3 ms·

They didn't have a lead. Channel 4 was first by a considerable margin. I remember using 4OD back in 2006/07, it was great. Iirc, IPlayer existed but it was ve

They didn't have a lead. Channel 4 was first by a considerable margin. I remember using 4OD back in 2006/07, it was great. Iirc, IPlayer existed but it was very limited in what it showed. It took them years to move off a 7-day window (as the article explains, there was massive hostility to streaming within the BBC). 4OD had rights issues but, iirc, they made full series available from day one. ITV was shit though (and still is)...although that is partly a function of the weird corporate structure. Also, Project Kangaroo was far more complicated than the article says. By the time that the parties had stopped arguing and BBC had got over their hostility to streaming, Netflix was already going and paying the BBC for stuff that was going to be in Kangaroo. The reason this is coming out now is the BBC lobbyists are going on the attack but this would have changed nothing. In fact, all it would have meant is that you pay for more streaming services, and one of them would be very shit largely consisting of old episodes of Dad's Army...you can already get the best parts of the back catalogue on Netflix (the BBC should be offering this to licence-payers for free...but this wasn't what Kangaroo was either, it was a money spinner so the Islington boys could fleece licence-payers a second time...Netflix helps them, it isn't competition).

Mindwipe 7y ago
> Channel 4 was first by a considerable margin. I remember using 4OD back in 2006/07, it was great. Channel 4 launched about six weeks before iPlayer in the end, but only because the BBC launch was held up by the regulator. It was ready (ish) about six months earlier. 4OD had the seven day window at launch, it didn't launch any box sets until about 2009, and it had lots of rights issues too. Indeed, they forgot to rights clear any of the advertising and had to blank all the commercial breaks with dead air on the online simulcast for the first week... I do agree that Kangaroo was a bit more complex than portrayed here, but your statement that the BBC are "fleecing" the public by trying to commercially fund the release of older material that is virtually never fully BBC owned and requires the payment of hefty royalties is false.
- hogFeast 7y ago
  Right, and what were 4OD's views? From what I remember, far fewer people used IPlayer until they moved to 30-day...which was 2014-ish. And your timeline isn't correct, as said I remember using it in 2007 which was before IPlayer launched (you can actually verify this for yourself if you Google, IPlayer launched Christmas Day 07...4OD launched over a year earlier). And 4OD opened back catalogue on launch. That is just factually incorrect too (again, if you deigned to do some Googling you could find this out for yourself). I also didn't say that was the fleece. Kangaroo was the fleece. But the fleece is also selling stuff to Netflix that people have already paid for...saying this is "false" is odd (do you work on the BBC's "fact-checking" service by any chance? They have a habit of not understanding the difference between true and false). Royalties make no difference, that is just economically incontinent...if I develop an oil field and I pay $10/barrel in royalties, it doesn't matter because I am making $50/barrel, and that is tied to my revenue. It makes zero difference. If royalties are prohibitive, don't develop it. ...amazing that you managed to compose a post that was almost entirely fiction but stated with utter authority. Why do you think you did this?

Mindwipe 7y ago

> Channel 4 was first by a considerable margin. I remember using 4OD back in 2006/07, it was great. Channel 4 launched about six weeks before iPlayer in the end, but only because the BBC launch was held up by the regulator. It was ready (ish) about six months earlier. 4OD had the seven day window at launch, it didn't launch any box sets until about 2009, and it had lots of rights issues too. Indeed, they forgot to rights clear any of the advertising and had to blank all the commercial breaks with dead air on the online simulcast for the first week... I do agree that Kangaroo was a bit more complex than portrayed here, but your statement that the BBC are "fleecing" the public by trying to commercially fund the release of older material that is virtually never fully BBC owned and requires the payment of hefty royalties is false.

hogFeast 7y ago
Right, and what were 4OD's views? From what I remember, far fewer people used IPlayer until they moved to 30-day...which was 2014-ish. And your timeline isn't correct, as said I remember using it in 2007 which was before IPlayer launched (you can actually verify this for yourself if you Google, IPlayer launched Christmas Day 07...4OD launched over a year earlier). And 4OD opened back catalogue on launch. That is just factually incorrect too (again, if you deigned to do some Googling you could find this out for yourself). I also didn't say that was the fleece. Kangaroo was the fleece. But the fleece is also selling stuff to Netflix that people have already paid for...saying this is "false" is odd (do you work on the BBC's "fact-checking" service by any chance? They have a habit of not understanding the difference between true and false). Royalties make no difference, that is just economically incontinent...if I develop an oil field and I pay $10/barrel in royalties, it doesn't matter because I am making $50/barrel, and that is tied to my revenue. It makes zero difference. If royalties are prohibitive, don't develop it. ...amazing that you managed to compose a post that was almost entirely fiction but stated with utter authority. Why do you think you did this?