iPlayer and Android phones

[Jeff Layman]

Anyone here using the iPlayer app with an Android phone?

The iPlayer app insists on defaulting to using Chrome to sign in (or
register) on my Xiaomi Redmi Note 10 phone, even though I have Firefox
set as my default browser. I've tried setting the phone to other default
browsers, but iPlayer will still only allow me to open it in Chrome. I
never use Chrome and have removed all permissions from it. If I tap on
iPlayer's "Privacy" panel on its opening screen instead of signing in,
it does then open the privacy statement in Firefox, and allow me access
to all of iPlayer via that page (as I'm apparently already signed in to
the account). The BBC News app has no privacy panel available so access
is only via Chrome.

Do others have this issue with iPlayer?

--

Jeff

[Andy Burns]

Jeff Layman wrote:

> Anyone here using the iPlayer app with an Android phone?

infrequently on phone/tablet/androidtv

> The iPlayer app insists on defaulting to using Chrome to sign in (or register)
> on my Xiaomi Redmi Note 10 phone, even though I have Firefox set as my default
> browser.

after it launches chrome, you can press [...] and choose "open in firefox" that
works for me, I signed-out and back in again to check.

> I've tried setting the phone to other default browsers, but iPlayer
> will still only allow me to open it in Chrome.

youtube plays the same trick to force you into chrome, but it also has an "open
in firefox" option.

[Max Demian]

When I open the app it doesn't involve a browser AFAICS. (I also log
into iPlayer with Chrome to delete programmes from the Watch List as
that doesn't seem to be possible in the app.)

--
Max Demian

[Andy Burns]

Martin wrote:

> Jeff Layman wrote:
>
>> Anyone here using the iPlayer app with an Android phone?
>> The iPlayer app insists on defaulting to using Chrome to sign in
>

> I think that justifies a formal complaint

I just uninstalled all chrome updates, did a force stop and disable on chrome.

Then I went into the iplayer, signed out and back in again, with chrome
unavailable, it didn't complain, it didn't use my defined preferred browser
(firefox) it used a username/password prompt built-in to the iplayer app.

[MB]

On 03/07/2022 09:27, Martin wrote:
> I think that justifies a formal complaint, but I am not sure to who. Shame UK
> left the EU because then you had somebody to complain to.

Not sure what it is to do with the EU though they do tend to stick their
nose into everything.

There is "Contact the BBC" link at the bottom of every BBC webpage and
the following has a a tab for complaints with online message, postal
address, telephone etc etc.

But I doubt whether complaints from foreigners will carry much weight,
they should be made through the company or organisation that is
supplying the feed to BBC programmes because are the ones who have a
contract with the BBC.

[Jeff Layman]

I've asked the BBC to comment on the default to Chrome.

I'm running Android 11 and there is no option to uninstall Chrome or
even disable it. There was even no option to force a stop, but I
uninstalled all updates and "Force stop" was no longer greyed out. So I
tapped it, and got the usual warning about it misbehaving. I then opened
the iPlayer app fully expecting what happened. It defaulted to Chrome,
and in "App settings" Chrome was active again! If Chrome is again
stopped and I return to the already open iPlayer app, and tap "sign in",
it reports that sign in or register is temporarily unavailable and to
try again later. If I try again, up pops Chrome. :-(

Depending on the BBC's comment to my enquiry, a formal complaint is on
the cards. How the hell they can start their privacy policy with "We
take your privacy very seriously..." yet force the use of Chrome I
really don't understand. (<https://www.bbc.co.uk/usingthebbc/privacy/>)

--

Jeff

[Andy Burns]

Jeff Layman wrote:

> Depending on the BBC's comment to my enquiry

I bet it begins

"To meet the demands of a competitive, multi-channel environment ..."

They're supposed to have the licence fee to let them be different, if they've
convinced themselves they need to be the same as other broadcasters, they don't
deserve the fee.

[MB]

On 04/07/2022 10:59, Martin wrote:
> The EU looks after users interests.

Within the EU, we are no longer ruled from Brussels.

"Foreigners" = people living outside the UK so not paying for the TV
Licence. I don't think the BBC has any responsibility to provide people
with the BBC services once they move abroad.

[Java Jive]

On 04/07/2022 13:45, MB wrote:
>
> Within the EU, we are no longer ruled from Brussels.

We weren't before, we were ruled from London, then as now.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

[Jeff Layman]

On 04/07/2022 10:50, Martin wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 11:09:23 +0100, Jeff Layman <Je...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> <snip>

>> Depending on the BBC's comment to my enquiry, a formal complaint is on
>> the cards. How the hell they can start their privacy policy with "We
>> take your privacy very seriously..." yet force the use of Chrome I
>> really don't understand. (<https://www.bbc.co.uk/usingthebbc/privacy/>)
>

> If you get a reply that is meaningful things have improved at the BBC.
>
> If you can still find the BBC blog of the software developers, you can see that
> they don't worry about problems that changes cause to the users. This was very
> obvious when they made all existing wifi radios unable to play BBC wifi
> channels. They gave industry two months warning of the change.

I've just received a reply:

"Chrome is used because of its support for Custom Tabs (allowing users
to sign into their browser, and easily sign in to apps too without
entering their password). However, if Chrome is disabled or uninstalled
we fall back to the built in WebView. This won’t differ even if a user
has selected a different default browser.

If you really don't want to use Chrome, you can disable it in the
Android settings and iPlayer will use a built in WebView as a fall back."

Surely /any/ browser with a decent password manager allows you to sign
in to an app without entering the password. I do it in FF with a weather
app I run. As for disabling or uninstalling Chrome, well, as it's an
Android system app it can't be uninstalled without rooting or use of a
fairly complicated procedure using adb. I can't disable it (the option
is greyed out), and although I can force a stop, as soon as it gets the
iPlayer app call it reopens.

--

Jeff

[Ian Jackson]

In message <t9uv1u$3ddf9$1...@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<ja...@evij.com.invalid> writes

>On 04/07/2022 13:45, MB wrote:
>> Within the EU, we are no longer ruled from Brussels.
>
>We weren't before, we were ruled from London, then as now.
>

And the Scots don't like it!
--
Ian

[Jeff Layman]

On 06/07/2022 11:40, Martin wrote:

> Why does the android version need a password to use BBC Sounds wifi radio, when
> the Win10 version doesn't and why is there no way of create a new password when
> the old password has been forgotten?

No idea, but careless, inconsistent coding comes to mind.

> At least you got a relevant answer, even if we think that what they are doing is
> not sensible. I never got a sensible answer when I asked when wifi transmitted
> for BBC Sound would be stable enough to risk buying wifi radio. I was so near to
> buying a radio that was made obsolete by the BBC. Roberts couldn't modify the
> wifi radios it had sod because they didn't have enough memory.

I've replied back with this, and wonder what the response will be:

"Firstly, I am afraid that your point about Chrome being used because of
its Custom Tabs is at least a year out-of-date. Even the developers of
Chrome itself state in their overview at
<https://developer.chrome.com/docs/android/custom-tabs/> that "Custom
Tabs is a browser feature, introduced by Chrome, that is now supported
by most major browsers on Android."

Secondly, Chrome is a system app in later versions of Android and cannot

be uninstalled without rooting or use of a fairly complicated procedure

using adb. With my Android 11 phone, I cannot even disable it. I can
force it to stop, but as soon as I tap on the iPlayer app sign-in it
causes Chrome to restart.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, could I refer you to the BBC's
"Privacy Notice" (at <https://www.bbc.co.uk/usingthebbc/privacy/>). This
starts with "We take your privacy very seriously. And so should you.".
In that case, it seems ironic that Chrome is forced upon iPlayer app
users as it is well accepted to be the most privacy-invasive browser
around. Perhaps you could explain why the iPlayer app's privacy notice
at
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/help/questions/about-bbc-iplayer-and-our-policies/app-privacy-notice>
is different, and does not include the "We take your privacy very
seriously. And so should you." statement (which, strangely enough, opens
in Firefox, not Chrome, from the iPlayer app).

I do take my privacy seriously, which is why I have raised this issue
with you. I can sign-in to other Android apps without using Chrome, and
should be able to do it with the iPlayer app."

You'd expect the BBC to have *one* privacy statement covering all their
activities. It seems very odd that there is a specific one for iPlayer.

--

Jeff

[MB]

On 06/07/2022 11:24, Martin wrote:
> Apparently the Welsh, Northern Irish and the North of England don't like it
> either.

And many of the Scot don't like being ruled by a bunch of crooks in
Edinburgh, similarly many Welsh don't like Cardiff etc etc.

[Java Jive]

So you keep claiming, as usual without providing any evidence
whatsoever, whereas in actual fact the SNP have had the largest share of
the popular vote in Scotland for a significantly long time now, which
proves beyond doubt that you're wrong.

More generally, the fact that you feel you just have to keep preaching
your personal political biases thereby degenerating every thread you can
into a sewer for your own shit reveals you to be a bigoted ignorant
dumbfucker with little in the way of good manners and even less sense.

[Jeff Layman]

On 07/07/2022 10:43, Martin wrote:

> I look forward to seeing their response.

Came in today:

"You do not need to uninstall Chrome, you can simply disable it. If you
cannot disable it like you said, then that is something you have to take
up with the manufacturer, as it's not something we can help you with
unfortunately.

The first privacy page you listed is a collection of all the privacy
FAQs specifically related to the BBC account. The 2nd page you listed is
a single FAQ dedicated for the BBC app's privacy notice so this is why
they are not identical.

We appreciate the information about the Custom Tabs feature being
supported on most Android browsers. I will make sure this feedback gets
seen on our dedicated feedback reports for iPlayer and this gets seen by
the iPlayer Product Team."

I doubt the BBC understands how pervasive Chrome is, and how difficult
it is to stop it nosing into everything, especially if their apps make
its use de rigueur. I suppose the final paragraph might introduce a
possibility of opening the iPlayer app to other browsers, but I'm not
holding my breath. I'm also rather puzzled by the "privacy" statements
explanation. Is there a question (FAQ or otherwise) on the iPlayer
privacy page I linked to? It still doesn't explain why there needs to be
two separate statements.

> Very good!!

>>
>> You'd expect the BBC to have *one* privacy statement covering all their
>> activities. It seems very odd that there is a specific one for iPlayer.
>

> They probably use Chrome themselves. Insisting that users use Chrome too, saves
> them from testing their software with other browsers. Their testing is less than
> 100% like most software nowadays.

They probably just want to see if what they want to do works with
Chrome. If it does, that's all they need to know as it has such a large
share of the browser market.

--

Jeff

[Andy Burns]

Jeff Layman wrote:

> I doubt the BBC understands how pervasive Chrome is, and how difficult it is to
> stop it nosing into everything, especially if their apps make its use de rigueur.

In the past, devices had a separate component AndroidSystemWebView which was a
separate minimal functionality browser that could be embedded in apps.

<https://developer.android.com/reference/android/webkit/WebView>

Eventually, around android v4.4, Google got fed-up of maintaining Webview as
well as Chrome, so Webview became Chromium based just like Chrome is Chromium
based (whether or not webview has access to the Chrome's cookies etc, I don't
know, hopefully not).

If the BBC is not prepared to use the user's preferred browser, they could use
Webview in all cases, the fact that they prefer to use Chrome, and only
fall-back to Webview if Chrome is disabled probably tells you that they can link
more data from cookies etc about a user's viewing habits with general
web-browsing across phones/tablets/desktops :-(

[Jeff Layman]

Sadly, that appears to be the case. So much for "we take your privacy
very seriously"!

--

Jeff

[Indy Jess John]

On 06/07/2022 11:22, Martin wrote:

> UK was never ruled from Brussels

Technically correct but in practice it made no difference. There was
legislation passed in John Major's time as PM which said (paraphrasing)
where UK law and EU regulations differ, the EU ones take precedence.

That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with
the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was
found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU Directive.

He was ruled by Brussels, because of a UK law.

Jim

[Java Jive]

On 10/07/2022 21:23, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 06/07/2022 11:22, Martin wrote:
>>
>> UK was never ruled from Brussels
>
> Technically correct but in practice it made no difference.  There was
> legislation passed in John Major's time as PM which said (paraphrasing)
> where UK law and EU regulations differ, the EU ones take precedence.

Exactly, he broke a *UK* law that by *DEMOCRATIC* choice of the *UK
PARLIAMENT* gave precedence to Brussels on this particular issue.

> That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with
> the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was
> found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU Directive.

Bloody good thing too - Imperial weights and measures and the old
non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their mathematics,
being too complicated to do in one's head, very often required pen and
paper. No-one I know misses either. An old family friend found that
after decimalisation she became able to work out her 'divvies' whereas
previously it had been beyond her. I use SI units for everything except
distances and road-speed, because all the sign-posts are still in miles,
so there would be no benefit in learning to use kilometres, but if they
were changed, so would I.

The idea that we should all have to return to these archaic systems from
the unscientific dark ages because of subservience to the religion that
is Brexshit is clear proof of the irrationality of the whole goddamned
bag of lies, and that it is indeed, just a religion.

> He was ruled by Brussels, because of a UK law.

Exactly, he broke a *UK* law that by *DEMOCRATIC* choice of the *UK
PARLIAMENT* gave precedence to Brussels on this particular issue, and
was therefore rightly convicted.

[Indy Jess John]

Actually, he complied with UK law, because the Weights and Measures Act
was still extant and it required prices to be quoted per pound. That was
his defence, which the Supreme Court ruled was inadmissible.

Also it wasn't a democratic choice. It was a condition of accepting the
Maastricht Treaty.

Before he signed the Maatricht Treaty John Major had promised the UK
people that any loss of sovereignty would be put to them in a
referendum. He signed the treaty which surrendered our right to govern
ourselves unless we followed the EU expectations, and then when his
party tried to keep him to his referendum promise he threatened them
that they either endorsed the Treaty in Parliament or he would call an
immediate General Election and warned them that a significant proportion
of them would lose their seats if he did. His rebels gave in and
approved the legislation including the clause that I referred to.

No one would realistically call that a democratic choice. That was
legislation passed under duress.

After that, EU regulations were rubber stamped in Parliament without
discussion, because that preserved the myth that Parliament was still
important. In fact if none of the regulations had been put to
Parliament, they would still have been operative.

Jim

[Java Jive]

But he didn't comply with *ALL RELEVANT* UK law, and that was the point.

> Also it wasn't a democratic choice.  It was a condition of accepting the
> Maastricht Treaty.

It was a democratic choice to ratify the Maastricht Treaty.

> Before he signed the Maatricht Treaty John Major had promised the UK
> people that any loss of sovereignty would be put to them in a
> referendum. He signed the treaty which surrendered our right to govern
> ourselves unless we followed the EU expectations, and then when his
> party tried to keep him to his referendum promise he threatened them
> that they either endorsed the Treaty in Parliament or he would call an
> immediate General Election and warned them that a significant proportion
> of them would lose their seats if he did.  His rebels gave in and
> approved the legislation including the clause that I referred to.
>
> No one would realistically call that a democratic choice.  That was
> legislation passed under duress.

Like the farce that's going on at the moment with candidates promising
tax cuts, that they all know very well the country cannot afford, to
attain the leadership of the Conservative Party, that's the way UK
'democracy' works. If you don't think that was a democratic choice,
then why are you and others always comparing the EU's governance to that
of the UK, and complaining that the EU is much less democratic than the
UK? It seems to me that implicitly and unwittingly you are admitting
that the EU's governance is actually more democratic than the UK's!

[Roderick Stewart]

On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 22:16:03 +0100, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>> That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with
>> the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was
>> found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU Directive.
>
>Bloody good thing too - Imperial weights and measures and the old
>non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their mathematics,
>being too complicated to do in one's head, very often required pen and
>paper.

I can remember spending pocket money on sweets measured in ounces and
getting change that sometimes included ha'pennies and farthings, and
having no bother with any of it. We were taught about all this in
school. Calculators hadn't been invented yet so we used our brains.

Now that we've all got calculators, does anyone ever do any difficult
sums in their heads? Why does it make any difference how complicated
the calculations are if you don't have to do them at all because you
have a machine to do them for you?

Rod.

[Norman Wells]

Have you tried multiplying £3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?

[Roderick Stewart]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:41:54 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

No, but we used to do calculations of that type in school *without*
calculators. We used pencil and paper, and our own brains.

A much more common type of calculation was simply adding up the total
of what was being spent on items in a shop. The shopkeepers would do
this using the same skills that everyone was routinely taught in
school, often totting up the items on a notepad on the counter in
front of you, so there was nothing to stop you checking their working
as they went, if you wanted to, reading it upside down of course. We
just got used to this way of working because that's the way it was.

Then cheap calculators became available and we all got lazy.

Rod.

[Indy Jess John]

True democracy is when the people say what they want rather than
trusting politicians. They voted not to give Scotland independence, yet
there is a party in government in Scotland who refuse to accept this
("Lets keep trying until we get the answer we want"); and the people
voted to leave the EU, which was followed by *years* of Parliamentary
resistance to that result and there is still a sizeable proportion of
MPs who want to reverse that decision. That's also the way UK
'democracy' works, and it stinks.

>  If you don't think that was a democratic choice,
> then why are you and others always comparing the EU's governance to that
> of the UK, and complaining that the EU is much less democratic than the
> UK?  It seems to me that implicitly and unwittingly you are admitting
> that the EU's governance is actually more democratic than the UK's!
>

You are going off at a tangent. Read what I said above. I made no
comment whatever on the EU's governance.

Jim

[Indy Jess John]

£50 18s 7d

Jim

[Figaro]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:06:44 +0100, Indy Jess John
<bathwa...@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

>> Have you tried multiplying £3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?
>>
>>
>£50 18s 7d
>
>Jim

??? 3x17=51

[Indy Jess John]

Yes. I hit the wrong key on the calculator and only spotted it just
after I sent it, but I left it in to see if anyone noticed.

The correct answer is £62 16s 7d

Give yourself a pat on the back :-)

Jim

[Norman Wells]

On 11/07/2022 11:32, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:41:54 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/07/2022 08:32, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 22:16:03 +0100, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with
>>>>> the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was
>>>>> found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU Directive.
>>>>
>>>> Bloody good thing too - Imperial weights and measures and the old
>>>> non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their mathematics,
>>>> being too complicated to do in one's head, very often required pen and
>>>> paper.
>>>
>>> I can remember spending pocket money on sweets measured in ounces and
>>> getting change that sometimes included ha'pennies and farthings, and
>>> having no bother with any of it. We were taught about all this in
>>> school. Calculators hadn't been invented yet so we used our brains.
>>>
>>> Now that we've all got calculators, does anyone ever do any difficult
>>> sums in their heads? Why does it make any difference how complicated
>>> the calculations are if you don't have to do them at all because you
>>> have a machine to do them for you?
>>
>> Have you tried multiplying £3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?
>
> No, but we used to do calculations of that type in school *without*
> calculators. We used pencil and paper, and our own brains.

I think that was the point. These things don't exist any more. Well,
pencils and paper do, obviously, but not the other.

[Jeff Layman]

On 11/07/2022 13:54, Norman Wells wrote:

>> No, but we used to do calculations of that type in school *without*
>> calculators. We used pencil and paper, and our own brains.
>
> I think that was the point. These things don't exist any more. Well,
> pencils and paper do, obviously, but not the other.

Were you referring to £sd or brains?

--

Jeff

[Jeff Layman]

On 11/07/2022 13:17, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 11/07/2022 12:26, Figaro wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:06:44 +0100, Indy Jess John
>> <bathwa...@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Have you tried multiplying £3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> £50 18s 7d
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>> ??? 3x17=51
>>
> Yes. I hit the wrong key on the calculator and only spotted it just
> after I sent it, but I left it in to see if anyone noticed.

Are you Capt Mainwaring?

> The correct answer is £62 16s 7d
>
> Give yourself a pat on the back :-)
>
> Jim

--

Jeff

[Norman Wells]

On 11/07/2022 13:17, Indy Jess John wrote:

That just illustrates the point that we've lost our ability to apply
common sense checking to whatever a calculator or computer says.

[williamwright]

On 11/07/2022 09:41, Norman Wells wrote:

If I were buying 17 I'd want them for £3 10s.

Bill