BBC under fire over mobile app plans

Murdoch vs BBC

Lol. Considering I already pay the TV licence, I don't mind BBC providing more services for the cash.

By Lomskij on 19 Feb 2010

If they 'trample over the aspirations of commercial news providers' then that could be a good thing. If there are other companies out there who's app sales suffer because the BBC put out something better, then boo-hoo.

Apple did the same thing to mobile phone manufacturers which meant that everyone else had to step up their game.

By daniel_gough on 19 Feb 2010

Not for proprietary systems

I have no problem with the Android version but i'm not happy about the iPhone version.

The BBC should not support closed systems like the iPhone OS. Android, WinMo and Symbian are OK as you can buy hardware from any number of manufactures but to focus development on an application that will only work on hardware bought from Apple seems wrong to me.

By JStairmand on 19 Feb 2010

Windows and Mac OS?

These are both proprietary OSs as well, yet the Beeb have created the iPlayer for Windows. So long as the BBC doesn't just support one platform, I don't see the problem.

By Trippynet on 19 Feb 2010

I cannot see the problem. The BBC will offer unbiased content unlike anything from Murdoch.

By Amnesia10 on 19 Feb 2010

Windows and Mac OS?

Of course, perhaps that was a bad word to use. You can buy a PC from HP, Sony, Acer, Dell etc etc, same as Android and Windows mobile you can buy the hardware from HTC, Google, LG etc.

However to use any iPhone apps you have to buy an Apple iPhone.

By JStairmand on 19 Feb 2010

And to add

I would say I would have less of a problem with it if the BBC were to develop Android, Symbian and Windows mobile version before starting on the iPhone edition.

By JStairmand on 19 Feb 2010

How daft!

This move from the BBC has been long overdue and is very welcome.

The NPAs reaction is daftness in the extreme. Surely if the commercial new services feel threatened then they should look to provide something better than the BBC. If they can't then more fool them.

The BBC news site is the best, their Apps will probably be some of the best too. It's what we expect and want. We pay for it!

By sixhundred on 19 Feb 2010

What do thery expect...

The snoozpapers have had plenty of time to do this over the last couple of years yet they've done nothing. BBC has probably been sitting on its waiting and still nothing! well boo-hoo if the BBC now does it first.

By darkhairedlord on 19 Feb 2010

What a shame! Never mind!!

"trample over the aspirations of commercial news providers"

Translation: Stop commercial news providers from being able to rip off the consumers with over priced apps!

Good on the BBC, I can't wait.

By omnisvalidus on 19 Feb 2010

One news provider to rule them all

The BBC's funding is a double-edged sword; it may well give commercial independence but it also means potential domination of the markets it joins, particularly small ones. The BBC isn't apolitical.

By paulandrews on 19 Feb 2010

Windows and Mac OS?

These are both proprietary OSs as well, yet the Beeb have created the iPlayer for Windows. So long as the BBC doesn't just support one platform, I don't see the problem.

By Trippynet on 19 Feb 2010

God forbid they compete with the little guy!

Like Fox, CNN, Sky...

By cheysuli on 19 Feb 2010

Remember the iPlayer furore???

I remember when the iPlayer was launched and was initially Windows only - oh the outcry from the Apple and Linux zealots. Isn't this the same thing? If they are developing an iPhone app I will be expecting them to do the same for Windows Mobile, Android, Symbian, Maemo and any others I've forgotten. Just to be fair and have a level playing field and all

By everton2004 on 19 Feb 2010

What's the fuss??

Firstly, to those going on about cross-platform availability, the article above states "the BBC announced that it was developing apps for smartphones including Android and the iPhone" that clearly demonstrates the intention of the BBC to make the new service available to as many as possible. After all, it is in the BBC's interest to see it's apps in use on several platforms.

The BBC is in a unique position to offer leading edge services such as this, partly due to the subsidisation by the licence fee payer. However, I feel the Beeb offers pretty good value for money, several commercial free TV channels, dozens of ad-free radio stations around the world, a fantastic website, possibly the biggest and most informative in the world, across a range of different issues, the amazing iPlayer service, which incidentally it has licenced to C4 and ITV and is working hard to provide a cross-channel version for all free to air stations, the list goes on.

It is right that the BBC lead the way in this area, it is very unlikely that many people would actually pay for news to b delevered to their phone, when you can get it free via radio, which many phones have now and free via 24 hour TV. I read newspapers like the Times online and for free. I feel the days of paid-for news provision in any form is coming to an end, papers like the Independent already have free news apps for the iPhone so why not one from the BBC too?

By karpasea on 20 Feb 2010

"Proprietary" or not is an irrelevance

The BBC's remit is to serve the licence payer, so it should be supporting the most popularly used platforms - whether they are proprietary or not is utterly irrelevant.

By halsteadk on 20 Feb 2010

Spirit of the Internet

The BBC in effect are following the spirit of the Internet, which is to make information and content free to all who live in the UK.

If we consider that virtually everytime the BBC want to take advantage of current technology to enhance or improve their services, there is usually an outcry from so-called impartial bodies, that clearly always take a view from a commercial point of view.

Rupert Murdoch's recent stance that he is now going to charge for his news content, and News Corp's surprising attacks on Google for indexing their news sites, or in their words, 'stealing' from their wesbites; it is clear there is an increasing gap for their to be an impartial provider of high quality, free news.

I do not think this debate should be over what phone platform will be supported, I know the Beeb will develop for what devices the majority of are using, and more importantly can support their content in a stable and smooth manner - there is little point in developing for platforms, like say a Blackberry, if the phone was not designed for that sort of thing in the first place.

We pay our license fee, and we should get something back for it, and the BBC in my opinion always deliver, they are normally delayed and hindered in the first place to quick off whatever initiatives they set out to do, but in the end, they always do deliver.

In the cases of the commercial sites, they get money from subscribers who pay far more for their content than a simple license fee, and if we consider all of their other revenue streams like advertising, exclusive access to premier sports and so on, they are the last people who should moan or cry foul; they have a steady income and it is safe, and I hazard to guess that if the BBC had step into those same commercial water and follow the same business models, they would do a far better job of it.

Sky and all of its sister publications in the UK takes cheap shots at the BBC all of the time, and try get the public to have an outcry whenever they do something, the irony is when most of the public agree with the BBC and want what the BBC have to offer, and the public most certainly do not feel sorry for any global media organisation when their revenue stream is threatened, why should we, they earn enough, right?

By tymitoh on 22 Feb 2010

"In the cases of the commercial sites, they get money from subscribers who pay far more for their content than a simple license fee" But its my option to pay for other services, whereas I'm forced to subsidise a BBC service I don't use.

By chapelgarth on 22 Feb 2010

That old chestnut. Perhaps you won't appreciate the value of the BBC until is gone or stripped down to a bunch of out-source production companies? When there is no profit motive behind an organisation's existence, like the BEEB, you then do not have to worry too much about whose opinion is being rammed down your throat, or worse, which advertisers they have to pander to or avoid reflecting negatively in investigative reporting. I gladly pay the license fee, because there is tangible benefits behind it. I have lived in countries where you have to pay a license fee, the public broadcaster advertises, and is nothing more than a mouthpiece for their government, and would not dare report on anything controversial or challenge perceptions. I am not employee of the BBC, nor anyone working there by the way; I just get more bang for my buck paying a small license fee than I have done for any of the pay TV services I have used in the past... both Virgin and SKY.

I prefer BBC news to say SKY's, because there is no political agenda behind it. We only have to look at Fox news in the states to get a glimpse of what depth's Murdoch's 'reporters' will stoop to.

The BBC's biggest critic is after all News Corp, and I suspectthey are behind this recent furore, don't you.

Back to the main point though, you pay your fee, you gain tangible benefit from it. There are dozens of other compulsory charges, taxes, tolls or otherwise where you can;t claim the same.

By tymitoh on 23 Feb 2010