The Open Rights Group : Blog Archive » BBC U-turn: Full iPlayer service may never be available to Mac and Linux Users:
“Well, not really. Although they will now be given online access to content their licence fee has helped pay for, there are still fundamental inequities between users on different platforms, and this still leaves the BBC deforming the market in favour of Microsoft DRM and Windows. People on Macs, Linux, PDAs and other handheld devices are still losing out on all the features that make the downloadable iPlayer different from, say, the kind of streaming that the BBC has done for years with the RadioPlayer.”
Can someone explain to me what these “features that make the downloadable player different from the kind of streaming that the BBC has done for years” are?
Fact: As yet, we have no idea what features which the Flash-based catch up service will support. It could support every feature that the download service supports. So how can ORG categorically say that we’ll be missing out?
Rich Mogul of Securosis takes a look at the list of security additions in Leopard, and likes what he sees:
“A couple of features look pretty interesting. The biggest is the inclusion of ‘Library Randomization’, or what we call layout randomization (ASLR) in Vista. System functions are randomized in memory to make exploitation more difficult. I don’t have a Leopard seed to check it out, and I suspect some of the researchers out there will dig in and let us know how good (or bad) the implementation is. OS X already supports Data Execution Prevention, one of the other key XP, Server, and Vista anti-exploitation technologies.”
As he puts it at the end:
“I’m really looking forward to seeing how this all holds up once the security researchers get their hands on it. On paper it looks great, maybe even getting OS X up to the level of Vista (for security, usability on Vista still sucks). But I don’t believe anything until people smarter than me start banging on it and seeing where the cracks are.”
The small picture (Scripting News):
“As Pete Cashmore on Mashable says, it’s because the subscriber numbers don’t reflect actual readership. The people who subscribed may not even be aware that they are subscribed. Or put another way, we haven’t learned yet how to measure what’s valuable, we only have the crudest ways to measure value, so crude as to be meaningless.”
Dave is, of course, correct. However, this is exactly the same situation as print magazines, which have massaged subscriber numbers for decades – adding to them using “bulk” copies (mailed in large numbers to companies), and other tactics.