Round up, Monday 22 March, 2010: "One Million Downloads!"
The Guardian reports that :
"The Office of Fair Trading is to examine , the video-on-demand service backed by the and others, giving critics including and Virgin Media a chance to submit their concerns to competition authorities for the first time."
Meanwhile the Project Canvas website . Remember Arqiva? They're the ones who bought Project Kangaroo (now ) when .
The Guardian's hosted by Matt Wells and "performing monkey" (her words) Emily Bell has an interview with "±«Óãtv Internet overlord Erik Huggers" (Wells's words) and an analysis of his speech at last week's Guardian's Changing media Conference. After Erik's piece there's some interesting comments about the ±«Óãtv's Strategy Review from Emily Bell so keep listening. Wells's other :
"Mad thought... Eric (sic) Huggers for next ±«Óãtv director general?"
For ±«Óãtv watchers who didn't make it to the conference there's an courtesy of featuring ±«Óãtv online Controller Seetha Kumar (details of the rest of the panel are somewhere in this ).
Going against the general trend by not demanding that the ±«Óãtv cut its services, Paidcontent . The reasoning is simple:
"The ±«Óãtv must commission a quarter of its online work from external suppliers, so Pact members are concerned at loss of work."
The Press Red blog reports that there have been over one million iPlayer views on the Nintendo Wii downloads of the iPlayer Wii channel. (Ed's update: my error, now corrected.) There's also been a software upgrade that introduces new features like the Resume Playback function:
"You can now resume watching partially viewed programmes from the point you were watching previously, like you can on the web version of ±«Óãtv iPlayer. Plus we have added a list of your previously watched programmes. You can see that in action within the improved home page."
Phil Bradley bemoans the "sad state of ±«Óãtv search" on ("Where librarians and the internet meet: internet searching, Web 2.0 resources, search engines and their development") which has prompted a .
On The Editors Steve Hermann is asking for your feedback on how ±«Óãtv news should link to external sources.
Paul Murphy is the Editor of the Internet blog.
Comment number 1.
At 24th Mar 2010, Stuart Ian Burns wrote:Here is an oddity. The Doctor Who home page has regenerated and looks great. And there is link back to the RTD era pages here:
/doctorwho/s4/
Except, they have the new logo at the top. The taxi-cab logo which you would expect to be there is now on the classic pages:
/doctorwho/classic/index.shtml
Where you would expect to see the old Pertwee/TV Movie logo like the one that appears on all of the merchandise and is still on the photo novel pages:
/doctorwho/classic/photonovels/
It's tiny thing, but in terms of brand management an important one.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 27th Mar 2010, Nick Reynolds wrote:It's also off topic Stuart.
We are trying to get a post about the new Dr Who site.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 2nd Apr 2010, Stuart Ian Burns wrote:Sorry -- I thought that was ok since it was a round-up post.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 12th May 2010, U14460911 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 12th May 2010, U14460911 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 20th May 2010, talat wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 24th May 2010, hd2010 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 17th Jun 2010, Sesli wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 17th Jun 2010, Sesli wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 17th Jun 2010, Sesli wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 17th Jun 2010, Sesli wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)