ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½

Great point and that's the key principle behind universal design, rather than just "accessible" design.

You're not designing for "disabled" people, you're designing for everyone.

We put it like this on our site, "Accessibility, now everyone's invited"

Designers need to think about the context in which their content is consumed, whether it be through a PC, slow dial-up, through a PDA, an older computer with an older browser, through an RSS reader.

Apple Mac users may be small in number but we care about our media. It is to the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½'s credit and good reputation that so far the bcc.co.uk websites and players work equally well among diverse platforms. If you don't make the iPlayer work on Macs we will be excluded from using it. In my eyes, and those of the Mac community, the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½'s reputation would be diminished. Please do not let this happen.

It's not just a question of if the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ delivers Mac support it's also a question of when. I don't think the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ should ship the Windows version until cross platform support is in the bag. I also thinkl that the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ shouldn't have chosen a Microsoft solution, they should have gone with the industry standard H264 Mpeg4 format. I also think access should be linked to the TV licence serial number to give people purchasing insentive. I will be so pissed off if download accress is restricted geographically, because keeping up with TV while abroad is one of the best things about on demand TV access.

I strongly feel that programme access should not be restricted to one platform, the more so because the BCC is a public servive broadcaster. Windows, Mac OS and Linux should all be supported. The ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ should not disadvantage some users whose viewing platforms otherwise suits them well.

Initially I was very happy to hear about the iPlayer. It sounds like the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ have taken a leaf out of Apples' book. What AMAZED me though on further reading, that it is NOT even accessible if you use a Mac.

This surprised me greatly, as in the past, the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ themselves used mainly Macs in production.

The main thing is that the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ are a public service company, and therefore should be accessible to ALL. Excluding a (fair) proportion of there viewers just because we do not use the Widows platform is not acceptable at all.

Come on ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½, you are a Public broadcasting company, broadcast to ALL YOUR PUBLIC.

At a time when many organisations are moving to use open standards it is disappointing that the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ should consider using a proprietary Microsoft technology which is anything but open. MPEG4 (H264) is the way to go.

And considering Microsoft's proven monopolistic activities they don't seem a very appropriate partner for a 'public service' ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½.

Please remember that Macintosh users pay the same license fee as PC users. This public service should be available to all license payers.

You should be aware that the 4% figure is for all computers purchased. Most educational and commercial institutions have a Windows-only policy, forcing Mac/Linux users onto Windows machines. At home, these people buy other machines and so the proportion of users who would rather not be using Windows is higher than your 4% figure would suggest.

Secondly, as the largest website in the UK, I would be greatly endeared if the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ could provide some statistics about visitor origins, platforms and preferred languages. As a small UK-based web developer myself I would love to see the most accurate figures in the country about British web users! (And I suppose foreign ones too :o)

On the issue of codecs raised by another commentor, My order of preference (I only have access to Macs, and I work from home) would be bandwidth-based: prefer H.264, but RealVideo works just fine in the mean time. I would love to see the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ offering Dirac-encoded content too!

By the way, what did you mean by "traditional access groups"? That would be the subset of humans with internet access, right?

This is disgusting behaviour from the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ and the government. They copy Apple's phrasing by calling the iPlayer but don't support Mac, and they expect us to pay the same licence fee for the priviledge of being outcassed. I expected more - knowing this government's reputation for computer systems it probably won't work anyway!

I agree with many of the above comments about open access. I also believe if you exclude PCs at work, laptops etc the number of home based users and licence fee payers who require access to content it is well above the 4% figure quoted.

Not wanting to get involved in any 'religious' debate, I somehow feel this is also the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ favouring an external commercial organisation by mandating access via only one software platform to the sole benefit of that provider.

If ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ sourced/negotiated content is available across all platforms and 3rd party content (which may have more restrictions applied on use and mandate certain DRM etc) than at least there is some compromise - to exclude all non MS users (and I believe it may be high spec/recent software configs) would indicate failings not just in technology, but also negotiation of rights...

phew, glad to get that off my chest!

I am absolutely disgusted by the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½'s decision not to support Mac's. This is discrimination on behalf of the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ towards the Mac community and has very much changed my perspective and opinion of the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ for the worst!

To alienate a sector of society like this is unfair and dare I say it possibly unlawful.

SHAME ON YOU ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½!!!!!!!!

I USED to respect you!!

This is unfair distribution of the product that the public pays for. Many mac users will want the choice to view programs from the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ (which i stress they have paid for), when they want just as Microsoft users will. the choice to limit the service to Microsoft users not only disadvantages groups of the public that may not have access to a Microsoft PC it also promotes unfair business competition that people may be influenced into the decision to use Microsoft products rather than others because of services like this being made exclusively for them, which was recently highlighted as a problem with Microsoft by the European Union. As a public service broadcaster the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ should cater for minority groups including groups which do not use windows software. also recent surveys from various institutions (includeing the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½) are highlighting Microsoft's large drop in operating systems sales whilst Apple computers have been showing massive increases for many years.

I also support the vote for the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ to use the industry standard H264 Mpeg4 format rather than the closed Windows Media standard. Technically, the H264 Mpeg4 format has many advantages over the use of Windows Media so it will be beneficial for everyone regardless of operating system.

It annoys when it is suggested that MAC support is the only thing missing. Linux is arguably more important as a reference platform - generally if something can be supported on Linux it is easy for it to be supported on Windows and OS-X. The ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ are forcing people to use a single companies operating system to access their content - I hope Microsoft is paying the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ for helping push their OS on consumers .....

Dear ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½,

DISGUSTED! What more can I say. You've got the audacity to steal the name that suggests a MAC compatible product and Ooops... NO MACS HERE! That will be the last licence fee payment you will ever get from me if this is situation not rectified now. You’ll then be free to climb back into bed with your beloved MS users… Public service company – I think not.

Forget the sterile Mac/PC discussion. The ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ should take a fresh look at its policy on streaming video which, frankly, has been cockeyed for some time. Most media sources offer net access via a choice of players, usually Windows Media Player and QuickTime rather than the quirky and often intrusive RealPlayer. What's needed is a policy that is inclusive and supportive of users rather than one that reflects the preferences of techies. Some wonderful media material is available through ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ websites and its should be available for all. Choice is the key.

As the technology guy at 18 Doughty Street Talk TV I can understand the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½s woes on Mac compatibility. We have had similar problems. But, we were able to make the decision that the cost of implementing a Mac-friendly solution was one that we could not afford at this time. One factor in this was the small market share. We hope that the industry does work something out that provides affordable solutions to broadcasters like 18 Doughty Street and the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½.

I'm very disappointed. I took a great deal of time and effort during the public consultation to explain why cross-platform compatability was important from techological, accessibility and political/ethical points of view. It appears this time and effort has been discarded.

This has quite seriously damaged my opinion of the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½. Of all large organisations, the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ was the one for which I had most respect for being impartial, fair-minded and having the proper level of consideration for its users.

After all this, knowing that I will be paying through my license fee to subsidise a product I cannot use, to the benefit of a large commercial organisation that already has a substantial and often abused monopoly in this area is extremely galling. Unless, of course, a discount on the license fee is to be offered to non-Microsoft users until such time as the Trust's six-monthly review of "platform neutrality" bears fruit.

Shame on you.

I can't believe that the iPlayer is not for OS X. I switched from MS to Mac only 5 months ago!

Why should platform be an issue? There are plenty of cross platform options to consider and it seems pretty obvious it's better to use an 'off the shelf' method of distribution for TV programs (I have no trouble getting MANY ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ shows illegally using bittorrent). I hope this is not going to be a repeat of the very stupid choice of realplayer for the radio playback.

The ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ has given good reason why tv will only be able on Windows - I suspect few other commenters have read it.

Internet programming such as this must be encrypted with DRM so that it expires otherwise people will download every show that becomes available and keep it for years. Only Microsoft's DRM is suitable.

The issue of DRM is just playing along with microsoft's monopoly with a 2nd rate product. Hopefully, with the advent of vista more people will be moving to linux etc. Shame the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ is planning to block all those sane people from its services.

Well if the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ are worried about DRM, why not just offer the shows for FREE through iTunes then? Making them play once only or something.

I am sure if the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½, Apple, Microsoft, ITV, CH4 etc etc all got their heads together they could come up with a fair open standard.

Perhaps content should only be available to tv licence holders. What about using Flash video? or JOOST?

Bottom line is though, I ditched windows and I refuse to go back, so sort it out. Maybe Microsoft should be forced by our government to release their DRM for the Mac? After all Apple enabled window users to play with their iPods on the Windoze platform!

In response to Dave (07 May 2007):

I read the FAQ you reference in great detail. I read the public consultation documents in great detail, and provided very detailed responses. I see little evidence in the above posts that "few other commenters have read it." That they disagree with its conclusions does not mean they have not read it.

There are a number of things about the reasoning offered in the FAQ that I find odd:

* The ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ or the trust is concerned about the cost of streaming programmes but not concerned about using the license fee to pay for a DRM scheme that specifically excludes a subset of license fee payers. In other words, the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ is concerned about total cost, like a commercial organisation would be, rather than providing cost-effective service to its users, like a public service organisation would be.

* The ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ or the trust can invest time, effort and license-fee payers' money in developing custom player software but not in its own DRM system to complement that bespoke player.

* The ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ or the trust argue that they must prevent programmes from being kept for longer than 7 days but make no reference to the fact that VHS and, more importantly, DVD and PVR recordings can very easily be kept for longer periods. These last two are particularly important here because they make digital recordings of broadcast programs and as such somewhat undermine the viability of efforts to restrict the longevity of similar digital recordings through other means (i.e. iPlayer programmes).

* The trust "considered the argument that it is possible to provide content under an open licence and still realise its commercial value. It regards the business models for this approach to be unclear at present." It provides no argument or evidence to support this position. If the trust has considered this proposition, it ought to be able to provide some rationale for why it was considered inappropriate. Some extremely large and successful organisations - such as IBM, Hewlett-Packard and Intel - are successfully using open licensing and realising the commercial value of their products.

I honestly believe that the trust and the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ have made the wrong decision here, and one which breaches the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½'s mission. A significant number of people who pay for the license fee will not be able to use the services their money is paying for, and this is by design not by accident: the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ or Trust has recognised that they are excluding people and has chosen not to adopt alternatives that would obviate this problem and to go ahead and exclude them anyway. Similarly, there are those - I know two personally - who do not pay the license fee (because they do not own a television) but who will nonetheless be able to make use of the on-demand services over the internet. So in effect I, and all the others who will be excluded from this service, will end up paying for these other people to use it. It's like being forced to pay your neighbour's telephone bill while the telephone company refuses to install a phone line to your house.

So yes, I have read the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ and the trust's reasons and find them lacking.

Incidentally, do not confuse encryption and DRM, they are not the same thing. Encryption is a means by which two ends of a communication can send and receive content with a very high likelihood that no-one else who is listening to the conversation will be able to actually figure out what is being sent. DRM is a means by which the use of content that has already made it to its destination can be restricted according to various criteria, including longevity. Your confusion of these two technologies leads me to believe that your statement that "only Microsoft's DRM is suitable" is not one based on a detailed understanding of the subject matter. If it is, I would be very interested in a summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the various DRM technologies that are currently available, as I'm sure would the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ and the Trust.

Well, when you bear in mind:

that the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ has just appointed a Microsoft man "to a key post in the division responsible for the roll out of its iPlayer online media initiative" then it should be of no surprise that

a) the Trust has forgotten its mission, or been won over by ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ realpolitik
b) the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ or M$oft bedfellows thru-and-thru
c) the licence fee should be revoked immediately and the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ left to fend for itself because, quite clearly,
d) through the pursuit of its cross-cultural aspirations the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ has lost sight of its native BRITISH origins

Thanks for some very interesting comments, Darren Hatherley's have been particularly clear.

Now I'm not a DRM fan myself. In a recent (I'm taking part in the trial), I made a similar point, in relation to the banning of non-DRM podcasts of classical music and books, as Darren's third point - about the ability to keep VHS, DVD and PVR recordings (or recordings from live radio including DAB) indefinitely.

However I think the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ management aren't necessarily the villains some people make them out to be. In fact (in agreement with , who said as much at a meet a while back), I think the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½'s generally pretty forward-thinking and visionary, and supportive of things like Creative Commons (witness the Creative Archive) and open licences.

But I believe the problem is that the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ aren't the only ones involved - they need to clear rights with third parties too, and I suspect it's the third parties who are insisting on DRM before they'll allow their content to be available on catchup TV etc. Rather than not be able to offer VOD at all, I suspect the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ has had no choice but to agree.

And if WMP 10 is the only product which can manage downloaded files and licenses in the way the third parties require, then the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ had no choice but to use it, or else defer rolling out iPlayer altogether until they got a non-Microsoft alternative working.

Given that they're already behind in the launch of VOD services compared with commercial broadcasters like Channel 4 etc, I can understand why they'd rather press ahead and initially support Windows only, which at least a fair number of licence payers will be able to benefit from, but with a commitment to provide Mac/Linux support ASAP.

There's one area where third party rights wouldn't block DRM-free podcasts, namely classical music which is out of copyright and where the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ produces the recordings internally so they wouldn't need to negotiate any rights. And in that area, the Beeb did want to offer non-DRM podcasts. However, the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ Trust succumbed to pressure from the record industry and disallowed this, but the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ Executive were quite vocal in disagreeing with this decision, as I mentioned in my ).

So I wouldn't heap all the blame on the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ at all - it's third party rights holders and the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ Trust who I think are more responsible for the imposition of DRM and the complete banning of certain content.

I hope the linux community will develop a system that overcomes the limitations you have imposed. I have been a ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ listener/watcher for many years, and feel betrayed. First it was shortwave, and now it is this. It's not on. To hell with the creeping commercialism of the beeb.

The "Macs are estimated to account for about 4% of the market..." Working for the media you will be well aware of the nature of dis-information - I would suggest you actually find out what percentage of your target market are not Microsoft Windows users rather than relying on a MS funded rumour. Catch the train some time and see how many laptops are macs (38% Sheffield/London) Then consider your stereotype informed Radio 4 listener - 80% macs I bet. And then there are the Linux users (OS of choice for the $100 laptop targeting all of the third world). But market size is not the point. ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ as a government institution _ought_ to support open standards as a matter of principle rather than encouraging the American monopoly on information.

It is ironic that music is moving away from DRM at a time that the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ is advocating a non-inclusive version of DRM.

Online video streaming should be all inclusive and I hope the EU stops the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ from implementing the use of the iPlayer for as long as it remains non-inclusive.

I wonder how many M$ lobbyists it took to coerce the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ into this one.

And worse still we find there is one of the evil empire lurking around inside the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½. Scary, very scary.

Open standards for media are more important now that ever before.

M$ has been hoodwinking the worlds computer users into their substandard technologies for so long now that most just don't see whats happening.

Windows is steadily losing market share largely due to the rise of unix variants on the desktop & laptop. Windows still plays 2nd fiddle to unix in the server market lets hope for our sake it remains that way.

For those who don't know
Mac OS X and Linux are unix variants

I have long respected the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½, but to force upon people the use of substandard technology is just not acceptable.

A 24-month time frame to build an OS X version is ludicrous.
Its a media player, not a new operating system.

Hire some decent OSS Agile developers
to create a true cross platform solution. I am sure Apple and Linux vendors will be happy to assist.

I am seeing many people form many walks of life migrating to Mac and Linux after many years of frustration
with windows. The momentum is excellent.

I regard macbook/pro (or a perhaps a Dell with Ubuntu Linux) as the new symbol of a thinker in a world of technology sheep.

Boycott M$ for the sake of sanity.

"For web designers, the Mac is the computer of choice."

I now loads of web designers (I myself am one) and none of them use MACs...

Where did this glib quote of 'fact' come from?

"For web designers, the Mac is the computer of choice."

I don't know what the basis is for this assertion. I am yet to meet a web designer who uses a Mac. I'm sure they exist, but that doesn't make the Mac a tool of choice for 'web designers'. It would be delightful for someone from the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ to finally base their statements on proven research, not make them up.

If the iPlayer (and whoever called it that should be shot) is not ported to the Mac and *nix platforms very soon, then hackers will take matters in to their own hands and circumvent the DRM protection. Nobody has yet managed to design an unbreakable system and I see no reason why the iPlayer should be the first. In effect, the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½'s resources and effort will have been completely wasted and the service will have to be withdrawn.

As a Slackware user myself I am increasingly frustrated by the marginalising of minority users who have paid the same license fee as Windows users yet are receiving a depreciated service in return. Why should we continue to fund such a short-sighted corporation? I don't have a problem with DRM, but I do have a problem with being shunted aside as a user who doesn't count.

Minority users of operating systems - and I am counting Mac and the major *nix variants as mainstream systems - are being treated as second-class citizens. Developing a portable, cross-platform system should be a priority, not an afterthough, and if the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ took this seriously now they would not have to spend the next two years duplicating it for the Mac.

The corporation, as an impartial broadcaster, has no right to endorse one operating system over another. There is no excuse for failing to write cross-platform applications. Heads would roll if the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ dared to suggest that its programme distribution should be based on race; this dispute is no different.

Your DRM is not going to save you.

It's not only the Mac.

Yet again I'm disappointed with the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½'s anti-Mac and anti-opensource policy.

Firstly. the attitude of their IT/Technology programs is predominately Microsoft-centric. Probably down to laziness as much as anything. Secondly, the lockin on Windows Media Player/Realplayer to watch or list to broadcasts and now the Microsoft lockin with iPlayer.

It's not going to happen.
Mac ain't ever going to get the iplayer if M$ are responsible for it's development. It's as Simple as that.
How the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ let themselves become a Hammer for a commercial giant like Microsoft to smash a blow against Apple - it's ONLY true competitor in the free world - I'll never know.
Stupid isn't the word - corrupt perhaps ?. It is at the very minimum a conscious and deliberate exclusion of a group numbering MILLIONS of people - not a few dozen or a few hundred thousand but MILLIONS!

Anyway, there is no way I'm going to give up on mac just to watch some ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ content on line and regretably you can almost guarantee it'll be a flawed delivery protocol which will most likely be beyond the use of most people.

At the very least they should offer Apple a bone and allow them to offer Apple users ( and PC users for that matter) a viewing method via their Apple TV product. It's the VERY least they should do!.

The ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ are not the only guilty parties. Channel 4 and Channel 5 both also follow the Microsoft party line claiming that it is their programme providers who dictate Microsoft DRM while failing to state just who these providers are so that us Mac users can lobby them.

Smacks to me of corruption and/or laziness on the part of them all. Let's face it..it isn't ever going to happen. Us Mac users are out on a limb and it won't get resolved. Maybe that's one of the reasons behind Jobs' push for non-DRM?

Complaining to OFCOM or the EEC reveal a total lack of interest in what is effectively commercial restrictive practices.

Macs are not supported by Learn Direct (The government supported online education scheme) and now not by the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½.
Any connection?
I'm fuming!

I'm lucky (?) enough to also have a Windows PC in the house. I find that in the real world it sometimes makes things easier, even though my computer of choice has always been a Mac. I have used the PC for both the Sky and Channel 4 services and have subsequently uninstalled both. Neither has flagged up the fact that in order to use them you will also be downloading a bit of peer-to-peer software called Kontiki. I'm wondering if this will also apply to iPlayer? This insidious program has many implications - and is not removed even when the Sky/Channel 4 applications are uninstalled. There have been so many complaints about this that Sky has been forced to provide a stand-alone uninstaller to get rid of the thing which launches itself every time the computer boots up. To the best of my knowledge Channel 4 have made no such arrangement preferring to leave you in blissful ignorance as to why your PC has suddenly slowed to a crawl. I certainly would not use iPlayer if the same applies. Thank goodness it WONT work on a Mac!

Will the iPlayer be using any recent version of DirextX? if not, it might be a simple task to run it using wine on linux, or darwine on OS X (though I could never get darwine to work)

Wine is all very well, but at the end of the day it is a workaround, not a solution. The real issue isn't whether we will be able to use the iPlayer on other platforms (I have no doubt that it will be circumvented very, very quickly); it is the underlying issue of ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ bias towards a platform that is fundamentally flawed and locks out a substantial number of users who do not use Windows, for one reason or another.

I'm surprised that the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ have not looked at Democracy player:

That would resolve the distribution problem in a neat cross platform way. All that would then be needed would be to hook in some DRM...

What a load of rubbish!

As a programmer, you have to choose a platform to use. The ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ has been using Windows Media and Real Media for many many years, and as far as I can tell, it would be an obvious decision for the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ to select one of these two media types to use. With regards to the actual software. It's obvious that a lot of these Mac users have never properly delved into running Windows applicatoins on Mac OS platforms. Guess what!?!?! You can!!!! Using a handy application called Wine, you too can run any of your favourite Windows Applications on your dodgy Darwin / Mac OSX platforms. Full info can be found here:

Rant over. Go ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½, release your player to us Windows user who are thoroughly looking forward to it!

The if I can't watch it no-one can approach of the Mac brigade is typical. It won't run on my XBOX 360/PSP/mobile phone/abacus either, I want to complain. Dear Mac users, if you want to use iPlayer try using Bootcamp and put Windows on your inferior computers.

Putting aside whether you're a PC fan or a Mac fan (or any other kind of fan come to that), surely by developing an application on a system specific format from the outset means that at some point the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ will have to spend more money developing its application to work on other systems.

In short, the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ would be guilty of wasting public money when they could have developed a system independent application from the outset.

Whether the PC types believe that Windows Media is a better format is irelevant, the fact remains that once numerous formats have been incorporated then numerous formats will have to be maintained and therefore incur higher costs to the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ to maintain.

As a ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ license payer I demand value for money and thankfully their programming is, I guess the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ doesn't get it right all the time.

...and as for the whole Mac Vs PC debate, ask yourself which application has really pioneered TV/film downloads then ask yourself what platforms that application works on...

iTunes.

Considering that last year the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ were busy designing their own open codecs to be used in this service I find it appalling that they've just gone 'screw it. Lets use Microsoft'

You've locked yourself in to a format and vendor like a good little corporation. Unfortunatley I can't use you service, never will be able to either.

So can I have a refund on my license please?

I am a mac user and a ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ license payer. Why should this be a problem - you have the same duty to provide services to me as any other license player - so how come there is a problem?

The issue is not abut the ability or willingness of the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ to provide X, Y or Z; its the duty of the organisation to serve their funders. a job that is done very well in terms of content.

the problems is that their content delivery is pretty behind.

I work in the NHS and certainly its true if you think about all the crappy Dell computers being provided for staff, add in all the other that certainly skews the % using Microsoft OS.

Aside from that, would we get away with making service delivery decisions based on the type of brain tumor, postcode (though it has been tried, and failed thankfully) etc... of course not. This is a simple issue of equity of provision - evidently at the stage of product inception this was not considered a sufficiently important concern for the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½.

I've been a Mac user for over 14 years now and these Mac vs Windows arguments are getting a little boring. Most Mac users know that Mac OS is "better" because they have to use Windows as well. Most Windows users have never used Macs so they really don't have a right to comment on the debate. (I won't be commenting on Linux because I don't use it!) Mac OS X is more stable and more secure than Windows - that is fact.

But all of this is irrelevant to the debate about the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ iPlayer. The ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ is funded by every single household who owns a device capable of watching their (and other!) broadcasts. Therefore the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ should make the iPlayer available to all of these households - regardless of the platform they decide to use. If they don't (and there's a good chance they won't) then the people who can't use it deserve to have a refund.

Further to my last comment I would question where the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ obtained its figures of Apple only having 4% of the market and what percentage the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ believes all other OSs to have. Would the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ be prepared to disclose the cumulative percentage of users that they are currently excluding by using a Windows DRM platform?

Recently it has been reported that Apple's Mac has had nearly three times the market growth of the PCs over the same period whilst a major PC manufacturer is giving users to option to buy their wares with Linux pre-installed NOT Windows.

As for 'irony' (Paul Crichton's original comment), how about the irony that the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½s chosen solution doesn't even work with the latest currently shipped Microsoft product (ie Vista) and the fact that you can't actually buy a PC with XP on it anymore (unless you're really prepared to search around for one). Microsoft's own timetable shows that they will stop licensing XP to OEMs in ~5 months time and will cease to support the OS in less than 2 years. It's all a bit short-sighted for an apparently forward thinking organisation.

So no Mac accessibility, no Linux accessibility, no Vista accessibility and limited accessibility for XP.... Would the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ like to disclose the percentage of users it actually does support with the release of its iPlayer?

...and further to Paul Crichton's comment I am a Web Designer and before I put anything live I have a bank of systems running IE, Firefox, Safari & Opera, usually having multiple versions of each. Why? Because I'm more likely to get criticism from the users of my sites if its not accessible from their chosen technology than anything else.

The reason for the drm is ostensibly to accomodate rights holders who have valid legal arrangements to prevent further re-distribution of content. This is a retrospective justification for existing content. I find it shortsighted and disappointing that that these terms have not been renegotiated to nullify the need for drm.

The real crime, and what I find most infuriating and disgusting, is that new content continues to be created within this antiquated legal framework to the detriment of every listener and viewer. The platform, codec and (server/) client is a mute point.

Matthew Peake - with regards to your Bootcamp comment, not all Macs are made with Intel processors and therefore can't use "Bootcamp".

David Cooper - the links required to access "Wine" don't work and if they did, you can guarantee it would be complicated to install (and use) the programme.

It is possible to use a programme called Virtual PC, but as this emulates all factors of a PC, it is slow and awkward and runs much smoother with Windows 2000 on it than Windows XP.

This isn't a "Macs are better than PC" argument. This is an argument regarding cross-compatability. PC users would be frustrated if it was released solely for Macs.

How about if we only let people who drive Volkswagens buy petrol? I'd be OK, but what about the rest of the car owners around? I guess it would be OK if there were only 4% of them...

I would be interested to know how many of the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ programmes that Mac users are unable to download and view were actually edited on Macs, using Final Cut Pro?

How much of the graphical content of those same programmes and the trailers used to promote them was produced on and with Macs?

What proportion of the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ website is designed using Macs?

If the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ decided it couldn't broadcast to a particular 4% of the UK population - all the accountants, for instance - there would be an outcry and, I suspect, it would be forced to rectify the situation without delay.

Why is the situation different when it involves computers and the internet?

I am both angry and dismayed that iplayer is useless to me as a Mac user, despite the fact that I helped pay for it out of my license fee. That the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ has chosen a name suggestive of a Macintosh product only adds insult to injury. Can the ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½ kindly give a date when this defective player with be able to deserve its "i" prefix on work on my operating system?
Perhaps they might consider diverting a small fraction of a certain supercilious tv and radio presenter's eighteen million pound salary into a making iPlayer work properly.