BBC Keeps Android Flash Alive In the UK

judgecorp writes "Although Adobe wants to can mobile Flash, the Android Flash app has returned to the Google Play store in the UK after disappearing earlier this month. It has come back because of pressure from large organisations, in particular the BBC, whose popular iPlayer video on demand service uses Flash. The Android app is back, apparently for as long as it takes the BBC to move to HTML5."

But not for 4.1

[Anonymous Coward]

For some reason the latest is still left out in the cold...

Not very good joined up thinking in the Android camp - the iPad can watch all of the catch-up services from all of hte major broadcasters but the latest greatest android devices can't even watch one of them...

Get rid of it

[thetoadwarrior]

It's obvious the BBC crapped their pants over this but that is what they get for using a proprietary solution. They need to focus on not being cheap and rewriting it in something else.

Re:Get rid of it

[itsdapead]

Yes, because when iPlayer launched back in 2007 everybody had a HTML5-compliant browser that supported a common video format... Oh wait, they didn't... and they still don't... Perhaps they should have tried RealPlayer instead...?

Their silly insistance on Flash has meant that the iPlayer is only available on a limited handful of platforms (including PC, Mac, most new smart TVs TV, most half-decent PVRs...)

Since flash video is a wrapper on a weird, unknown standard called "H264" that nobody else uses, they've been unable to support the most popular mobile platforms such as iOS (the perfectly good iPlayer app on my iPad is clearly just a result of the hallucinogenic drugs with which Apple impregnate their packaging). It's quite clear that the BBC should have gone for "webm" (even though it didn't exist at the time) because everybody uses Firefox.

Everybody derided the introduction of Flash Player on Android when it was launched, with even Fandroids accepting that the lack of Flash on iOS was a good thing. The BBC should have known this and not relied on it.

(At least, with Flash support removed from Android we can go back to the "Flash = spawn of Satan" meme without having to simultaneously believe that "Flash = essential tool for browsing the web").

Re:Get rid of it

[TheRaven64]

They should have used open formats in open container files and made playback the client's problem. They should have remembered that their charter is to provide entertainment and information to the people of the UK, not to the subset that some third-party company decides are important. If the BBC had decided to broadcast TV in a format that required you to buy your TV from, for example, Samsung, then they'd have had the regulator slap them into oblivion, but somehow they get a free pass for doing the same thing on the Internet.

Re:Get rid of it

[itsdapead]

Or they could have just made .mp4 files available for playback.

Yes, in a parallel universe where the BBC didn't have contracts with studios and artists to uphold, didn't have the obligation to raise money from international sales and didn't have Big Media Interests pouncing on any and every opportunity of accusing them of anticompetitive behaviour. Then they wouldn't have had to worry about bloody DRM and could give away .mp4s. Actually, in that universe they could probably have used Ogg. Also, note, that universe is populated entirely by techies who are happy to download a .mp4 from a list of files (then probably run it through ffmpeg to optimise it for their homebrew Linux media centre) and aren't remotely interested in having a nice UI that lets them browse programmes, stream live TV etc.

That would be a nice universe to live in. Maybe the BBC can have Doctor Who visit it sometime.

Re:Get rid of it

[TheRaven64]

Their charter would be better served by publishing the stuff that they do have the rights to (i.e. in-house productions) and refusing to sign distribution contracts in the future that didn't meet their requirements.