Avatar
    Posts
    457 Posts
    Global Posts
    492 Global Posts
    #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by andyhurley View Post
    I guess those are fine for music but what about everything else? I hardly ever listen to music and when I do it is from my own collection but I like to listen to news, drama, comedy and documentaries, apart from the odd podcast the only place to get this is Radio 4.
    I don't know a single person who would ever listen to drama or documentaries on the radio. It seems an outrageously old fashioned concept; sitting by "the wireless," listening to some serial drama?..
    Perhaps it's of value to some people. As I said, I see it as extremely old fashioned in the digital, always-connected, rich-media (etc., etc.) world we live in, so perhaps associate radio (and particularly such content) with an older audience? Having said that, it's highly likely you're not in the age bracket I'd be thinking of here... It seems contradictory to be interested in modern consumer electronics and a mobile OS which embraces cloud computing and so on, and to be interested in podcasts, but simultaneously be advocating radio, because functionally it's sort of opposite to those. I guess they achieve the same thing, but the way the content is consumed is worlds apart...

    I certainly can't see anyone of my age range (mid 20s) listening to the radio other than casually whilst driving or something anyway, and actively choosing to consume content that way. Maybe I'm wrong though... Either way, if I had the choice I'd choose to avoid BBC's services if it meant not paying 150 a year.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions