´óÏó´«Ã½ Online Industry Briefing: Panel on Simplicity and Connected TV
Post categories: ´óÏó´«Ã½ Online,ÌýConnected TV
| 17:00 UK time, Wednesday, 23 November 2011
It gave me a lot of pleasure last Thursday to sit down with partners from across the industry and talk about how we can give the audience an experience that is both delightful and dead simple.
Here is the video of my panel with Sidharth Jayant (Samsung), Edd Uzzell (Sony UK), and Mark Vasey (Panasonic UK).
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash Installed. Visit ´óÏó´«Ã½ Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
Daniel Danker is the General Manager, Programmes and On-Demand, ´óÏó´«Ã½ Future Media
Glyn Povah, Telefonica, .
28 million people in UK don't use iplayer but could. Massive #MissedOpportunity #´óÏó´«Ã½Online
The Fast Web Media twitter account :
Daniel Danker states all ´óÏó´«Ã½ digital innovation needs to be 'dead simple' for users to be successful #´óÏó´«Ã½Online #MediaCityUK
Vikram Rajan of Cognizant :
#bbconline goals of TV manufacturers seem to diverge a bit when it comes to connected sets
Within the ´óÏó´«Ã½, Robin Morley (who had demonstrated Moo Spew in the Children's product update) :
Best thought floated so far in "sinplicity" discussion between 3 TV manufacturers - an EPG which also goes backwards for catch-up #bbconline
And Phil Buckley (who blogged the Children's Product Update) a different kind of connected TV:
Loving the tv manufacturers talk. But no discussion of use cases around games consoles? #bbconline
Ìý
Comment number 1.
At 24th Nov 2011, Eponymous Cowherd wrote:That is just insulting our intelligence. As usual Danker spouts his usual "everything in the garden is rosy" rhetoric while, in reality, the whole iPlayer implementation is, at best, confusing and, IMHO, downright divisive in the way it controls how people may watch the content they have paid for.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 24th Nov 2011, Eponymous Cowherd wrote:In response to the comment by Glynn Povah:-
There are an awful lot of people who would like to use iPlayer and, indeed, have devices that are capable of playing the existing iPlayer streams, but cannot because of the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s restrictive policies.
There are even many people who used to have access to iPlayer, but no longer do so, again, because of those same restrictive policies (Users of BeebPlayer, MyPlayer, XBMC)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 24th Nov 2011, Ian McDonald wrote:@Eponymous Cowherd
I appreciate that these issues are of great concern to you, but please do not bring them up where they are off-topic.
This talk was about IPTV user interfaces, not which content is available where, or on what software.
I've also removed your comment about the iPlayer on Android from Holly's post.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 24th Nov 2011, Alex Cockell wrote:Ian - IMHO, thinking more widely, the issues about what kit can access what content, and how this impinges on UI design *is* relevant.
Supplying metadata and allowing the gear to play out the streams directly - good.
Enabling the metadata to be presented through stuff like "backwards EPGs" - good.
Presenting native H264 content from iPlayer backends to said kit - good.
Only making it available on certain classes of hardware, and only under NDA - VERY BAD.
Please could all this metadata and content be made available under open public specs that the FOSS community can design to as well..
As well as Sony, Samsung, panasonic, LG etc etc... please allow MythTV, the Maemo community, and other open-source devs to the table as well. that way - IPTV solution providers who want to use open-source as the basis of their product aren't locked out...
Nor are people who want to build their own PVR solutions on the back of, say, MythTV tools, basing it on a Shuttle cardcage.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 24th Nov 2011, Ian McDonald wrote:@Alex. You are reaching. This blog post has nothing to do with "what kit can access what content and how this impinges on UI design".
If it is any consolation, I think your comment on Jane's post about business partnerships is on-topic.
But any more comments about what kit can access what content will be removed.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 24th Nov 2011, Alex Cockell wrote:Thanks Ian. Just that in all the discussions with the major stakeholders... it would be good to ensure the FOSS community have a place at the table... as some of the innovations around Universal Playback UIs *have* come from that sector.
Just irked me that all i saw was Big Name, Big Name, Big Name... and some of the repurposed-kit solutions have been rolled in where incomes are limited.
Not everyone has £500-odd to cough up for a Smart TV...
But thanks again; wasn't intending to reach - but could just see the wider context...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)