7 ms·

BBC admits iPlayer has lost streaming fight with Netflix

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
londons_explore 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    It’s a joint venture with ITV and AMC.
    - benj111 8y ago
      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 8y ago
        Sure, that makes sense. I was just pointing out why ITV specifically doesn’t mind: they’re getting the money!
kgraves 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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.
  - kgraves 8y ago
    Well there is Britbox[1] for folks outside the UK, formed by ITV & BBC. I've only known that they are now launching in the UK. [1] https://www.britbox.com/home https://www.britbox.com/home
    - lvturner 8y ago
      * Only available in US and Canada Got excited for a moment there too :-(
  - toofy 8y ago
    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 8y ago
      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.
- 8y ago
lifeisstillgood 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    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 8y ago
      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.
morrbo 8y ago
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.
- johnnycab 8y ago
  >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. You can watch selected re-runs from an archive of older content on Dave[1]. >If the BBC can solve that they have my business and I'm sure a lot of overseas business too I am not sure what you mean by they have my business ─ BBC is not based on a subscription model. It is funded by a licence fee, which is more or less mandatory, unless you can prove otherwise e.g. you don't watch live broadcast etc. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_(TV_channel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_(TV_channel)
  - morrbo 8y ago
    >If the BBC can solve that they have my business and I'm sure a lot of overseas business too I meant that there's currently a market gap for a streaming service with a massive (persistent being key) catalogue of data. Netflix and others have a hodgepodge of TV/movies available, which come and go. I was suggesting that the beeb keep the service as it is in the UK, add the archive content, then release a subscription service overseas with access to the full range of shows. Having that amount of money coming into the UK would do nothing but good IMO. I've seen some replies from others as to OFCOM regulations so it seems this is just a pipe dream at the moment.
eyebrowser95 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    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 8y ago
      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.
- bovine3dom 8y ago
szggzs27 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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-AB15 https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-about-tv-licensing-A...
  - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
    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 8y ago
      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.
jarym 8y ago
I quite like using iPlayer - not as slick as Netflix or Hulu, but not as bad as Sky Go.
teamonkey 8y ago
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 8y ago
  It's so weakly enforced that it's hardly a realistic impediment anyway.
lanevorockz 8y ago
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.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

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 8y ago
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 8y ago
  It’s a joint venture with ITV and AMC.
  - benj111 8y ago
    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 8y ago
      Sure, that makes sense. I was just pointing out why ITV specifically doesn’t mind: they’re getting the money!

kgraves 8y ago

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 8y ago
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.
- kgraves 8y ago
  Well there is Britbox[1] for folks outside the UK, formed by ITV & BBC. I've only known that they are now launching in the UK. [1] https://www.britbox.com/home https://www.britbox.com/home
  - lvturner 8y ago
    * Only available in US and Canada Got excited for a moment there too :-(
- toofy 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    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.
8y ago

lifeisstillgood 8y ago

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 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    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.

morrbo 8y ago

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.

johnnycab 8y ago
>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. You can watch selected re-runs from an archive of older content on Dave[1]. >If the BBC can solve that they have my business and I'm sure a lot of overseas business too I am not sure what you mean by they have my business ─ BBC is not based on a subscription model. It is funded by a licence fee, which is more or less mandatory, unless you can prove otherwise e.g. you don't watch live broadcast etc. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_(TV_channel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_(TV_channel)
- morrbo 8y ago
  >If the BBC can solve that they have my business and I'm sure a lot of overseas business too I meant that there's currently a market gap for a streaming service with a massive (persistent being key) catalogue of data. Netflix and others have a hodgepodge of TV/movies available, which come and go. I was suggesting that the beeb keep the service as it is in the UK, add the archive content, then release a subscription service overseas with access to the full range of shows. Having that amount of money coming into the UK would do nothing but good IMO. I've seen some replies from others as to OFCOM regulations so it seems this is just a pipe dream at the moment.

eyebrowser95 8y ago

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 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    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.
bovine3dom 8y ago

szggzs27 8y ago

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 8y ago
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-AB15 https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-about-tv-licensing-A...
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    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.

jarym 8y ago

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

teamonkey 8y ago

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 8y ago
It's so weakly enforced that it's hardly a realistic impediment anyway.

lanevorockz 8y ago

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.