| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mark Mayhew
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 2897
|
 Posted: Sat May 23, 2009 11:36 am Post subject: Breaking News-Zoe Ball |
 |
|
Zoe Ball is joining Radio 2 permanently in June 2009 to present a new Saturday breakfast going out 6-8am.
This is excellent news. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Sat May 23, 2009 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It might be good news......... depending on what's happened to the more superior show that is SOTS.
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iwarburton
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 2133
Location: Northumberland
|
| Posted: Sat May 23, 2009 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On the face of it, this shouldn't affect SOTS.
Ian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lord Evan Elpuss
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 3415
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
|
| Posted: Sat May 23, 2009 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SOT60s is on from 8:00-10:00am isn't it? Sadly just a holiday treat for me nowadays.
_________________
Lord Evan Elpuss, Your ideal job is a Lumberjack. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rachel
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 24, 2009 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Seems like old news to me- didn't we talk about this a couple of weeks ago or was it just a rumour back then?
Should be a good show. Zoe is cool beans!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gnasty Gnome
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Posts: 313
Location: West Wales
|
| Posted: Sun May 24, 2009 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rachel wrote: | | Zoe is cool beans!!! |
More like cold beans IMHO; an acquired taste!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
davem
Joined: 13 Mar 2009
Posts: 115
|
| Posted: Sun May 24, 2009 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Im going to miss Mo Dutta sorry to all who berate him but i like his show,ive no real opinion of Zoe Ball its in one ear out of the other im afraid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lord Evan Elpuss
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 3415
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
|
| Posted: Sun May 24, 2009 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I must admit that I can't understand why Mo is being replaced (assuming that he is indeed leaving R2) He's been with R2 a long time. This isn't an anti Zoe Ball post, just that I'm sure that there is still a place for Mo Dutta somewhere on Radio 2. Same for Pete Mitchell who is one of Lesley Douglas' signings that I actually didn't mind.
_________________
Lord Evan Elpuss, Your ideal job is a Lumberjack. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Angela W
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 7201
Location: North Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Sun May 24, 2009 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
All I can say is where is your pirate ship Colby?
_________________
Pirate Johnnie Walker played my request on 11 April 2009 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fred
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 225
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
|
| Posted: Sun May 24, 2009 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| colby wrote: | | It might be good news......... depending on what's happened to the more superior show that is SOTS. |
Nothing's happening to SOTS according to this article on the BBC Press Office - which just happens to be the only BBC link I can find.
| Rachel wrote: | | Seems like old news to me- didn't we talk about this a couple of weeks ago or was it just a rumour back then? |
I think it was just a rumour back then - the latest discussion has come about following a couple of links on Digital Spy, I think.
_________________
Fred Hart
Student & Broadcaster
Website: http://www.fred-hart.co.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Angus McCoatup
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 221
Location: , Location, Location
|
| Posted: Sun May 24, 2009 11:07 pm Post subject: Re: Breaking News-Zoe Ball |
|
|
| Mark Mayhew wrote: | Zoe Ball is joining Radio 2 permanently in June 2009 to present a new Saturday breakfast going out 6-8am.
This is excellent news. |
I always have a lie in Saturday mornings so this is excellent news indeed. By that I mean if Mo was being replaced with anyone other than Zoe then I might have to forfeit my lie in to give it a listen but I now know I won't need to waste my precious sleep time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Angela W
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 7201
Location: North Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Unfortunately I am up and getting ready for work with nothing to listen to, to help me on my way. 
_________________
Pirate Johnnie Walker played my request on 11 April 2009 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mark occomore
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 9955
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I wouldn't call it Breaking News. I did tell you that Emma and Zoe were on at weekends. I didn't think Richard would take on over nights. At least they are there too cover other shows. You never know there maybe other presenters now who will get cover slots, and Richard might not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NickSheffield
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Posts: 508
|
| Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mark occomore wrote: | | I wouldn't call it Breaking News. I did tell you that Emma and Zoe were on at weekends. I didn't think Richard would take on over nights. At least they are there too cover other shows. You never know there maybe other presenters now who will get cover slots, and Richard might not? |
Well, I was wondering about this. Simon Mayo seems to have taken over from Maconie and Richard as the favourite for drivetime deputy and Zoe Ball has pushed, um, ah, Maconie and Richard out as the favourite for deputised for Bruce.
I must say though, I like Zoe's work. She comes across as very personable. It would be a shame if it means less of Richard during the day though. As for Stuart - well, I'm a big fan but I'm happy hearing him in the evening, and if it means less 'solo' shows between 8 and 10pm then I'm all for it.
Nick. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NickSheffield wrote: | | I must say though, I like Zoe's work. She comes across as very personable. |
Me too. In fact, I think she'd be good as the permanent host of the Drivetime slot. At least it would make the show bearable once more.
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NickSheffield
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Posts: 508
|
| Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| colby wrote: | | NickSheffield wrote: | | I must say though, I like Zoe's work. She comes across as very personable. |
Me too. In fact, I think she'd be good as the permanent host of the Drivetime slot. At least it would make the show bearable once more. |
Well, I like her - but not that much |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RockitRon
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 7646
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NickSheffield wrote: | I must say though, I like Zoe's work. She comes across as very personable.
Nick. |
I think you need to Listen Again to Monday's Popmaster (about 30 mins in).
For a start she's gabbling away at sixteen to the dozen so you can hardly understand what she's saying. She doesn't give the contestant any time to say anything about himself before butting in and talking about herself.
And then she demonstrates her complete lack of knowledge of most music commonly played by Radio 2, by "not having a clue" about Golden Earring and Radar Love, or Warren Zevon's Werewolves of London.
I could forgive the latter if it wasn't for the earache I've still got from the former.
_________________
Ron |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadeinSurrey
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 3130
Location: The Beautiful South
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Agree about the gabbling - why does she have to talk so fast? I can't wait for Ken's return!
_________________
MiS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't care whether or not she knows much about some 80s bands or even whether she is heard to gabble during popmaster, I think she's a much more personable presenter than many others who are employed to work on R2.
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NickSheffield
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Posts: 508
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| colby wrote: | | I don't care whether or not she knows much about some 80s bands or even whether she is heard to gabble during popmaster, I think she's a much more personable presenter than many others who are employed to work on R2. |
Yeah, and I guess that was the point I was making. Regardless of the chinks in her professional armoury, she sounds like a friend - which, for me, works at that time in a morning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NickSheffield wrote: | | Yeah, and I guess that was the point I was making. Regardless of the chinks in her professional armoury, she sounds like a friend - which, for me, works at that time in a morning. |
Yep, I agree.
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RockitRon
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 7646
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| colby wrote: | | I don't care whether or not she knows much about some 80s bands |
| colby wrote: | | or even whether she is heard to gabble during popmaster, |
She gabbles through the whole 2 hours
| colby wrote: | | I think she's a much more personable presenter... |
Personable. adj
Pleasing in personality or appearance. Attractive
Yes, if she could just turn down the volume and rate a bit. She was fine on Live And Kicking - I reckon it was trying to be a Radio 1 DJ that spoiled her.
_________________
Ron |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RockitRon wrote: | | colby wrote: | | or even whether she is heard to gabble during popmaster, |
She gabbles through the whole 2 hours |
Really? She sounds "awake" by my reckoning - and more awake than many of her R2 colleagues, let's be honest.
| RockitRon wrote: | Personable. adj
Pleasing in personality or appearance. Attractive |
There you go then.
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mark occomore
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 9955
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you, Mark, but I think you'll find that's old news now.
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mark occomore
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 9955
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| colby wrote: |
Thank you, Mark, but I think you'll find that's old news now. |
I know it is. Some people are calling both Emma and Zoe shows as Breakfast shows. They are more Early Breakfast.
The Guardian are calling Brian and Aleds Breakfast shows. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NickSheffield
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Posts: 508
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mark occomore wrote: |
The Guardian are calling Brian and Aleds Breakfast shows. |
This raises something I've thought about before but have never seen it voiced on these boards. As much as I love SOTSixties... are Saturday mornings the best place for it? I know it gets an excellent share of the listeners but personally I'm never in enough spirits to properly enjoy it at that time in the morning - why couldn't they have put the show on in the evenings (perhaps instead of Alan Carr)... or am i missing something? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mark occomore wrote: | | Some people are calling both Emma and Zoe shows as Breakfast shows. They are more Early Breakfast. |
I guess it depends on what time one has one's breakfast really! For me, it's about 10.30am, so Rick Wakeman & Jeevsie's is the breakfast show for me.
| NickSheffield wrote: | | This raises something I've thought about before but have never seen it voiced on these boards. As much as I love SOTSixties... are Saturday mornings the best place for it? I know it gets an excellent share of the listeners but personally I'm never in enough spirits to properly enjoy it at that time in the morning - why couldn't they have put the show on in the evenings (perhaps instead of Alan Carr)... or am i missing something? |
I quite like the show in its current slot. If I'm up early I like to listen to Brian Matthew - he has just the right dulcet tones for the slot to my ears. I don't often listen to it when it goes out, however, so it's often iPlayer on Sunday or even Monday morning most weeks.
Scheduling is less important with stuff like iPlayer.
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fred
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 225
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
|
| Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| colby wrote: | | Scheduling is less important with stuff like iPlayer. |
To a certain extent, I agree but its still important though... not everyone has access to it or has an Internet connection fast enough.
My grandparents for example, are big fans of "Melodies for You" but don't have a computer, so unless its on at a time when they can listen then they're not able to.
However, something like Richard Allinson or Zoe Ball would work if targeted at those with access to iPlayer, they are targeted at a different audience.
_________________
Fred Hart
Student & Broadcaster
Website: http://www.fred-hart.co.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fred wrote: | | My grandparents for example, are big fans of "Melodies for You" but don't have a computer, so unless its on at a time when they can listen then they're not able to. |
iPlayer will be coming to digital TV services soon. Freeview will enable access to iPlayer such that it can be used in much the same way that it is online. For audio, that's great; for video playback, it's less dependent on broadband bandwidth constraints and therefore the video quality will be better without the aggravation of memory buffering that many people experience. As the quality of Flash encoding for TV improves, we'll soon not be able to tell the difference.
I can, however, see a point where the BBC is allowed to charge a subscription fee for the use of iPlayer, and I think that day isn't far off!
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rachel
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Charge for the I-player? That would be a disaster of biblical preportions.
The canteen where I used to work- hardly used, just a handful of folk used it. Every now and again, to drum up business , they'd have a free day- queues out the door and as far as athe eye could see. People like free. People don't like paying, and certainly not paying twice, which is what charging for the I-player would be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RockitRon
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 7646
|
| Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
I suppose it may depend upon whether ITV and Channel 4 want to charge for their versions of i-player. The BBC would stand accused of unfair competition (as usual) by subsidising their service through the licence fee if it remained a free service.
_________________
Ron |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rachel wrote: | | Charge for the I-player? That would be a disaster of biblical preportions. |
Not necessarily. It depends how it's done. Charging a modest subscription is quite a sensible way of doing it - as well as opening up the platform to users around the world. If I were using iPlayer via Freeview or Freesat and I were to have access to a substantial back-catalogue of BBC material (and TV in downloadable HD) I'd pay a reasonable monthly fee. After all, the majority of UK TV viewers now pay for a Sky connection, don't they? A sub for iPlayer could be charged via people's cable or satellite Tv operators - or even ISPs.
| Rachel wrote: | | People like free. People don't like paying, and certainly not paying twice, which is what charging for the I-player would be. |
People do like "free", you're right. But "free" isn't a very good business model - as Twitter and Facebook are now finding. They're both now in a position where they're being forced to "monetise" their offerings simply because costs are mushrooming (Twitter desperately needs larger, faster, more efficient servers). The BBC is now in the same position - iPlayer is now consuming 9 Petabytes (that's 1,000,000 gigabytes) of bandwidth a month, and that's costing the BBC dear. It's not sustainable as a freebie unless a suitable alternative means of funding it is in place. It also has politicians on its back to see that this happens.
I don't think the suggestion is that iPlayer should be subscription-based on a take-it-or-leave-it basis; the suggestion is that a base level should be free and remain subsidised by the Licence Fee pool with other iPlayer services such as back-catalogue programming and even 1080p HDTV available to subscribers.
There are lots of options which both the BBC and other bodies are currently looking at, but I predict that iPlayer will not be 100% free at the point of use in 5 years' time. But then again, I don't think the BBC as a whole will be either.
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rachel
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think I-player would work as a mainstream entertainment medium. We use it ( sometimes)to catch up on things that we've missed but that is all. I'd never pay for that- when I can record it at the time, if it really means that much to me.
Life is too busy to read through zillions of menus and programming options, which is why I-player will never work in the "sofa-zone". People like to veg in front of the TV and have it handed to them without too much effort or thought. Also, people like to feel part of what is going on, knowing that you can talk about what was on TV last night is part of TVs success.
"Did you watch corry last night?"
"No we watched the I-player."
"oh" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 11:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rachel wrote: | | I don't think I-player would work as a mainstream entertainment medium. We use it ( sometimes)to catch up on things that we've missed but that is all. I'd never pay for that- when I can record it at the time, if it really means that much to me. |
You're underestimating the true potential for technology like iPlayer. People pay to download from iTunes and Amazon online. People are subscribing to an increasing amount of content online - just look at the way iTunes Store now provides access to all sorts of stuff other than music: movies, podcasts, games, applications, etc. People pay for it and income from this kind of stream is increasing rapidly. iPlayer is using state of the art technology called Adobe AIR which can do all this and more. And it will.... soon. Freeview and FreeSat are the perfect platforms for iPlayer, and that's why its incorporation is already starting to happen (iPlayer-enabled Freeview and Freesat TVs are already in production).
| Rachel wrote: | | Life is too busy to read through zillions of menus and programming options, which is why I-player will never work in the "sofa-zone". People like to veg in front of the TV and have it handed to them without too much effort or thought. Also, people like to feel part of what is going on, knowing that you can talk about what was on TV last night is part of TVs success. |
That was old telly model. The new telly model is very different. People are time-shifting in increasing numbers - and have done since VHS and Betamax recorders first entered our homes. Tivo started the programmable hard disc based approach and iPlayer and AppleTV are carrying it forward. Traditional "as it happens" TV is dying very quickly, and that's why the major networks are having to adapt or die themselves.
| Rachel wrote: | "Did you watch corry last night?"
"No we watched the I-player."
"oh" |
Or... "I was out last night but I've recorded it on ye olde VHS recorder and I'll watch it when I have time" (people have been saying that since the mid-1970s).
Or....... "I haven't seen it yet but my Sky+ box has captured it for me and I'll watch it later". (Sky+ is killing off the HDD/DVD Recorder market)
Or..... what about the huge number of downloads that are now available which mean that people can save whole TV series to their iPhone or iPod for viewing whilst they're travelling? I know of lots of (mainly younger) people who do this and the numbers are rising all the time.
As for iPlayer on TV - the interface will be quite simple, much like the new SkyHD EPG or Apple's FrontRow. You'll be able to tag programmes that you want to download as each new edition is made available (just like Sky+ or Podcasts) and you'll be able to playlist stuff as you wish. It's easy - as it should be.
If there was a small monthly subscription charge to access a back-catalogue of programming, both audio and video, in high quality and "on demand" I'd pay for it providing it were a lot cheaper than either Sky basic or Sky+ (I refuse to hand over money to the Murdoch mafia) and I'm pretty sure lots of others would, too.
The BBC will soon be forced into a situation where it will have to consider funding part of its operation from some sort of subscription service and I think that day will come very soon. Lots of people in the Beeb happen to think that this is the case also (even if many of them don't like the idea).
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rob
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 163
Location: Leicester
|
| Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NickSheffield wrote: | | This raises something I've thought about before but have never seen it voiced on these boards. As much as I love SOTSixties... are Saturday mornings the best place for it? I know it gets an excellent share of the listeners but personally I'm never in enough spirits to properly enjoy it at that time in the morning - why couldn't they have put the show on in the evenings (perhaps instead of Alan Carr)... or am i missing something? |
I quite like the show in its current slot. If I'm up early I like to listen to Brian Matthew - he has just the right dulcet tones for the slot to my ears. I don't often listen to it when it goes out, however, so it's often iPlayer on Sunday or even Monday morning most weeks.
Scheduling is less important with stuff like iPlayer.[/quote]
As Gambo pointed out during the Brand affair, Brian Matthew gets Radio 2's highest audience share of the week. You can't argue with success.
Yes, SOTS might be a bit unconventional for a breakfast show, but perhaps its relative success suggests that the traditional breakfast show formula isn't for everybody, particularly in the relatively relaxed environment of a weekend morning. The radio industry (particularly commercial radio) are accused of being bland - I think the BBC should be given credit for doing something different, paricularly when it's actually proved to be something that's like by a lot of people.
I think they call it public service broadcasting.
Rob. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rachel
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| colby wrote: | | Rachel wrote: | | I don't think I-player would work as a mainstream entertainment medium. We use it ( sometimes)to catch up on things that we've missed but that is all. I'd never pay for that- when I can record it at the time, if it really means that much to me. |
You're underestimating the true potential for technology like iPlayer. People pay to download from iTunes and Amazon online. People are subscribing to an increasing amount of content online - just look at the way iTunes Store now provides access to all sorts of stuff other than music: movies, podcasts, games, applications, etc. People pay for it and income from this kind of stream is increasing rapidly. iPlayer is using state of the art technology called Adobe AIR which can do all this and more. And it will.... soon. Freeview and FreeSat are the perfect platforms for iPlayer, and that's why its incorporation is already starting to happen (iPlayer-enabled Freeview and Freesat TVs are already in production).
| Rachel wrote: | | Life is too busy to read through zillions of menus and programming options, which is why I-player will never work in the "sofa-zone". People like to veg in front of the TV and have it handed to them without too much effort or thought. Also, people like to feel part of what is going on, knowing that you can talk about what was on TV last night is part of TVs success. |
That was old telly model. The new telly model is very different. People are time-shifting in increasing numbers - and have done since VHS and Betamax recorders first entered our homes. Tivo started the programmable hard disc based approach and iPlayer and AppleTV are carrying it forward. Traditional "as it happens" TV is dying very quickly, and that's why the major networks are having to adapt or die themselves.
| Rachel wrote: | "Did you watch corry last night?"
"No we watched the I-player."
"oh" |
Or... "I was out last night but I've recorded it on ye olde VHS recorder and I'll watch it when I have time" (people have been saying that since the mid-1970s).
Or....... "I haven't seen it yet but my Sky+ box has captured it for me and I'll watch it later". (Sky+ is killing off the HDD/DVD Recorder market)
Or..... what about the huge number of downloads that are now available which mean that people can save whole TV series to their iPhone or iPod for viewing whilst they're travelling? I know of lots of (mainly younger) people who do this and the numbers are rising all the time.
As for iPlayer on TV - the interface will be quite simple, much like the new SkyHD EPG or Apple's FrontRow. You'll be able to tag programmes that you want to download as each new edition is made available (just like Sky+ or Podcasts) and you'll be able to playlist stuff as you wish. It's easy - as it should be.
If there was a small monthly subscription charge to access a back-catalogue of programming, both audio and video, in high quality and "on demand" I'd pay for it providing it were a lot cheaper than either Sky basic or Sky+ (I refuse to hand over money to the Murdoch mafia) and I'm pretty sure lots of others would, too.
The BBC will soon be forced into a situation where it will have to consider funding part of its operation from some sort of subscription service and I think that day will come very soon. Lots of people in the Beeb happen to think that this is the case also (even if many of them don't like the idea). |
Well all the techno geeks can knock themselves out. It won’t be happening in our house. If that means no TV – then so be it.
Progress is supposed to make things better/easier/ cheaper. The BBC is supposed to make great programmes not invent/employ new and more complicated, and ever more expensive ways of distributing the old ones. Trying to sell people a solution that doesn’t quite solve a problem that they don’t actually have, seems like a really bad idea to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RockitRon
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 7646
|
| Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm with you Rachel. I'll say more, but...
This Zoe Ball thread has got diverted somewhat. I've just asked John to switch the relevant messages into a new topic in the Coffee Bar, where further discussion can take place.
_________________
Ron |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rachel wrote: | | Well all the techno geeks can knock themselves out. It won’t be happening in our house. If that means no TV – then so be it. |
It's no more complex than Sky+, so are its users "technogeeks"?
| Rachel wrote: | | Progress is supposed to make things better/easier/ cheaper. |
Precisely. And it seems to me that's exactly what's happening.
| Rachel wrote: | | The BBC is supposed to make great programmes not invent/employ new and more complicated, and ever more expensive ways of distributing the old ones. |
Eh? What about all the new stuff? Being able to watch the latest BBC Weather forecast as Flash video on my Mobile phone whilst I'm travelling has been really useful. It's not all Digital Dad's Army, y'know!
| Rachel wrote: | | Trying to sell people a solution that doesn’t quite solve a problem that they don’t actually have, seems like a really bad idea to me. |
So giving iPlayer a facelift, switching the compression system from Real to Flash and make it easier for people to share content on a variety of delivery platforms is merely providing a solution to problem that doesn't exist? Providing users with access to an iPlayer interface via digital TV isn't another means of giving people access to what they want?
And, closer to home, is Sky+ and Sky+HD serving a need for a huge number of TV viewers or merely for the "technogeeks"?
Your logic's a bit flawed, Rachel.
| RockitRon wrote: | | This Zoe Ball thread has got diverted somewhat. I've just asked John to switch the relevant messages into a new topic in the Coffee Bar, where further discussion can take place. |
Never mind. The Zoe Ball thread ran out of steam anyhow and nobody seems to care.
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rachel
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| colby wrote: | | Rachel wrote: | | Well all the techno geeks can knock themselves out. It won’t be happening in our house. If that means no TV – then so be it. |
It's no more complex than Sky+, so are its users "technogeeks"?
| Rachel wrote: | | Progress is supposed to make things better/easier/ cheaper. |
Precisely. And it seems to me that's exactly what's happening.
| Rachel wrote: | | The BBC is supposed to make great programmes not invent/employ new and more complicated, and ever more expensive ways of distributing the old ones. |
Eh? What about all the new stuff? Being able to watch the latest BBC Weather forecast as Flash video on my Mobile phone whilst I'm travelling has been really useful. It's not all Digital Dad's Army, y'know!
| Rachel wrote: | | Trying to sell people a solution that doesn’t quite solve a problem that they don’t actually have, seems like a really bad idea to me. |
So giving iPlayer a facelift, switching the compression system from Real to Flash and make it easier for people to share content on a variety of delivery platforms is merely providing a solution to problem that doesn't exist? Providing users with access to an iPlayer interface via digital TV isn't another means of giving people access to what they want?
And, closer to home, is Sky+ and Sky+HD serving a need for a huge number of TV viewers or merely for the "technogeeks"?
Your logic's a bit flawed, Rachel.
| RockitRon wrote: | | This Zoe Ball thread has got diverted somewhat. I've just asked John to switch the relevant messages into a new topic in the Coffee Bar, where further discussion can take place. |
Never mind. The Zoe Ball thread ran out of steam anyhow and nobody seems to care. |
My logic is not flawed. Logic has only two true states- on or off, and as far as increasing the number of "delivery platforms" and being able to "share content" with other "users", it's hard -off. All of this techogeekery is load of, if I may say so, fashionable nonsense. In ten years time I-player Flash and all your other "solutions" will be in the same pile as the NHS integrated client database..... on the road to nowhere- the rest of us will watch telly in the normal way.
New stuff! What new stuff?
Needing to watch a weather forecast on a phone just seems like bad planning to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
