3 ms·

> 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 en

> 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?

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?