The ABC’s management (and other old media types generally) could do with some healthy debate and discussion around their business models and technology decisions.

That said, in saying “closed is broken”, I believe it is when it forces the audience into some form of vendor lock in or limits their ability to consume the media they want when, how and on what device they want it. There are alternatives that allow all of this and still don’t destroy revenue models.

My point is that regardless of the format (and like you I’m not sure on why the BBC chose the proprietary Kontiki system http://www.kontiki.com/high-quality-video-delivery-customers/ although I presume it was for the additional infrastructure and management provided) actually the iPlayer is free, it’s cost is the 7 day limitation.

My challenge to you is not that there are other options some consumers would prefer more, but to question the statement “Closed is broken” when the evidence points to both success for the producer of the content and the consumer. While we may be complaining about the limitations, consumers are taking it up and now chewing up to 5% of UK bandwidth. By this measure I’d call it a roaring success.

Although it is a proprietary system, it’s also available for the iPhone now and they’ve announced support for the WII http://stuff.tv/blogs/future/archive/2008/03/09/bbc-iplayer-now-working-on-iphone-almost.aspx

As a frequent observer and occasional participant in WEB2.0 technology forums, my concern is that as futurists, we have a tendency to lambast companies that don’t take a big enough or fast enough step, when in fact the step they’ve taken may be small, but it’s been a great first step on the journey and is already changing the rules of the game.

Looking only at non-early adopter formats, i.e. those for which many tools and players exist, .mp3 is not a complex format to deal with for most, neither is .mov, or ideally .avi. Now, while these formats aren’t completely open, they are relatively well known and many tools - hardwware and software, open- and closed-source - exist for their playback.

We’ve just seen the release here of TV shows on the iTunes store. I’d be more than happy to pay for episodes of shows I really want, if the pricing was appropriate. However, yet again, Australian audiences are gouged on iTunes with pricing (audio and video) that reflects a US:AU conversion somewhere around 1:0.60, which it’s not been near any time in relatively recent history.

I currently pay iTunes for my music, as it’s convenient and pricing is competitive with CDs (for which I have no more room), but I balk at $2.99 for a TV episode when something around $2-2.20 seems more appropriate. Equally, I’d be willing to pay for long-form video material (including extras) at a price competitive with DVDs. But it’s just not there.

I digress. I want an infinite time window on my watching of post-broadcast material. I want to be able to play it back on my Mac Mini and 42” plasma, or my iPhone, or stick it on a USB key and take it to a mate’s place to watch. A 7-day window is nothing more than an annoyance and an excuse for user lock-in. For this privilege, I am willing to pay a nominal fee.

For other material, as has been done for some time on US networks, I’d like availability to watch via the web for as long as I like, immediately post-broadcast, and availability for download and infinite replay in iTunes, or preferably an open format at small cost.

Does this not sound reasonable?

The point to all this, is that as technologists and evangalists, we need to be careful to distinguish between what we want and envision and what “Joe Public” is comfortable with.

From the BBCs point of view and Joe Public point of view, they’ve reached a great compromise where the BBC are protecting their IP and investment they’ve made in producing or purchasing content while releasing some control over the time and scheduling, and Joe Public doesn’t have to worry about understanding bit torrent and sorting through dodgy sources to effectively time shift programs.

Here’s a link to back this up http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/news/801644/editors-blog-bbc-gets-unfair-kicking/

Sure, the CC Pact means people ought to be reasonable with each other; that’s only fair. But it’s certainly *way* beyond the *control* of a brand until they get in there and participate openly.