Engaging with the Beeb
I wrote a post on a Erik Huggers post on open standards - and sure ‘nuf - a BBC blogger named Nick Reynolds replied in detail to my post.
So in the spirit of open conversation, here are my replies to his replies. This sort of fluid conversation could be happening on Twitter, FriendFeed, Identi.ca, Pownce or any number of IM systems - hopefully all flowing over XMPP (and front ended by services like Meebo.) But these posts will reside on my domain and Nick’s blog domain.
Nick seems like a nice chap so I’ll quickly drill thru the things he pushed back on:
1. Nick uses the term “wrong information” but he’s often referring to my opinion - and I get to have my opinion, so that’s not called “wrong information”. You may consider me wrong and call me on it, but the facts of Flash, installed base, moving an changing standards and overall audience uptake is actually something I’m pretty experienced on Nick - and my opinion does mean something here.
It takes a single man to move a mountain and one of teh things I’ll be repeating overa nd over again - is that the BBC is in a unique positiont o do what Microsoft did, what Google is doing, what Barack Obama is about to do.
Change the world.
2. Let me rebuke some of Nick’s pushbacks:
“…if the BBC can get rid of Flash, let alone Silverlight and Quicktime…
I don’t think Erik Hugger’s original blog post said that the BBC was going to “get rid” of Flash. It simply said that the BBC was going to adopt some open standards like H.264 for its video and audio content on the web.
Nick - I didn’t say that you WERE going to get rid of Flash (heaven forbid) I was extrapolating over the notion that if you DID get rid of Flash (you’ll notice my usage of the word “can”) then how coolio would that be? But dude - but you and I and the whole world knows that it’ll never happen.
That’s one of the underlying themes of my message to Mr. Huggers. Leadership is a risky thing, making changes in the world of digital video formats - is a hard road to tow - and just because the BBC supports OGG or whatever - doesn’t mean doodly squat. Sure it’ll earn you some brownie points in some innane “things to do to be open” guide - but what I’m HOPING for is for the BBC to take REAL leadership by the horns - and make some REAL changes.
Hear me brother?
3. Those changes have to come in the role of open social networking. There will be 10+ huge centralized social networks which will cross borders and one at least for each langauge, nation or religion. In this world of behemoths there will be 10,000’s of niche vertical networks, very much like the networks the BBC runs.
Into this world has come ‘meta-networks’ like Ning, Flux, Kickapps and what our PeopleAggregator platform can build. We need to make it real easy for Reggae enthusiasts (or whoever) to form networks of their own as well as ‘meta-groups’ which would connect ACROSS Facebook, MySpace, Ning or Bebo. Reggae folks should be able to communicate, post, import/export, sync, or whatever with Reggae folks - wherever they are. That’s one of the things I’m hoping to pitch the Beeb.
If you could get meta-groups working right - within the Beeb’s suite of web sites, well then BY GOD we can do it - everywhere!
4. I was referring to user experience when I said “no one cares if YouTube uses Flash or OGG” - but Nick responded back about a colleague of his named James Cridland and a BBC mail list.
Dude (that’s American for ‘my kind sir Mr. Reynolds’) - what I was talking about are humans, normal people, end-users - in general. And THEY don’t give a dam about what’s under the hood - as long as it works!
Nick does astutely differentiate tactics from strategy and he seems to grok the compromises we all face when having to play along with the BigCos. That’s even MORE why we need the BBC to step up, as most of us can’t even fathom the power the Beeb could exert by implementing HALF of my suggestions!
5. There’s a difference between supporting OpenID and being a reliable server and actually USING OpenID. Also clearly the BBC is not a government unit - then what is it? A Royal decree from her Majesty or simply an act of Parliment? Call it Trust, call it whatever - you DON’T have the issue that the rest of us have. You just have your OWN issues.
You (the BBC) have your own category - again that’s the POINT! You can do things to change the world - and I just wanna make sure you DO!
6. Nick asks in an earlier post ‘Freedom - Open Source - show me how!’.
Well Nick let me take this opportunity to help show you how:
6a) I’ll start off by expanding the notion of open source to mean open data, open standards, open ideas - the whole idea of being open. Don’t get hung up on giving away software for free or LAMP. Focus on what can be done when you give anything away for free - like the Beeb’s archives.
Or what it means when you support OGG or an open format - which sends political repercussions throughout the tech world. So wielding an “open hammer” can do some serious damage if it’s aimed right.
Clearly Nick’s got his arms around the big issues - especially when it comes to protecting children (I’ve got five) and the subtle dance going on with the movie and music industries.
All the MORE why I say that the Beeb can brandish it’s stick - and get some REAL change effected!
6b) Nick ends his post asking “do any fo you out there have a clue how we’re gonna get all this copyrighted materials - away for free?” So heres a practical answer:
- for the next five years - just do what you can. Get as many titles right’s cleared - as you can. Build up the infrastructure, associated apps and services and show off the benefits of ‘open data’ that you can. Just go for it! Build up the Open BBC.
- at the same time build your own compelling experiences which leverage this ‘open data’. How ’bout the history of Rock & Roll? Or the fully documented, living breathing record of every major war - ever. All connected by detailed, interactive timleines (remember the Doomsday project?) Or how ’bout an interactive British Royalty geneology tree? Click on a time and a place in the tree and get the full monarchy node. Show them (Hollywood) what can be done with persistent ubiquitous content - when everything is a URL.
- now go out and build up meta- communities tied to tags, phrases and affinities - which have associated networks and groups. Then make sure that much of this content is available with a universal translator - so that people around the world can get sub-titles or voiceover versions - that they can understand. eg. build a global community of meta-networks.
- now it’s five years later, only 10% of yous archive is on-line and being utilized in interactive apps and servcies - but it’s enough. The floodgates will open and everyone will CLAMOR to have their songs, musicals, films and books incuded in your prestigous interactive hypermedia encyclopedias. That’s the way Hollywood is. They’re not too smart upfront, but they recognize a trend - real fast!
6c) You probably don’t know - but I submitted a proposal to the BBC about utilizing our platform to add social features to BBC web sites. The idea is that by utilizing one platform you can normalize all this common stuff - like sending messages, reviews, comments, taggfing, contests, etc. across ALL your web sites.
Maybe this conversation can get that project - on track.
6d) I wrote this book and in it I extrapolate that the BigCos of the world will leave enough ‘crumbs’ on the table that we ‘the small guys’ can live. They way that happens is thru open standards around ways of connecting disparate networks together. YOU my friend (the BBC) can be the catalyst of this revolutionary approach to ‘open social networking’. If you can connect disparate BBC sites together, we can do that ACROSS disparate vendors.
7. Nick apparently is an employee of the BBC and involved with their blog.
The BBC blog has all sorts of great stuff flowing thru it - and just getting your hands around HALF the stuff the BBC does - is quite a task. Apparently there are over 35 CMS’s utilized to build and maintain the 300+ web sites run by the BBC. Can you imagine the task of integrating all that - over the next 10 years?
Well that’s the job of Eric Hugger’s FM&T group has in front of it. First things up - an identity layer to connect them all together.
That’s being built by Zac xxx - a veteran of the Web 2.0 wars. Zac’s team will build the infrastructure - now the question is “will Eric pull the trigger and connect these sites together?”
Cross site promotions, underlying ID account, user tastes which drill targeted content, affinity groups that go meta - as well.
Couple all that to the entire archive of everything (or just about) the BBC has ever produced and THEN you’ll have an idea why I’m making sure to engage with the Beeb - and get them thinking ‘open mesh’. The BBC will define ‘persistent ubiquitous content’.
And now back to bicycling around Amsterdam. I can almost hear the fiddler fiddling as the world’s economic powers crumble. All those poor un-employed investment bankers! Boo hoo hoo.
And while Mr. Hirst is selling off his artifacts, I’ll be viewing a real artist today - Van Gogh. Oooops - did I just imply that Damien Hirst isn’t an artist?
Well clearly he’s got his :15 minutes going on right now - at least Sotehby’s and a bunch of Russians and Arabs think so.
Tags: BBC, Nick Reynolds, persistent ubiquitous content, underlying ID layer
Add a comment
Great write-up and passionate rant.
Working at another broadcaster (in another country) I can understand the tension in Nick’s reply. The tension between being a government sponsored entity with a set of governed goals and the creative power and imagination that is at hand in these environments.
You should keep in mind that broadcasters have not yet seen the transformation to software companies yet. Industry papers are still filled with shiny hardware switchers and camera’s. And the shiny hardware distracts us from the real (software) issues that need to be solved, some of them discussed in this post.
So yea I agree with you and your passion is infectious! And it’s allways great to see “reggea” references up in your post when you’re spending time in Amsterdam! Psych-out!
Hendrik
Great write-up and passionate rant.
Working at another broadcaster (in another country) I can understand the tension in Nick’s reply. The tension between being a government sponsored entity with a set of governed goals and the creative power and imagination that is at hand in these environments.
You should keep in mind that broadcasters have not yet seen the transformation to software companies yet. Industry papers are still filled with shiny hardware switchers and camera’s. And the shiny hardware distracts us from the real (software) issues that need to be solved, some of them discussed in this post.
So yea I agree with you and your passion is infectious! And it’s allways great to see “reggea” references up in your post when you’re spending time in Amsterdam! Psych-out!
Hendrik
Great write-up and passionate rant.
Working at another broadcaster (in another country) I can understand the tension in Nick’s reply. The tension between being a government sponsored entity with a set of governed goals and the creative power and imagination that is at hand in these environments.
You should keep in mind that broadcasters have not yet seen the transformation to software companies yet. Industry papers are still filled with shiny hardware switchers and camera’s. And the shiny hardware distracts us from the real (software) issues that need to be solved, some of them discussed in this post.
So yea I agree with you and your passion is infectious! And it’s allways great to see “reggea” references up in your post when you’re spending time in Amsterdam! Psych-out!
Hendrik
“4. I was referring to user experience when I said “no one cares if YouTube uses Flash or OGG” - but Nick responded back about a colleague of his named James Cridland and a BBC mail list. Dude (that’s American for ‘my kind sir Mr. Reynolds’) - what I was talking about are humans, normal people, end-users - in general. And THEY don’t give a dam about what’s under the hood - as long as it works!”
Which is precisely why I’m resisting Ogg Vorbis. I put it in place at Virgin Radio; the station is/was even a default on virtually all Linux distros as a result. It managed a massive 12 concurrent listeners on its Ogg Vorbis stream by the time I left, five years later. People don’t care about what’s under the hood. It makes no sense to go with Ogg Vorbis at this stage of the game. People don’t care about GNU licences or whatever - they just care if it works (and, of course, if they need to pay for the player).
The archive is clearly interesting - but much of it is either mired in rights issues or earns money for the BBC, either via CD/DVD sales or via channels like UKTV. Clearly, releasing a ton of great archive content also has real repercussions for the commercial broadcasters too. It’s not quite as simple as “getting the rights”.
But I agree that we can, and should, work better at social aspects around our content. We’re working on it; but the full extent of our, cough, interestingly archaic web architecture is rarely appreciated outside the organisation.
Thanks for being part of the conversation. We’ve a ton of work to do, and I’m working on doing it.
“4. I was referring to user experience when I said “no one cares if YouTube uses Flash or OGG” - but Nick responded back about a colleague of his named James Cridland and a BBC mail list. Dude (that’s American for ‘my kind sir Mr. Reynolds’) - what I was talking about are humans, normal people, end-users - in general. And THEY don’t give a dam about what’s under the hood - as long as it works!”
Which is precisely why I’m resisting Ogg Vorbis. I put it in place at Virgin Radio; the station is/was even a default on virtually all Linux distros as a result. It managed a massive 12 concurrent listeners on its Ogg Vorbis stream by the time I left, five years later. People don’t care about what’s under the hood. It makes no sense to go with Ogg Vorbis at this stage of the game. People don’t care about GNU licences or whatever - they just care if it works (and, of course, if they need to pay for the player).
The archive is clearly interesting - but much of it is either mired in rights issues or earns money for the BBC, either via CD/DVD sales or via channels like UKTV. Clearly, releasing a ton of great archive content also has real repercussions for the commercial broadcasters too. It’s not quite as simple as “getting the rights”.
But I agree that we can, and should, work better at social aspects around our content. We’re working on it; but the full extent of our, cough, interestingly archaic web architecture is rarely appreciated outside the organisation.
Thanks for being part of the conversation. We’ve a ton of work to do, and I’m working on doing it.
“4. I was referring to user experience when I said “no one cares if YouTube uses Flash or OGG” - but Nick responded back about a colleague of his named James Cridland and a BBC mail list. Dude (that’s American for ‘my kind sir Mr. Reynolds’) - what I was talking about are humans, normal people, end-users - in general. And THEY don’t give a dam about what’s under the hood - as long as it works!”
Which is precisely why I’m resisting Ogg Vorbis. I put it in place at Virgin Radio; the station is/was even a default on virtually all Linux distros as a result. It managed a massive 12 concurrent listeners on its Ogg Vorbis stream by the time I left, five years later. People don’t care about what’s under the hood. It makes no sense to go with Ogg Vorbis at this stage of the game. People don’t care about GNU licences or whatever - they just care if it works (and, of course, if they need to pay for the player).
The archive is clearly interesting - but much of it is either mired in rights issues or earns money for the BBC, either via CD/DVD sales or via channels like UKTV. Clearly, releasing a ton of great archive content also has real repercussions for the commercial broadcasters too. It’s not quite as simple as “getting the rights”.
But I agree that we can, and should, work better at social aspects around our content. We’re working on it; but the full extent of our, cough, interestingly archaic web architecture is rarely appreciated outside the organisation.
Thanks for being part of the conversation. We’ve a ton of work to do, and I’m working on doing it.
Hi, I found your blog on this new directory of WordPress Blogs at blackhatbootcamp.com/listofwordpressblogs. I dont know how your blog came up, must have been a typo, i duno. Anyways, I just clicked it and here I am. Your blog looks good. Have a nice day. James.
Hi, I found your blog on this new directory of WordPress Blogs at blackhatbootcamp.com/listofwordpressblogs. I dont know how your blog came up, must have been a typo, i duno. Anyways, I just clicked it and here I am. Your blog looks good. Have a nice day. James.
Hi, I found your blog on this new directory of WordPress Blogs at blackhatbootcamp.com/listofwordpressblogs. I dont know how your blog came up, must have been a typo, i duno. Anyways, I just clicked it and here I am. Your blog looks good. Have a nice day. James.
@James Cridland: Where you say, “they just care if it works.” I think this is the point where we all can agree. As a proponent of the use of Ogg Vorbis, the most important thing is that it can work for everyone. True, it may not work by default, and the majority of people will require a simple codec software installation. However, with very minimal effort, everyone can have access to the Ogg Vorbis format. In contrast, patent-restricted and licensed codecs are not freely distributable, so regardless of the popularity of your choice of licensed codec, there will be some who are restricted to your content. Is a bit of convenience for 95% worth the exclusion of 5%? How about with 90/10? 80/20? 75/25? Especially for a publicly funded entity like the BBC, content providers should choose transmission formats that “just works”, for everyone.
And, so, why are not more media consumers using these freely available formats? (1) The corporations distributing computer operating systems often have vested interests in promoting their own media codecs, for the purpose of collecting future licensing fees from the widespread use as a transmission standard. (2) Content providers almost always offer Ogg Vorbis as a secondary option, in addition to the Mpeg encoded format. There is no incentive to take a few seconds to install the Ogg Vorbis codec, if it is not necessary. Your own Virgin Radio lists it with five additional streaming formats. (3) While the Mpeg Consortium has started suing for home-use of the Mpeg decoder licensed software, the impact has - so far - been absorbed by the giant corporations distributing the operating system. The end-user and content providers have not yet felt the impact.
In distributing content online, it is not enough for content providers to offer an additional option of Ogg Vorbis, although it is a great start. Service providers should also recognize the importance of building the framework for freely distributing audio content, and so encourage the use of Ogg Vorbis. Provide some additional content in exclusively Ogg Vorbis format, and make it easy as possible for users to start using the codec. This is a big task to work around the entrenched, proprietary codecs, but it has to be a priority for organizations like the BBC who are chartered with open access to their content.
@James Cridland: Where you say, “they just care if it works.” I think this is the point where we all can agree. As a proponent of the use of Ogg Vorbis, the most important thing is that it can work for everyone. True, it may not work by default, and the majority of people will require a simple codec software installation. However, with very minimal effort, everyone can have access to the Ogg Vorbis format. In contrast, patent-restricted and licensed codecs are not freely distributable, so regardless of the popularity of your choice of licensed codec, there will be some who are restricted to your content. Is a bit of convenience for 95% worth the exclusion of 5%? How about with 90/10? 80/20? 75/25? Especially for a publicly funded entity like the BBC, content providers should choose transmission formats that “just works”, for everyone.
And, so, why are not more media consumers using these freely available formats? (1) The corporations distributing computer operating systems often have vested interests in promoting their own media codecs, for the purpose of collecting future licensing fees from the widespread use as a transmission standard. (2) Content providers almost always offer Ogg Vorbis as a secondary option, in addition to the Mpeg encoded format. There is no incentive to take a few seconds to install the Ogg Vorbis codec, if it is not necessary. Your own Virgin Radio lists it with five additional streaming formats. (3) While the Mpeg Consortium has started suing for home-use of the Mpeg decoder licensed software, the impact has - so far - been absorbed by the giant corporations distributing the operating system. The end-user and content providers have not yet felt the impact.
In distributing content online, it is not enough for content providers to offer an additional option of Ogg Vorbis, although it is a great start. Service providers should also recognize the importance of building the framework for freely distributing audio content, and so encourage the use of Ogg Vorbis. Provide some additional content in exclusively Ogg Vorbis format, and make it easy as possible for users to start using the codec. This is a big task to work around the entrenched, proprietary codecs, but it has to be a priority for organizations like the BBC who are chartered with open access to their content.
@James Cridland: Where you say, “they just care if it works.” I think this is the point where we all can agree. As a proponent of the use of Ogg Vorbis, the most important thing is that it can work for everyone. True, it may not work by default, and the majority of people will require a simple codec software installation. However, with very minimal effort, everyone can have access to the Ogg Vorbis format. In contrast, patent-restricted and licensed codecs are not freely distributable, so regardless of the popularity of your choice of licensed codec, there will be some who are restricted to your content. Is a bit of convenience for 95% worth the exclusion of 5%? How about with 90/10? 80/20? 75/25? Especially for a publicly funded entity like the BBC, content providers should choose transmission formats that “just works”, for everyone.
And, so, why are not more media consumers using these freely available formats? (1) The corporations distributing computer operating systems often have vested interests in promoting their own media codecs, for the purpose of collecting future licensing fees from the widespread use as a transmission standard. (2) Content providers almost always offer Ogg Vorbis as a secondary option, in addition to the Mpeg encoded format. There is no incentive to take a few seconds to install the Ogg Vorbis codec, if it is not necessary. Your own Virgin Radio lists it with five additional streaming formats. (3) While the Mpeg Consortium has started suing for home-use of the Mpeg decoder licensed software, the impact has - so far - been absorbed by the giant corporations distributing the operating system. The end-user and content providers have not yet felt the impact.
In distributing content online, it is not enough for content providers to offer an additional option of Ogg Vorbis, although it is a great start. Service providers should also recognize the importance of building the framework for freely distributing audio content, and so encourage the use of Ogg Vorbis. Provide some additional content in exclusively Ogg Vorbis format, and make it easy as possible for users to start using the codec. This is a big task to work around the entrenched, proprietary codecs, but it has to be a priority for organizations like the BBC who are chartered with open access to their content.
Matt, thanks for that.
You appear to be arguing against what the consumer wants - which is something that simply works. “A simple installation of a codec” is not simple to many people, or even possible in many corporate environments. Simply installing WinAmp, for example, is not an option on my BBC desktop. The simple truth is that for x% of people, downloading ’special software’ to enable them to listen to the radio will simply push them away, and into the arms of another radio broadcaster.
You seem to be arguing on principle (a ‘libre’ codec), rather than a view from the vast majority of consumers (a ‘gratuit’ codec, ideally one I don’t need to install). I don’t doubt that there are those who won’t listen to anything that requires a licensed codec; just like there are those who refuse on principle to watch television. I’d see my job to ensure that people are able to enjoy online radio on whatever platform they wish to (so that they get the very best value from their licence-fee). That’s open access, as you see it.
In short, I’m afraid I’m firmly on the side of the consumer.
Matt, thanks for that.
You appear to be arguing against what the consumer wants - which is something that simply works. “A simple installation of a codec” is not simple to many people, or even possible in many corporate environments. Simply installing WinAmp, for example, is not an option on my BBC desktop. The simple truth is that for x% of people, downloading ’special software’ to enable them to listen to the radio will simply push them away, and into the arms of another radio broadcaster.
You seem to be arguing on principle (a ‘libre’ codec), rather than a view from the vast majority of consumers (a ‘gratuit’ codec, ideally one I don’t need to install). I don’t doubt that there are those who won’t listen to anything that requires a licensed codec; just like there are those who refuse on principle to watch television. I’d see my job to ensure that people are able to enjoy online radio on whatever platform they wish to (so that they get the very best value from their licence-fee). That’s open access, as you see it.
In short, I’m afraid I’m firmly on the side of the consumer.
Matt, thanks for that.
You appear to be arguing against what the consumer wants - which is something that simply works. “A simple installation of a codec” is not simple to many people, or even possible in many corporate environments. Simply installing WinAmp, for example, is not an option on my BBC desktop. The simple truth is that for x% of people, downloading ’special software’ to enable them to listen to the radio will simply push them away, and into the arms of another radio broadcaster.
You seem to be arguing on principle (a ‘libre’ codec), rather than a view from the vast majority of consumers (a ‘gratuit’ codec, ideally one I don’t need to install). I don’t doubt that there are those who won’t listen to anything that requires a licensed codec; just like there are those who refuse on principle to watch television. I’d see my job to ensure that people are able to enjoy online radio on whatever platform they wish to (so that they get the very best value from their licence-fee). That’s open access, as you see it.
In short, I’m afraid I’m firmly on the side of the consumer.
Why do we need a downloaded player at all?
I just don’t buy this “desktop based” anything nowadays.
Why do we need a downloaded player at all?
I just don’t buy this “desktop based” anything nowadays.
Why do we need a downloaded player at all?
I just don’t buy this “desktop based” anything nowadays.
James, to clarify, playing back Ogg Vorbis on Windows does not require WinAmp. Installing the Directshow Filter and the default Windows Media Player will decode Vorbis. [see: xiph.org/dshow/ ] This file size is less than a megabyte, and the user experience will be unchanged afterward. Same is true for Apple with Quicktime / iTunes. [see: xiph.org/quicktime/ ] The Xiph.org website has much technical information that might scare novice users, but the files are freely distributable, so you can even provide the files on the website with your media content.
Yes, there is an initial hurdle overcoming the user’s desire to not use anything except the default. As you have encountered at Virgin Radio, catering to this desire means supporting - in your case - six different streaming encoding technologies, most of which come with license fees and restrictions. Admittedly, IT Departments are resistant to users adding any additional software programs to the work computers, but I suspect that no corporation, regardless of their strict policies, distributes an unmodified operating system. Adding drivers and codecs, especially ones that support web standards, is generally accepted as necessary. For a few, adding this codec is a bit of a challenge in the short-term, but it makes a whole lot of sense in the long-term for content providers.
James, to clarify, playing back Ogg Vorbis on Windows does not require WinAmp. Installing the Directshow Filter and the default Windows Media Player will decode Vorbis. [see: xiph.org/dshow/ ] This file size is less than a megabyte, and the user experience will be unchanged afterward. Same is true for Apple with Quicktime / iTunes. [see: xiph.org/quicktime/ ] The Xiph.org website has much technical information that might scare novice users, but the files are freely distributable, so you can even provide the files on the website with your media content.
Yes, there is an initial hurdle overcoming the user’s desire to not use anything except the default. As you have encountered at Virgin Radio, catering to this desire means supporting - in your case - six different streaming encoding technologies, most of which come with license fees and restrictions. Admittedly, IT Departments are resistant to users adding any additional software programs to the work computers, but I suspect that no corporation, regardless of their strict policies, distributes an unmodified operating system. Adding drivers and codecs, especially ones that support web standards, is generally accepted as necessary. For a few, adding this codec is a bit of a challenge in the short-term, but it makes a whole lot of sense in the long-term for content providers.
James, to clarify, playing back Ogg Vorbis on Windows does not require WinAmp. Installing the Directshow Filter and the default Windows Media Player will decode Vorbis. [see: xiph.org/dshow/ ] This file size is less than a megabyte, and the user experience will be unchanged afterward. Same is true for Apple with Quicktime / iTunes. [see: xiph.org/quicktime/ ] The Xiph.org website has much technical information that might scare novice users, but the files are freely distributable, so you can even provide the files on the website with your media content.
Yes, there is an initial hurdle overcoming the user’s desire to not use anything except the default. As you have encountered at Virgin Radio, catering to this desire means supporting - in your case - six different streaming encoding technologies, most of which come with license fees and restrictions. Admittedly, IT Departments are resistant to users adding any additional software programs to the work computers, but I suspect that no corporation, regardless of their strict policies, distributes an unmodified operating system. Adding drivers and codecs, especially ones that support web standards, is generally accepted as necessary. For a few, adding this codec is a bit of a challenge in the short-term, but it makes a whole lot of sense in the long-term for content providers.
Marc, Firefox and Opera will be supping Ogg within the browser experience, in their next releases. This should allow even more users to enjoy Vorbis, right in their browsers, without even needing to manually install the codec.
Marc, Firefox and Opera will be supping Ogg within the browser experience, in their next releases. This should allow even more users to enjoy Vorbis, right in their browsers, without even needing to manually install the codec.
Marc, Firefox and Opera will be supping Ogg within the browser experience, in their next releases. This should allow even more users to enjoy Vorbis, right in their browsers, without even needing to manually install the codec.