The BBC finally stops ignoring Android, but...

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Homer

unread,
Jan 15, 2011, 11:58:24 AM1/15/11
to
...starts criticising it instead.

Having just witnessed the next instalment of The MSBBC Click's coverage
of CES 2011, once again I'm appalled by their pro-Microsoft bias, which
is more obvious now than ever.

The introduction mentions Microsoft first and foremost, with the
reporter positioned so the Microsoft stand is clearly visible behind
him, giving the false impression that the whole point of CES is as a
showcase for Microsoft products, despite the fact that its presence is
little more than a token gesture, as it has nothing new or innovative to
show. The reality is that, at CES 2011, Microsoft is completely
irrelevant, and "Click" shouldn't have even mentioned them at all, much
less given Ballmer an advertising slot for Microsoft's lame and archaic
technology.

Then another reporter mentions tablets are dominating the show, and
admits nearly all of them are running Android, but then claims this is a
problem because "Android won't really work on tablets until later this
year", conveniently ignoring the swath of popular Android tablets
already on the market, and he makes no effort to actually demonstrate
any of the new Android tablets at all, despite the fact that he's
inundated by them.

Meanwhile, his tag-team partner upstairs is busy playing the straight
man to Ballmer, as he explains why everyone should use Windows 7 on
tablets ... that aren't really tablets, because they all have keyboards
and big, energy-sucking processors. Or IOW Microsoft "can't do tablets",
so they've decided to redefine them as "all-in-one PCs with detachable
keyboards" instead. Again. The reporter makes a comment about the touch
screen experience being a bit fiddly on Windows, then lets Ballmer carry
on fecklessly showboating.

Overall, everything "Android" was painted in either a negative or
questionable light, and everything "Microsoft" was made to seem like a
foregone conclusion of success, despite the fact that Android is here
and now, and very successful, but Microsoft's mobile efforts are, and
have always been, a miserable flop, and are mostly non-existent
vapourware.

--
K. | Ancient Chinese Proverb:
http://slated.org | "The road to Hell is paved with
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky | ignorant twits who know nothing
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 21 days | about GNU/Linux."

Snit

unread,
Jan 15, 2011, 1:32:27 PM1/15/11
to
Homer stated in post ga0908-...@sky.matrix on 1/15/11 9:58 AM:

Oh no! The BBC does not share your bias. They *must* be evil!


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


Lawrence D'Oliveiro

unread,
Jan 15, 2011, 4:32:47 PM1/15/11
to

> Oh no! The BBC does not share your bias. They *must* be evil!

Do you have a cite for that? You seem to have a habit of saying things
without backing them up.

RonB

unread,
Jan 15, 2011, 4:36:40 PM1/15/11
to

Not to mention the FACT that Android is much, much more popular than WP7
-- and apparently the BBC conveniently forgets that rather obvious FACT.

--
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.5 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

Snit

unread,
Jan 15, 2011, 4:51:04 PM1/15/11
to
Lawrence D'Oliveiro stated in post igt3q0$4rn$2...@lust.ihug.co.nz on 1/15/11
2:32 PM:

The post I responded to made it clear the BBC does not share Homer's
paranoid bias.


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


Snit

unread,
Jan 15, 2011, 4:51:35 PM1/15/11
to
RonB stated in post igt418$s25$1...@news.eternal-september.org on 1/15/11 2:36
PM:

> On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 10:32:47 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message <C957364B.8A3F8%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Oh no! The BBC does not share your bias. They *must* be evil!
>>
>> Do you have a cite for that? You seem to have a habit of saying things
>> without backing them up.
>
> Not to mention the FACT that Android is much, much more popular than WP7
> -- and apparently the BBC conveniently forgets that rather obvious FACT.

Yeah, the BBC is an arm of Microsoft... and out to get us OSS folks, too.


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


bbgruff

unread,
Jan 15, 2011, 6:26:38 PM1/15/11
to

High Plains Thumper

unread,
Jan 15, 2011, 8:00:11 PM1/15/11
to
bbgruff wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Oh no! The BBC does not share your bias. They *must* be evil!
>>
>> Do you have a cite for that? You seem to have a habit of saying things
>> without backing them up.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00xybdc/Click_15_01_2011/

I got an "Not available in your area". What was I supposed to see?

--
HPT

spi...@freenet.co.uk

unread,
Jan 15, 2011, 8:33:04 PM1/15/11
to
And verily, didst High Plains Thumper <h...@invalid.invalid> hastily babble thusly:
The episode in question, presumably?
--
| spi...@freenet.co,uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |

RonB

unread,
Jan 15, 2011, 9:32:13 PM1/15/11
to

Unfortunately I'm not allowed to watch it.

High Plains Thumper

unread,
Jan 15, 2011, 11:39:40 PM1/15/11
to
spike1 wrote:
> High Plains Thumper babble thusly:

>> bbgruff wrote:
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Oh no! The BBC does not share your bias. They *must* be evil!
>>>>
>>>> Do you have a cite for that? You seem to have a habit of saying
>>>> things without backing them up.
>>>
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00xybdc/Click_15_01_2011/
>>
>> I got an "Not available in your area". What was I supposed to see?
>
> The episode in question, presumably?

Well, yes. Looks like someone didn't want US to see what others see across
the pond - media control. But then, what would I expect from MsBBC?

--
HPT

High Plains Thumper

unread,
Jan 16, 2011, 1:57:07 AM1/16/11
to
bbgruff wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Oh no! The BBC does not share your bias. They *must* be evil!
>>
>> Do you have a cite for that? You seem to have a habit of saying things
>> without backing them up.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00xybdc/Click_15_01_2011/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIW5iGjppLk

--
HPT

spi...@freenet.co.uk

unread,
Jan 16, 2011, 3:19:24 AM1/16/11
to
And verily, didst High Plains Thumper <h...@invalid.invalid> hastily babble thusly:
Why should they get to see it without ads? Not as if they pay the TV
license after all. (thought they'd got the ad-injection side of the iplayer
thing for restoftheworld[tm] sorted by now, but obviously not).
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |

Lawrence D'Oliveiro

unread,
Jan 16, 2011, 4:22:04 AM1/16/11
to

> Why should they get to see it without ads?

Ads are copyright too.

spi...@freenet.co.uk

unread,
Jan 16, 2011, 5:17:57 AM1/16/11
to
And verily, didst Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> hastily babble thusly:

> In message <c9ma08-...@librarian.sky.com>, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>
>> Why should they get to see it without ads?
>
> Ads are copyright too.

Errrr..

The point is, the BBC does not show adverts (online or in broadcast TV) in
the UK, so in order to justify allowing restoftheworld[tm] access to
iplayer, they have to include adverts to pay for it. Otherwise all us TV
license fee payers get all uppity.

This doesn't include radio in most cases however, so restoftheworld[tm] is
free to listen to such delights as I'm sorry I haven't a clue and The news
quiz on iplayer unhindered.
(The radio license was abolished in the 50s or 60s)

Chris Ahlstrom

unread,
Jan 16, 2011, 7:50:03 AM1/16/11
to
High Plains Thumper wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

Same here. The video panel starts up, then that banner appears over it.

"Look, love, we don't want any tossers from across the Pond accessing UK
content, so why don't you just fsck off!"

--
Love isn't only blind, it's also deaf, dumb, and stupid.

Homer

unread,
Jan 16, 2011, 9:28:25 AM1/16/11
to
Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:

Yeah, the tossers at the MSBBC don't want to grant furryners access to
their tax-funded private enterprise, even when that tax-funded private
enterprise is conducted on the furryners' home soil.

--
K. | Ancient Chinese Proverb:
http://slated.org | "The road to Hell is paved with
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky | ignorant twits who know nothing

kernel 2.6.31.5, up 22 days | about GNU/Linux."

High Plains Thumper

unread,
Jan 16, 2011, 9:50:08 AM1/16/11
to
Homer wrote:
> Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
>> High Plains Thumper wrote this:

>>> bbgruff wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00xybdc/Click_15_01_2011/
>>>
>>> I got an "Not available in your area". What was I supposed to see?
>>
>> Same here. The video panel starts up, then that banner appears over
>> it.
>>
>> "Look, love, we don't want any tossers from across the Pond accessing
>> UK content, so why don't you just fsck off!"
>
> Yeah, the tossers at the MSBBC don't want to grant furryners access to
> their tax-funded private enterprise, even when that tax-funded private
> enterprise is conducted on the furryners' home soil.

IMHO there is a purposeful control of the media in US. The newsmedia in
the Far East (mainly BBC but there were others - this was before it became
MSBBC, AFAIK) expressed news that I would not see on the US news media.
Back then, BBC seemed to have more balanced news coverage of world events,
even US events than the main stream US media.

Back as far as 1983, I remember listening in US to shortwave radio
broadcasts in the wee hours of the night from BBC Australia, expressing
battles in Borneo with significant numbers killed in battle. This news
never reached the US populaces through the main news streams. It is not
news worthy? Only to those who dare not inform the US masses.

It is a US event that BBC in this case was broadcasting. Someone doesn't
want unfavourable coverage of a US event to the US masses. You don't think
there is on-going censorship? I don't know what else to call it.

--
HPT

Snit

unread,
Jan 16, 2011, 10:13:03 AM1/16/11
to
Homer stated in post 9tbb08-...@sky.matrix on 1/16/11 7:28 AM:

> Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
>> High Plains Thumper wrote this copyrighted missive and expects
>> royalties:
>>> bbgruff wrote:
>
>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00xybdc/Click_15_01_2011/
>>>
>>> I got an "Not available in your area". What was I supposed to see?
>>
>> Same here. The video panel starts up, then that banner appears over
>> it.
>>
>> "Look, love, we don't want any tossers from across the Pond accessing
>> UK content, so why don't you just fsck off!"
>
> Yeah, the tossers at the MSBBC don't want to grant furryners access to
> their tax-funded private enterprise, even when that tax-funded private
> enterprise is conducted on the furryners' home soil.

They do know owe you content. Deal with it.


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


High Plains Thumper

unread,
Jan 16, 2011, 10:33:40 AM1/16/11
to
spike1 wrote:
> High Plains Thumper babble thusly:
>> spike1 wrote:
>>> High Plains Thumper babble thusly:
>>>> bbgruff wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00xybdc/Click_15_01_2011/
>>>>
>>>> I got an "Not available in your area". What was I supposed to see?
>>>
>>> The episode in question, presumably?
>>
>> Well, yes. Looks like someone didn't want US to see what others see
>> across the pond - media control. But then, what would I expect from
>> MsBBC?
>
> Why should they get to see it without ads? Not as if they pay the TV
> license after all. (thought they'd got the ad-injection side of the
> iplayer thing for restoftheworld[tm] sorted by now, but obviously not).

It is a simple fix, IMHO. If one is using a non-UK IP address, it shows
the ads along with the content. It doesn't take much coding (if one calls
HTML "coding") to show an alternate page.

However, me thinks that the MS part of MSBBC doesn't want insiders to see
content from their lands as shown to those outside their land.

--
HPT

wog@anonimous.eu Clog___ wog (®)

unread,
Jan 16, 2011, 10:36:16 AM1/16/11
to
"High Plains Thumper" <h...@invalid.invalid> schreef in bericht
news:igu4s8$2bg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3A23QTLdfU&feature=related

bbgruff

unread,
Jan 16, 2011, 12:52:25 PM1/16/11
to

Oh dear - my apologies. I thought that you Forrinners could see iplayer,
but with ads.

It's an episode of Click by the BBC - 24 minutes of IT tech stuff.
In this particular episode, they were reporting from the exhibition in Los
Vegas.

I watched it through, and I wouldn't say that it was as biased as Homer
makes out. Sure, it refers at the start to Windows as the "Biggest OS in
the World". I dispute that (in terms of instances that exist), but if one
accepts that most of the audience doesn't actually know what an OS actually
*is*, and interprets it as "The most prolific OS of which you dummies are
most aware is Windows"! then it's (to me) acceptable.

Android was introduced as being on most of the new stuff, and there was a
line of "Android is a 'phone OS", but that was qualified by "originally only
used on screens up to 7, but the newer versions...")..... so I wasn't *too*
hurt :-)

It went on to ask "tablets - is Windows a player?", and "What of Windows on
tablets?". The scene shifted to Steve Ballmer and the MS "stand" at the
show. Frankly, I've never seen him look so uncomfortable! He did his best,
bless him.
He kept trying to thrust into the interviewer's face gadgets that ran
Windows, in spite of protestations that "... but these have keyboards, so
the aren't really tablets, are they?"

That part ended with the question "Can Microsoft remain a dominant force?"!

The final section was of ovens, fridges and washing machines that were
Internet connected, and could be controlled by 'phone. No mention of what
OS they (the gadgets *or* the phones!) were using :-) (though I do remember
Bill Gates predicting it)

I was reasonably happy with it, though I still think that maybe someday the
BBC will twig to The Linux Story :-)

Hadron

unread,
Jan 16, 2011, 3:04:56 PM1/16/11
to
RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 10:32:47 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message <C957364B.8A3F8%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Oh no! The BBC does not share your bias. They *must* be evil!
>>
>> Do you have a cite for that? You seem to have a habit of saying things
>> without backing them up.
>
> Not to mention the FACT that Android is much, much more popular than WP7
> -- and apparently the BBC conveniently forgets that rather obvious FACT.


Do you have a clue what you're talking about?

Your paranoid ranting fools no one.


Lawrence D'Oliveiro

unread,
Jan 16, 2011, 5:04:59 PM1/16/11
to

> And verily, didst Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand>
> hastily babble thusly:
>

>> Ads are copyright too.
>
> ... they have to include adverts to pay for it.

Did they get the permission of the advert copyright holders?

spi...@freenet.co.uk

unread,
Jan 16, 2011, 5:26:11 PM1/16/11
to
And verily, didst Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> hastily babble thusly:
> In message <l7ta08-...@librarian.sky.com>, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>
>> And verily, didst Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand>
>> hastily babble thusly:
>>
>>> Ads are copyright too.
>>
>> ... they have to include adverts to pay for it.
>
> Did they get the permission of the advert copyright holders?

Who do you think PAYS them?

Lawrence D'Oliveiro

unread,
Jan 17, 2011, 10:05:26 PM1/17/11
to

> And verily, didst Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand>

> enunciate thusly:


>
>> In message <l7ta08-...@librarian.sky.com>, spi...@freenet.co.uk
>> wrote:
>>
>>> And verily, didst Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand>

>>> expound thusly:


>>>
>>>> Ads are copyright too.
>>>
>>> ... they have to include adverts to pay for it.
>>
>> Did they get the permission of the advert copyright holders?
>
> Who do you think PAYS them?

Such agreements can only be legally valid within a particular jurisdiction,
in this case the UK. But we’re talking about viewers _outside_ the UK,
beyond the scope of such agreements, are we not?

High Plains Thumper

unread,
Jan 17, 2011, 10:10:08 PM1/17/11
to
bbgruff wrote:
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>> bbgruff wrote:
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Oh no! The BBC does not share your bias. They *must* be evil!
>>>>
>>>> Do you have a cite for that? You seem to have a habit of saying
>>>> things without backing them up.
>>>
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00xybdc/Click_15_01_2011/
>>
>> I got an "Not available in your area". What was I supposed to see?
>
> Oh dear - my apologies. I thought that you Forrinners could see
> iplayer, but with ads.

If we only hadn't that episode of dumped all that lovely tea in the
harbour in protestation. :-)

> It's an episode of Click by the BBC - 24 minutes of IT tech stuff. In
> this particular episode, they were reporting from the exhibition in Los
> Vegas.
>
> I watched it through, and I wouldn't say that it was as biased as Homer
> makes out. Sure, it refers at the start to Windows as the "Biggest OS
> in the World". I dispute that (in terms of instances that exist), but
> if one accepts that most of the audience doesn't actually know what an
> OS actually *is*, and interprets it as "The most prolific OS of which
> you dummies are most aware is Windows"! then it's (to me) acceptable.
>
> Android was introduced as being on most of the new stuff, and there was
> a line of "Android is a 'phone OS", but that was qualified by
> "originally only used on screens up to 7, but the newer
> versions...")..... so I wasn't *too* hurt :-)
>
> It went on to ask "tablets - is Windows a player?", and "What of Windows
> on tablets?". The scene shifted to Steve Ballmer and the MS "stand" at
> the show. Frankly, I've never seen him look so uncomfortable! He did
> his best, bless him.
>
> He kept trying to thrust into the interviewer's face gadgets that ran
> Windows, in spite of protestations that "... but these have keyboards,
> so the aren't really tablets, are they?"

Well, of course they aren't tablets in a usual sense.

> That part ended with the question "Can Microsoft remain a dominant
> force?"!

Me thinks not.

> The final section was of ovens, fridges and washing machines that were
> Internet connected, and could be controlled by 'phone. No mention of
> what OS they (the gadgets *or* the phones!) were using :-) (though I do
> remember Bill Gates predicting it)
>
> I was reasonably happy with it, though I still think that maybe someday
> the BBC will twig to The Linux Story :-)

Perhaps, but we have the Register "Biting the hand of IT" for now to keep
us informed.

--
HPT

Hadron

unread,
Jan 17, 2011, 11:22:26 PM1/17/11
to
spi...@freenet.co.uk writes:

> And verily, didst Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> hastily babble thusly:
>> In message <c9ma08-...@librarian.sky.com>, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>> Why should they get to see it without ads?
>>
>> Ads are copyright too.
>
> Errrr..
>
> The point is, the BBC does not show adverts (online or in broadcast TV) in
> the UK, so in order to justify allowing restoftheworld[tm] access to
> iplayer, they have to include adverts to pay for it. Otherwise all us TV
> license fee payers get all uppity.
>
> This doesn't include radio in most cases however, so restoftheworld[tm] is
> free to listen to such delights as I'm sorry I haven't a clue and The news
> quiz on iplayer unhindered.
> (The radio license was abolished in the 50s or 60s)

Except a lot of the radio streams seem in a state of flux. The iplayer
crashes after a while on debian (a few hours) but mplayer plays the asx
streams flawlessly. Take radio 4 for example : iplayer only offers the
world service version at night.

While I can cope with ads outside of the UK it seems a bit silly to
limit the live streams in any way since its simple enough to set up a
proxy anyway : ditto for the iPlayer and the TV of course.

Hadron

unread,
Jan 17, 2011, 11:23:49 PM1/17/11
to

What are you talking about?

The adverts are placed there to be SEEN outside of the UK you
idiot. Spike already explained that UK based viewers dont even SEE the
adverts.

Like most "advocates" you seem to like harping on about things you know
nothing about. Are you sure you're not Gortard or WronG?

Lawrence D'Oliveiro

unread,
Jan 18, 2011, 1:02:47 AM1/18/11
to
In message <ih34km$v6t$2...@news.eternal-september.org>, Hadron wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> writes:
>
>> In message <3t7c08-...@librarian.sky.com>, spi...@freenet.co.uk
>> wrote:
>>
>>> And verily, didst Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand>
>>> enunciate thusly:
>>>
>>>> In message <l7ta08-...@librarian.sky.com>, spi...@freenet.co.uk
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And verily, didst Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>>>> <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> expound thusly:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ads are copyright too.
>>>>>
>>>>> ... they have to include adverts to pay for it.
>>>>
>>>> Did they get the permission of the advert copyright holders?
>>>
>>> Who do you think PAYS them?
>>
>> Such agreements can only be legally valid within a particular
>> jurisdiction, in this case the UK. But we’re talking about viewers
>> _outside_ the UK, beyond the scope of such agreements, are we not?
>

> The adverts are placed there to be SEEN outside of the UK you
> idiot.

Such agreements can only be legally valid within a particular

spi...@freenet.co.uk

unread,
Jan 18, 2011, 4:26:15 AM1/18/11
to
And verily, didst Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> hastily babble thusly:

> Such agreements can only be legally valid within a particular
> jurisdiction, in this case the UK. But we???re talking about viewers

> _outside_ the UK, beyond the scope of such agreements, are we not?
>
*NO*
Why would the BBC make agreements with UK companies to advertise WHEN THEY
*DO NOT* ADVERTISE *IN THE UK*?

They make agreements with companies in THE COUNTRIES where the ADVERTS will
be SHOWN of COURSE.
--
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
| spi...@freenet.co.uk |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
| |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc |Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
| in |good to you so far... |
| Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|

Hadron

unread,
Jan 18, 2011, 7:10:19 AM1/18/11
to

I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

The adverts are there for a reason. And are for viewers OUTSIDE OF THE
UK.

What is too complex for you?

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages