
BBC admits iPlayer has lost streaming fight with Netflix - open-source-ux
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/apr/25/bbc-admits-iplayer-has-lost-streaming-fight-with-netflix
======
morrbo
Personally I kind of agree. Other than storage and traffic considerations I
cannot see why the entire BBC archive is not available online. It seems stupid
to me that we have literally 50+ years of content, documentaries, panel shows,
etc. Which could all easily be put online as they are the BBC's content and
have been paid for by the British people already.

I understand that this might be overkill but I definitely find myself wanting
to watch older episodes of things like would I lie to you or Rhod Gilbert's
work experience or HIGNFY or some other show which disappeared long ago for no
real reason. Netflix, Amazon, are all ok but there really is a market for some
service which has an entire plethora of shows with permanent storage. I'm also
fed up of nextflix getting some show I like only to have it disappeared in a
month, or only season 3 of 5 be available. If the BBC can solve that they have
my business and I'm sure a lot of overseas business too.

~~~
RantyDave
* Every Dr Who, ever.

* Hitch Hiker's Guide.

* All of Blake's 7.

And that's without trying. There's definitely a business there but the BBC
just aren't chasing it.

~~~
Ntrails
When i was young I used to record Jools Holland on VCR and make mix tapes of
individual tracks that I enjoyed, it was great fun and made for relatively
unique audio.

I'd _love_ to be able to just buy the digital audio (heck, the videos, I can
strip the audio out) on a track by track basis. They never made it available,
so I can't vOv

~~~
johnnycab
I would love for them to spin out _Later...with Jools Holland_ and some of the
earlier stuff and place it on BBC Four, like they are doing with their curated
TOTP catalogue. I did find a tracklist on Spotify a while ago, which had
tracks from each episode; alas, it is no more.

For those who don't know:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Later..._with_Jools_Holland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Later..._with_Jools_Holland)

------
szggzs27
Maybe if they didn't send letters masking as police enforcement trying to
bully you into paying for tv license you don't need, people would be more
welcoming towards using their product.

~~~
dpwm
I believe Capita are still mostly responsible for the letter-sending – and
unfortunately I suspect the bullying tactics work.

[0] [https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-about-tv-
licensing-A...](https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-about-tv-licensing-
AB15)

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
We have a large collection of these letters pinned to the wall at our office.
Not sure how they got our address but we don't watch broadcast TV so of course
don't need a TV license. They're more than welcome to visit anytime to
confirm.

I'd much rather the money that I (willingly) pay for my home TV license went
towards improving content and broadcast infrastructure than going straight
into the pockets of utter scum like Capita.

~~~
Daviey
I suspect someone in your office got a TV delivered to work, rather than their
home address. Prior to June 2013, dealers that sold TV's had to notify the TV
licensing agency as per The Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1967.

------
lanevorockz
The BBC has suffered a lot from the Savile scandal back in 2012. Many
executives were fired and new ones were hired straight from mainstream media,
breaking the old impartiality that made BBC a trustworthy source.

They lost Top Gear because they started under funding their biggest show. BBC
studios here in Twickenham got redirected to push for a political agenda.

As the company became unprofitable under a new administration, things became
quite unstable and even today they still are. So many things going wrong that
people can't find what to tackle first.

------
lifeisstillgood
But ... why _should_ the Beeb be the one owning the streaming app on my phone.
I (re)watch Doctor Who episodes on Netflix (or amazon or whatever). I dont
care what device I watch on, I just want to watch content I want.

Which is kind of the point. (Keep) making great content. Worry less about the
streaming client.

~~~
albertgoeswoof
netflix/amazon aren't streaming clients, they are content producers. Most of
the stuff on netflix and prime now seems to be made by them.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
Well the Beebwas _never_ going to compete with billions of dollars of borrowed
cash ploughed into anything with a pulse. If this is "can the beeb compete
with the new production houses of Netflix / Amazon /Disney" then no is the
answer. If its about the market share of iPlayer in the Uk (which is
mentioned) then it may have been a different kettle of fish.

But really - they were massively outspent. Yet programmes like David
Attenborough's Planet are top rated shows on their rivals. To my mind that is
the Beebs strength and should stay that way.

Focus on being a trusted global provider of high quality programming. Dont try
and be the Saturday night entertainment for 18-24 year olds.

~~~
repolfx
Why not? BBC has an operating budget of about 6 billion dollars a year. It has
over 20,000 employees - it's enormous and that money isn't borrowed, it's
simply given to them by legal fiat.

The BBC is thus in a _stronger_ financial position than Netflix, which
ultimately must yield RoI and has been around far less time, so has had less
cumulative spend on content. Whilst Netflix has a larger content budget for
now, it's only approx 2x the BBC's spend.

In reality the BBC is outcompeted because it's not a global operation, because
it spends a lot of money on non-internet streaming things like radio and news,
because its not _really_ exposed to competitive pressure except in the most
indirect ways, and because they'd rather sell shows to foreign firms than keep
the rights, buy more rights and stream internationally.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
Hmmmmm ....

Ok I had not seen it that way.

------
kgraves
Wait what? The BBC's iPlayer was in this "streaming fight"?

I thought it is only available in the UK and not anywhere else unlike the
other players such as Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc.

iPlayer doesn't seem nowhere near winning this "fight" against these players
IMHO.

~~~
mongol
The article seems very UK-centric. As citizen of another coutnry living
outside UK I would love to try to subscribe to BBC IPlayer. I think I would
prefer it over Netflix, if the price was the same / similar.

~~~
toofy
I would definitely drop one of the four services I currently have and trade up
for BBC if they had a substantial catalog. Without a doubt I would do that, in
fact, I now really want to see a service with that type of content. I didn’t
even realize I wanted it until now...

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
Unfortunately commercial broadcasters in the UK (AKA Rupert Murdoch) would go
apeshit if the BBC were allowed a commercial opportunity like this. This is
the only thing preventing it from happening.

------
teamonkey
They didn't mention that the requirement for a TV licence to watch iPlayer
content is relatively recent. When iPlayer first launched it was exempt from
the licence. A TV licence costs about the same as Netflix + Prime does so is
not surprising it's now losing out to other, more comprehensive streaming
services that often also host BBC content.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
It's so weakly enforced that it's hardly a realistic impediment anyway.

------
jarym
I quite like using iPlayer - not as slick as Netflix or Hulu, but not as bad
as Sky Go.

------
londons_explore
This is all written in a "Let us do this or we're doomed" tone.

I wonder if exaggerating the effects means permission is more likley to be
granted.

~~~
benj111
I can't work out the politics that wont let the BBC let us keep watching what
we've already paid for, but will let them charge for it again via Britbox.

Surely Britbox is still going to be competing with ITV and Channel 4?

The contortions trying to marry up public service broadcasting and on demand
are getting increasingly strained. A rethink is unfortunately becoming
necessary.

~~~
mattkrause
It’s a joint venture with ITV and AMC.

~~~
benj111
Ok after further reading.

Britbox _currently_ airs in America, and is a joint venture between the BBC
and ITV.

Britbox are planning to launch in the UK with ITV, and possibly Channel 4.

It still doesn't quite allay my concerns. The whole point of not allowing the
BBC to broadcast episodes for a year is to stop it dominating the UK media
landscape. Removing most (by some measures) competition doesn't seem to solve
that.

~~~
mattkrause
Sure, that makes sense. I was just pointing out why ITV specifically doesn’t
mind: they’re getting the money!

------
eyebrowser95
BBC is a joke of a governmental corporation that makes revenues from tv
licenses even if you dont own a tv. Essentially they can still make money if
you have iPlayer on your computer which requires a license. I live in the UK
and every year they send letter to warn all residents even if they dont own a
TV (which I dont) they might still need to pay due to iPlayer being on your
computer. Blaming Netflix is not enough. Their business model is ludicrous.

~~~
DanBC
You only need a licence if you watch live tv as it's broadcast, or watch catch
up tv on iPlayer.

If you have iPlayer "installed" but never use it, and you do not watch live tv
as it's broadcast, you do not need a licence.

And even that isn't quite correct is it, you can watch iPlayer on your laptop
if you're in someone else's home and they have a licence.

~~~
tspiteri
Have things changed recently? The way I remember it (a few years back) was
that you didn't need a licence to watch non-live iPlayer, so you could watch
yesterday's programmes on iPlayer without the need for a licence.

~~~
DanBC
Yes, the law changed in 2016. [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-
arts-37226030](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-37226030)

> All viewers who use the iPlayer to watch any BBC programmes must now be
> covered by a TV licence after new rules came into force on Thursday.

> Previously, iPlayer users only needed a licence if they were using the
> service to watch live broadcasts.

> That meant it was legal to watch programmes after broadcast on catch-up
> without paying the annual £145.50 fee.

> But the TV licence requirements have now been extended to include catch-up,
> online premieres and online-only shows.

It only covers BBC iPlayer tv. It doesn't cover eg Channel 4's catch up
service.

