Auntie sh!tcans BBC Store after 18 months The Beeb is to shut its online paid-for streaming service BBC Store from November, just 18 months after it launched. The online facility failed to get off the ground against stiff competition from Netflix and Amazon. Its closure comes as Old Auntie is under increasing pressure to generate cash outside the Licence Fee. …
While much of the popular older material may be available on Netflix (Top Gear, post 2005 Doctor Who, Red Dwarf, Yes Minister) the BBC Store did offer some old but less popular and less available material - eg Goodies, and Play for Today type material.
It seems while the BBC has been encouraged to make its archives available, there isn't enough interest in them as a whole to make it feasible in online format.
"... there isn't enough interest in them as a whole to make it feasible in online format"
I think there is enough interest: I'd love to watch stuff from 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, but as a licence payer I don't see why I need to pay again to do so.
The programmes purchased in the Store didn't appear in iPlayer on TVs and consoles, you could only download on the mobile version of iPlayer, and you had to go to a website to buy them.
If they'd have finished the job it might have been more successful.
I'd like DVDs that are a sensible price, instead ox x2 to x4 Hollywood recent releases. Like it's not like they HAVE to sell the stuff to recover the studio budget?
BBC & RTE seem very greedy on prices, esp compared to old ITV shows.
I'm not interested in subscriptions to ANYTHING now, and in the past only had Sky as the dish isn't speed and cap limited like rural broadband.
Buying individual programs mean you get what you pay for, and still have them even if no internet.
"The Charter defines the main objective of the BBC as the promotion of six public purposes. These are:
...
Promoting education and learning
Stimulating creativity and cultural excellence
..."
As such I think there should (must?) be sections of the BBC archive permanently available on iPlayer (I know, with different production companies involved the rights may get complicated). My science wishlist would start with things like...
Life Story (the Crick and Watson dramatisation they did with Jeff Goldblum, Tim Piggot Smith and Juliet Stevenson).
Breaking The Code (Derek Jacobi as Alan Turing)
Einstein and Eddington (with Andy Serkis and David Tennant)
Breaking the Mould (Dominic West and Denis Lawson as Florey and Fleming)
I think this clearly demonstrates that the only thing keeping the BBC alive is state protection, and if it were left up to the democratic vote of consumers' wallets then it would disappear in a bureaucratic puff of smoke.
The question then is: should the largely disinterested majority be forced to fund, through involuntary taxation, something that is apparently only of interest to an economically non-viable minority (as the BBC itself concedes), where the thing in question is merely trivial entertainment rather than some life-or-death public utility?
In other words, let BBC fans pay for it, if they're that passionate about it, and leave the rest of us to decide if, when and who we pay for entertainment.
However it is because it is funded by the license player you can get all the obscure stuff and well as some quality stuff.
Got kids?
Compare Cbeebies / CBBC to Nickelodeon or Pop and you very quickly realise what you pay for.
That obscure TV show only appealing to 50,000 people, no chance on commercial.
So tell me, if we make it for "fee payers only" can we prevent every single person not paying listening to the radio, accessing all the websites, going to the free / discounted concerts and the mass of everything else they do?
Oh sorry silly me, they only do BBC TV.
The extortion tax does not include radio. Why do BBC fans always throw in the radio as if adds value to the tax? You might as well throw oxygen and sunlight in as they are not included in the tax either. When they stop pissing away money on a handful of lucky stars/presenters and cancel the champaign lunches for the upper management I'll give a shit.
Or pissing away money offering 10% extra in vouchers to people who used their service... it was a good service, like an online store version of the little BBC shop near Oxford Circus. Can't see why it wasn't integrated with iPlayer, though, as some form of "pass-holder area'.
Sky does it. Virgin does it. Basically every TV company in the world does it. So why can't the BBC?
The fact that the BBC may claim this is difficult is not my problem. Why should I have money stolen from my wallet just to spare some company the ordeal of competing in the free market, because their business model is predicated upon the preservation of "obscure stuff" that nobody watches, nobody pays for, and therefore must be essentially tax funded?
The world is full of "obscure stuff" of interest only to tiny minorities. Should I be forced to pay for all of it?
RCA's Capacitance Electronic Disc (an ill-fated analogue video disc system from the early 60s) is an extremely obscure but collectable curio that most people have never even heard of. Should we have a "license fee" to ensure that this retro junk remains available for all time?
How about the Volugrafo Bimbo, an obscure Italian car from the 1940s? Should we have a global "Bimbo Tax" to ensure that all three of the world's population interested in this post-war garbage can continue to drive around like a trio of greaseball poseurs?
Only those interested in the obscure should have to pay for it. Frankly, only those interested in anything should have to pay for it. If they don't want to pay for it, then clearly they weren't really that interested in it, so the fact that it then slips into the abyss is no great loss, and certainly nothing whatsoever to do with me.
Actually I agree...
Thefore can I not subsidise the following I don't use except when I need them.
Libraries
Buses
Trains (both regular and underground)
Police
Fire Brigade
Ambulances
Canals
Flood defences
The NHS
Youth services
Council Houses
Pensions
Welfare claimants
Disabled people.
"I think this clearly demonstrates that the only thing keeping the BBC alive is state protection, and if it were left up to the democratic vote of consumers' wallets then it would disappear in a bureaucratic puff of smoke."
I disagree. There's plenty of BBC-originated content that I would be happy to buy in a sensible form (although it also makes a lot of dross that I would not want to purchase).
The problem seems mostly to be that while the BBC is supported by the TV Licence income, it appears to be incapable of properly building (and promoting) decent mechanisms for operating in a commercial manner.
I don't have a license and don't abuse that, to the point I'm not even sure what the BBC puts out now.
The fact t I can't legally watch/stream any other live broadcast media without funding the BBC machine, creeps* and propaganda leaves me less impressed or bothered about their future.
In fact now I think about it, dear beeb go fuck yourself and your license lock-in.
* Jimmy Savile was a highly valued BBC employee for a long time, obviously he can't have acted alone but once dead he took the full blame.
Because your phone can also play TV content with the iPlayer app. Simple. Same reason you still need a TV licence if you have a device capable of receiving OTA TV broadcasts even if you never plug the thing into an aerial/STB-connected-to-aerial-or-TVOIP-feed.
Now if they released a radio-only iPlayer app that would be different.
Same reason you still need a TV licence if you have a device capable of receiving OTA TV broadcasts even if you never plug the thing into an aerial/STB-connected-to-aerial-or-TVOIP-feed.
Completely and utterly wrong, you only need one if you watch or record live TV (and now iPlayer)
I have 3 TVs in my house and no licence, completely legally, one TV is plugged into my PC as a monitor, one is plugged into the XBOX in my sons room and the other is on the blink. No aerials have ever been plugged in, the nice Capita (is it still Capita?) hired thugs turn up every now and then, see the aerial is on the opposite side of the room to the TV and leave happy. Never needed to pay for one, never will and TV Licensing give me a shiny letter saying I don't need one.
> Same reason you still need a TV licence if you have a device capable of receiving OTA TV broadcasts even if you never plug the thing into an aerial/STB-connected-to-aerial-or-TVOIP-feed.
> I have 3 TVs in my house and no licence
My fear is that the Capita goons are not beyond attempting to use the same 'device capable of receiving' argument.
Hence I pre-emptively filled the terrestrial arial and cable connectors of my TV with Sugru so there can be no doubt that the device cannot be used for licensable activity.
An ounce of prevention, etc ...
My fear is that the Capita goons are not beyond attempting to use the same 'device capable of receiving' argument.
They can try, but then you just point them to the TV Licensing website and show them the section that states "only if you watch/record live TV (and iPlayer)"
Be polite, but don't take any shit from them, they live to intimidate and there's nothing more frustrating for them than being warmly welcomed in and quoted their own rules.
How magnanimous of them.
I'd be inclined to ask why I should have to prove I don't need a TV license at all, particularly to some glorified debt collection agency acting on an entirely fictional debt, where they're merely opportunistically presuming that there may be a debt.
If actual debt collectors operated like that, they'd be shut down and sent to prison.
Maybe Tesco, Halfords and Starbucks should start sending goons on door-to-door harassment campaigns, demanding that people prove they don't owe them any money, then issue shiny certificates when they manage to prove what good little boys and girls they are.
"Now if they released a radio-only iPlayer app that would be different."
I don't know what the Android/Windows phone versions do, but there are separate applications on my iPhone for TV and Radio, and yes, the radio only application does prompt me to log in - for the moment, I can press the 'do it later' button. The iPlayer radio app does let you scroll back through schedules for catch-up radio.
The BBC do provide two separate apps,one for tv,one for radio only.
I have been trying to find info on what the BBC intend to do about folk like me who ditched tv tax licence 15 years ago and have never ever watched a thing since but I do make use of the radio only app.,cos radio licences went out in 1950's and if they think I'm paying a full tv tax for radio only,they can get stuffed,but of course there is no info available that I can find that explains what they plan to do about radio app only users..
If you want to use the tv app,you have to install their media app as well,if you only use radio app you don't need the media app,so it should be easy for BBC to tell if you only use radio app..
"Customers who have bought and downloaded copies of major BBC series... are being offered the choice of an Amazon voucher worth 10 per cent more than the value of their online library or a cash refund of the equivalent value."
"However, customers who purchased a series pass will be able to access their remaining episodes until November."
Did people actually buy something tangible, downloaded, stored and watchable on their PC or did they buy a 'pass/licence' to stream-watch something stored by the BBC?
Basically it was streamable ("watch online") or downloadable into their crappy player ("BBC Store Downloader", Mac and Windows only).
In short, the actual experience was shite. No sending it to my TV or mobile devices, and thus entirely pointless. I bought one thing and gave up. This may well be a key reason why no-one is using it. If it had been directly plugged into iPlayer and thus accessible via any iPlayer device, Auntie may have had a chance, although yes people are generally up for bulk subscription streaming and not one-off 'purchases' these days it seems...
That's the problem, everyone wants you to "buy" so you think you own it, or rent it, so you think you own it....but you own nothing, if/when they pull the plug.
Music
TV Shows
Films
Let's get going on it, most people do not "own" their phone until the 2 year contract is up....then get a new one, so it is never really theirs, if they fail to pay every month the tel company can get the phone back.
People think they own cars....they are leased, if the lease company goes bang, someone is entitled to come and collect the car...after x years they come and get it anyway...it's not yours.
Everyone has adopted the Gillette model.....if you do not pay monthly, then it ceases to be useful and you have nothing,
Even DVDs they will change format, stopping sellnig DVD players and you have no choice but to buy the new format when your machine goes wrong......video anyone?
I run only iPlayer logged in on a Chrome browser. For other BBC content I use FireFox and do not do a BBC login.
As a precaution I checked my BBC login "profile" - and had to untick a lot of boxes that were presumably trying to restrict what I might like to see.
I'm an omnivore - I do not want to live in a pigeon hole that someone assigns me on the basis of what programmes I watch and what news I read.
This post has been deleted by its author
BBC on DVD for me too, please. I stopped paying for idiot "TV bundlers, AKA TV blunderers" to pipe commercials into my home and pretend that is part of some valuable package deal over a year ago, and don't miss anything. I already have every DVD of all the 4th Doctor, so what do I need a wicked auntie that takes away my shows from Hulu, so she can put up a weak imitation of a streaming service that a child could run more efficiently than her?! Or refresh the licensed content of better days gone by, rather than the myriad of new shows that had better prove themselves before I bother to watch!?!?
I don't have time for crap TV, or commercials. I have books, video games, a child, and some cats to attend to. I don't need a crap auntie, with a mental problem, telling me when I can watch fucking Tom Baker deliver the goods. Goddammit.
And the BBC Radio app on iOS is fucked in the noggin. I get it SOLELY to hear the non-podcast Formula 1 content, and the fuckers block that like I'm a fucking spy. Piss on you, auntie. Broadcast my shows, or close the fucking shop, bitch. :P
Oh, and Happy Towel Day, loopy froods!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towel_Day
"No, I pulled out my tablet, OTG cable and memory stick and gave him a demonstration of somethings recorded the previous evening."
Indeed. I have a cheap little satellite receiver that can dump the entire transport stream to SD card. I usually watch SD because the data size can be incredible - NHK World runs in at around three and a half gigabyte per hour. That's the same size (more or less) as Brassed Off recorded of FilmFour the other night.
So, I set up my recordings, and when it suits me, I stick the media into my phone's OTG and I watch. Just discovered, by accident, that when the transport stream is recorded, that means everything. Even got subtitles that can be turned on in MXPlayer, for those times of mumbled dialogue or overzealous background music.
This was pretty simple and the receiver plus SD card and adapter come to about fifty quid. So the question is - if it can be done, why isn't it being done? Maybe their annoying lock in captures more people than it annoys? For everybody like you and me that just want a simple way to watch stuff at our convenience, there's a dozen people that would sign up to a restrictive service...?
I bought an ep or two of Power of the Dales on Amazon Video using amazon media credits built up by accepting slightly longer delivery times on some purchases.
Perhaps the BBC refund will cover it for you.
My library on BBC store was mostly got at a discount. Free episodes through O2 promotions, discounted K9 and Company (hence anon post), a Goodies ep...
Okay.
I want The Good Life, Series 3 and 4 in a digital/streaming format. I have the DVD's already, but they are old hat. I pay for my content, and I'll pay for the convenience of online content (e.g. I have a large Amazon Instant Video and Google Play TV/Movie library already).
Currently only series 1&2 are available ANYWHERE else on the net.
I have 1&2 purchased on Amazon, for instance.
Can I get 3&4 on the same service? No.
Am I going to try to remember that I have 1&2 over there and then switch service to get 3&4 over there? I try my best to avoid that already.
Are we talking new content? It was made in the 70's, is shown on all the channels, but like fuck can you actually get it. And if I *had* bought it on BBC Store, I'd now have to find somewhere and buy it all over again.
And then people wonder why you can't make an online business take off - it's junk like this. I WILL PAY SOMEONE TO GIVE ME LEGIT ACCESS and I either get screwed over, wait forever, or literally cannot do it.
And it's not just the BBC. The same applies to lots of the old things that never made the digital age - The Two Of Us still doesn't exist on DVD incorporating all episodes, but they show them occasionally. Even Just Good Friends has the same kind of non-digital stuff.
The reason you can't maintain the business model is because you're trying to control the product rather than actually sell access to it. It's actually counter-productive. And you have zero interest in releasing your archives at all, even if you're publicly funded.
You're sitting on a damn goldmine and you can't be bothered to just give some content to Amazon/Google, let them convert it, stream it, manage it and market it, and say "Give us a pound every time someone buys an episode".
A good idea to make the archive available but awful execution.
Not providing apps on common TV platforms isn't great.
People who like archive material like to own this stuff in case it goes away, this was DRM'd to hell. Now this is going away, you will lose access to your archive! Great!
This guy wrote a good breakdown of all the faults:
https://writtenbyabriton.com/2015/11/06/12-things-very-wrong-with-the-new-bbc-store/
It was also overpriced, one example he gives:
The Good Life, complete: Amazon: 17 pounds. BBC Store: 36 pounds.
Also people into archive TV want some guarantees about the material. They want it in the original format, not some low bandwidth with dodgy resolution with the interlacing removed esp given the cost of this material.
Will the BBC learn from the cost issues, the DRM issues, the poor resolution. Probably not as MBA's and media studies students who work there don't get taught this stuff!
This post has been deleted by its author
Typical BBC half cocked balls up,this is what comes of being protected from the real world for so long,they don't have a clue about anything.
They have little idea what others offer,how folk use their media devices or what folk want from the BBC.
They appear to think it's is perfectly ok to charge folk twice for the same content,folk funded the making of programs in the first place through tv tax,now they want more money for the same content,mad,they then totally fail to advertise store services,cripple w&at they did offer and then wonder why it flopped..
Fuhrer may should just end the tv tax BBC have had billions over the decades and seem to think they will always be protected from the real world,even after several warnings over last two decades..
The license fee paid for the content to be made in the first place. I'm not going to pay again - to watch something that technically I've already paid to have made and paid to watch it the first time it was broadcast.
If I buy it on DVD, that's different - I'm not just paying for a license that entitles me to watch the content - and because I physically own the media - I can watch it on whatever device I feel like - including ripping it to my media server and watching it on any of our TVs that have a Chromecast. Since BBC Store took FOREVER to even support the Chromecast (despite supporting it on iPlayer) then had I actually wanted to buy something from the store (and I was tempted at launch) - I couldn't actually have watched it on anything remotely convenient.
If they had thought the whole thing out properly from the start......
The licence fee paid for it to be made and broadcast that time but not necessarily for it to be shown again.
A lot of old material was made with the expectation it would be shown once, and that was it. And the scriptwriters, producers, actors, etc were paid on that basis. With the introduction of VCR, DVD, and streaming the contracts have moved to reflect the new distribution and repeat showings but the old contracts are not necessarily retroactively changed.
See also
https://www.directors.uk.com/distribution/bbc-residuals
And at the same time - they couldn't actually cope with requests (other than telling me it was a good idea).
I asked if it was possible to stick the BBC produced Carmen (Bollywood) Opera that was performed live in Bradford and broadcast on BBC Three.
It's not available on Amazon, Google Play, Netflix, iPlayer (or any *ahem* alternative sources). I was happy to buy a copy - but nothing ever came of the request and clearly now it never will.
I think the BBC's budget should be frozen or even reduced, but it's terms of reference should be slashed - it should be prohibited from making or buying programs that are pure populist entertainment or sport with little or no 'public good' merit. In short, fund it to make and show only programs that have merit but that the commercial networks won't show.
One can argue about what has merit - I'd envisage it being primarily educational in broad terms, eg documentaries of the sort it already does so well, stuff for schools and children (that isn't simply entertainment for the sake of it), news and current affairs and so on.
It should also be charged with preserving, and making available to everyone at nominal charge, all its archives. Any future programmes made for the BBC should include a licence to facilitate this.
Finally I think the licence fee should be subsumed into general taxation, to reflect the BBC's role as a supplier of public goods, alongside social care, education, health, defence, arts subsidies etc.
realise this was from a couple of weeks ago, but had an online chat with BBC Store "Support" this morning.
I got a bit less angry with the guy when he mentioned they themselves are being let go as part of this; according to the agent, they've actually tried to un-DRM the content as a test, and failed - whoever locked it up did it completely. There is no guidance from senior management as to what will happen; they are to tell customers that no, they didn't buy content, the "buy" button did not mean that at all, just because it said "buy" on it, and we should have realised that. Some or all of the content will possibly be available at some point via one of three providers (Google, Amazon Video or iTunes), but they cannot answer questions as to when, whether costs will be involved, which content will be on which platform, or get into any conversation about specific details like that. In other words, the Support people have been told to tell customers thanks for your money, bye bye. Oh, if you can be bothered, you can have your money back - but we're still taking your content off you. in the same way as if you buy a DVD in a shop, we would assume the right to come along and take the DVD back.
If GB want to have a State Broadcasting service, the state should pay for it. -simples
The whole idea of a license to watch TV is considered ludicrous by a lot of the world.
The BBC should be free to pursue commercial route to market, e.g TopGear-Tomtom, that was a good idea but demolished by stupid BBC contact rules. Its DG and board should be sacked, as its wasted every commercial opportunity to exploit its best content e.g. Top Gear, Dr Who (10 yrs in no mans land due to D.G. stupidity), Horizon, and others, in addition to its documentaries.
Why should the population pay a tax for simply having a TV.
The BBC is a last century enigma that should be put in a museum.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
