On the iPlayer and the whiny cinema directors.

Just been flipping through today's papers. Read one article that got me flipping (i.e.: upset), and another that gave me an idea.

First, the flipper.

If you haven't heard, some cinemas in Europe have chosen to boycott Tim Burton's latest creation, an adaptation of "Alice In Wonderland". The reason? Because Disney Studios were planning on releasing the movie on DVD 12 weeks after the release of the movie, instead of the standard 17 weeks. Odeon, one of the largest movie chains in the UK, gave the excuse that they've invested into the latest 3D technology, and now Disney is ruining their game by pushing ahead with an earlier DVD release. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I know, you don't get 3D on a DVD, and even if you do get it on a Blu-Ray, the typical consumer still can't enjoy it in the full 3D experience. So what has Odeon got to worry about? Why are they so afraid of people not going to the cinema just because they know the DVD version will be out earlier?

Just to clarify, most movies stop screening in a cinema by the 12th week. Then consumers hear nothing about the movie until its DVD release. From the studio's perspective, I understand why they want to try and get the movie onto DVD earlier - so they can take advantage of the momentum etc. But what about the cinemas? Why did they choose to go so far as to boycott a hotly-tipped movie, jsut because it'll come out on DVD earlier? I mean, do what you like, but it'll be a lose-lose situation. If the cinemas don't screen the movie, they lose out on revenue. People don't get to enjoy the movie in 3D. The creators don't get to share their hard work with anyone except themselves. Then the studio don't earn anything from the box offices. But they can still sell the DVDs, and consumers get a compromise - they get the DVD and not the 3D, but with the added benefit of a lower price.

Bottom line: European cinema executives are arrogant control-freaks who don't know how to do business.

Now let's move on before I erupt into a mega-rant.


I was reading an article on how the BBC heads might be scaling back the corporation. Amongst the things mentioned (e.g.: cutting Radio 6 Music, axeing 25% of the web team), one that caught my eyes was their plan to somehow halve the iPlayer site.

Now, the article didn't mention how this was goign to be executed, but as a tech-head, I thought I could offer some suggestions to the Beeb on ways it could streamline and improve the iPlayer.

Firstly, HTML 5. They must start looking into the future. Google has started experimenting with HTML 5, so much so that they actually abandoned their efforts in Google Gears (their application to let users use the other Google Apps, such as Google Docs, offline) as their sign of confidence in HTML 5 as the web standard of the future. I can go on about the benefits of HTML 5, but honestly, I think the iPlayer must get off Flash. It cripples people's computers, especially with the HD programmes, and it's not open.

Secondly, the encoding. The BBC already has H.264 streams for the iPhone and many other mobile devices. If it could somehow reduce the number of files they host, such that there's one version that's suitable for various platforms, I think they could save on not just the amount of data required to run iPlayer, but also the encoding time to get from tape to web. Think about it -

• one encoding for the Mobile (iPhone/iPod/Blackberry/Android/PSP/Archos) platform,
• one for the desktop/SD platform (PC/Mac/PS3/Wii),
• and one for the HD-ready (PC/Mac/PS3).

In this way, each show only needs 2-3 versions (Mobile H.264, SD H.264, HD H.264), instead of the multiple versions we have now:

• iPhone OS,
• Windows DRM for WinMo/Archos,
• Wii iPlayer,
• Flash webpage,
• Adobe Air,
• HD Flash webpage,
• HD Adobe Air,
• etc. ...

Thirdly, host elsewhere. Get deals with YouTube, Vimeo and Facebook to host your content. Offload some of the burden on third-party video content companies. Channel 4 has already done so by putting up their shows on YouTube. The BBC should try doing the same if it wants to reduce its own bandwidth costs.

Well, these are just a couple of ideas that twirled in my head. Of course, there will be the issue of control - DRM, piracy, and the BBC's strange 7-days-before-we-remove-this-content policy. But if Apple could put DRM on digital music, surely the BBC can make sure only license fee-payers get access to those YouTube streams...

Well, that's just my penny's worth...