Spalpeen

I’ve been “using” 4oD for a couple of weeks now, so I thought it might be wise to hit up a review of it. I took all these screenshots in Parallels running on my 2GHz MacBook. Everything seems to run smoothly, which is great considering I had been booting into Windows XP via bootcamp beforehand. To give you some perspective, it took me about 2 hours to get from a vanilla install of Windows XP to being able to run 4oD. I had to find a version of Windows Media Player (9, 10, and 11 all supposedly “work”) that didn’t require going through Microsoft’s crappy authorisation system — for some reason I couldn’t install Windows Media Player 10 or 11 because Microsoft thought my legit copy of Windows wasn’t legit — and then downloading and installing all sorts of things like .NET frameworks and new versions of Internet Explorer. UGH! Anyway, once I got it sorted, it all booted.

The first thing you’ll do is boot 4oD. This requires clicking on a little tab that appears to the right of the Windows taskbar.

Next, the main screen will appear, and you’ll be able to select an option to visit probably the most popular page: the free stuff. The whole system is basically just an Internet Explorer window without any of the taskbars you’d expect from a vanilla window. That means it boots up relatively quickly, but once it’s running you’ll have to deal with non-responsive links and other quirks from IE. It basically feels like one of those annoying websites based entirely on flash.

The download window is probably the second most popular page, which is where you wait for your downloads to finish, and then watch the ones you’ve already downloaded expire. Here you can see that I’ve already downloaded a few episodes. Once you’ve started watching an episode, it switches from expiring in 30 days to expiring in 2 days. You can’t pause the expiration. When you download an episode, there’s very little info on when the download will finish. The estimated download time seems to be based on how long a 2Mbps connection would take to download the file size of the episode in question. I have an 8Mbps connection, so it’s irrelevant for me. Usually a 300MB file would take about half an hour, but certainly not fast enough to press buy and then be watching the episode straight away. You can’t watch until the file finishes downloading.

Here’s what happens when you press play on an episode that had just finished downloading. You’ll notice that the expiration date immediately changes to the 4th Feb from the 2nd of March, which was the expiration date before I started watching.

 

Here’s a clearer shot of the pop-up that appears when you press play. Pretty standard stuff right? You have three size choices — no dynamic resizing here folks.

Here’s a screenshot of the full screen quality. Click on the thumbnail for a full resolution screen. It looks OK here, but when it’s full screen you can definitely see some pixelation. It’s basically somewhere between the quality of VHS and digital TV. It’s also really crap with any kind of movement. I’d never purchase a movie from the service with quality this crap.

Here’s a shot of the weekly schedule (click for larger screenshot). All the episodes in dark grey aren’t downloadable. That sucks because I’d love to be able to automatically download Channel 4 News each day in case I missed it.

 

Instead of using 4oD, I can easily use a torrent client like xTorrent to download all the episodes of stuff that’s on 4oD. It takes me 3 seconds from booting the program, to pressing download, and then about half an hour to download the file. That’s without owning a copy of Windows, booting into said operating system, and then dealing with installing the program, dealing with the crappy program itself, and then dealing with the crappy DRM. The only problem is the questionable legality, but if I’ve already watched both episodes of Skins on TV (and I have), then I don’t see a problem.

In summary, 4oD sucks, but I’ll still use it for the content. Even if I will probably still use torrent software…

 

I’m currently filling in my public consult of the iPlayer on-demand service for the BBC. Please, if you live in the UK and pay a license fee, fill this in and congratulate the trust on recognising the need for a DRM-free solution, whilst also criticising them for not setting out procedures for opening up the entire BBC archive for viewing online. My questions and answers below:

Do you agree with the BBC Trust’s proposal to approve the new BBC on-demand services, subject to the modifications outlined in the Trust’s report of its provisional conclusions?

Yes, I absolutely agree with the approval of the BBC’s on-demand services: it will significantly add to the value of the BBC’s content. The ratio of costs to benefits makes it a complete no-brainer that the BBC should be persuing a video on-demand service. However, I have reservations with some aspects of the proposal.

The concession for a mere 7-day catch up service is insane. Why should British license payers have to settle for this solution? We’ve paid for the content to be produced, so therefore we should have access to the content regardless of when we want to access it! Eventually I’d expect to see a complete archive of ALL the BBC’s content online at no cost to license payers. The 7-day solution cripples the solution by tying users to a specific time frame in order to watch content (i.e. it’s only a slightly improvement over the convenience of normal TV!)

I’m very encouraged by the report’s approval of a non-DRM solution! This is completely, 100% essential. DRM would completely cripple the BBC’s solution. This is an extremely encouraging development in the report. This HAS to be part of the final iPlayer.

In a market in which most broadcasters are expected to be offering on-demand services, would you agree that it is a priority for the BBC to be investing in this area?

Yes, in fact I would argue that competitors should not be taken into account with the iPlayer solution. It is inevitable that all broadcasters will eventually be submitting their content online, so why not offer the best solution now and pioneer the field?

The BBC Trust has proposed setting a limit of 30 days as the amount of time that programmes can be stored on a computer before being viewed. As this is a nascent market, there is currently no clear standard on the length of the storage window. On balance, the Trust thinks 30 days is the right length of time. How long do you think consumers should be able to store BBC programmes on their computers before viewing them?

Indefinitely. There should be absolutely no limits on when or where British license payers can view the content that they have paid for. Doesn’t this go hand-in-hand with the DRM-free aspect of the iPlayer?

If the Trust cannot accept anything other than a 30-day limit at the moment, then they should make plans for when competitors inevitably get rid of these kinds of limits, and set out plans for increasing this limit until it no longer exists. Again, I think the BBC should be the pioneer in this area.

The BBC Trust concluded that public value would be created by allowing series stacking. This would allow viewers to catch-up with all episodes of a series for the duration of its run. The Trust recognised that although it would provide increased opportunities to view BBC programmes, it could also deter people from buying DVDs or using commercial video-on-demand services. Do you consider series stacking to be a useful feature? What kind of series would you expect to be included? Should there be any limitation on the number of episodes of a series made available for catch-up or the length of time for which they can be viewed?

Why it the Trust paranoid over when or where people watch the BBC’s content? Allow people to watch whatever episodes they like in whatever order they like. Allow them to transfer the content to personal media players and mobile phones without restrictions.

Once the practicalities are out of the way, there should be no limitation on what the public can watch.

How important is it that the proposed seven-day catch-up service over the internet is available to consumers who are not using Microsoft software?

This is the most important aspect of the iPlayer service. I cannot stress how important it is that the BBC does not go down the WinXP + Windows Media Player 9/10/11 route that other broadcasters are mistakenly taking.

Using a Microsoft DRM solution would be justifying Microsoft’s monopoly over the computer industry and would inconvenience or cut off the users of milllions of Mac, Linux, or other platforms. Content should be provided in an open format, so that it can be played on any platform.

Should the BBC be allowed to offer book readings from its radio services as audio downloads over the internet?

Yes. All BBC content should be made available online.

The BBC Trust concluded there was fine balance between public value and market impact in deciding whether to allow the BBC to offer audio downloads of classical music. While such downloads could help introduce new listeners to classical music, they could also deter purchases of commercial recordings. What is your view on whether - and to what extent - the BBC should be allowed to offer radio broadcasts of classical music as audio downloads over the internet?

I find it hard to value “market value” when the public are already paying for access to this content. I repeat, all content that the BBC has access to should be made available online!

How important is it to you that the BBC provides some means for parents to control which of its programmes are accessible on-demand to children? Is such a facility necessary or is it more a matter for parents to exercise controls over how children use the internet?

Since the BBC seems concerned with how its competitors do things, I wouldn’t be worried if the BBC’s parental control system emulated its competitors: a simple warning that the content is adult should suffice, although I’m not opposed to a login system for children that parents could control.

What are your views on whether the BBC should offer content from non-BBC providers on the on-demand service on its website?

Why not? I don’t see a problem here. The BBC should be encouraging third parties to submit their content for display on the web. The BBC should also create an “indie zone” for valuable content from individuals that would like an outlet for their work.

What are your views on whether and how the BBC should make available on-demand content on services run by other providers - such as multi-channel services or internet-based audio and video downloading services?

What would be the point? If the BBC’s on-demand solution is fully comprehensive and accessible to all at any time on any platform, then what would be the need to syndicate the content? Saying all that, I don’t have a problem with the BBC syndicating content, as long as it’s readily available on the iPlayer service.

Do the revisions proposed to BBC Service Licences to allow the new services to go ahead seem appropriate?

Yes, absolutely. I’d be willing to pay even more for a complete system as I have outlined in my earlier answers.

Are there any other issues you would like the BBC Trust to consider in relation to the proposed services?

I’d argue that this is the most important issue that the BBC will face over the next decade as distribution for video content switches from TV to the internet. As long as the BBC goes the route of comprehensive and complete access to all its archives with no restrictions on what people can watch, when they can watch it, and on what platforms they can watch it on, the BBC will pioneer a new era of television.