what has come to the world? The bbc having to cut back on websites because their rivals can't provide something better? should maybe google do the same for yahoo. I remember when Yahoo used to be a big portal, and now google has come along and its number 1. When talking to friends we always say, ahh i'll google that later.
i mean what really is the BBC guilty of doing? building a number 1 portal in the UK? heavens forbid anyone should do that.
To be honest, its the same with MS, the only thing that i would of charged MS on was if they are forcing dealers to bundle windows with their systems. this nonsense about wether WMP is included or not, is a load of rubbish. it's a farce.
No comment on the issue. But I would like to say I think the BBC wastes money on their site, when they could be providing free learning resources to the world (high quality, rich media) they instead spend it on other things like holiday sites and such.
I mean they have exam revision sites which are very welcome but what I would like to be able to do is learn a complete subject online free of charge. Like a 101 French course for instance, that is what in my opinion the BBC site should be offering.
The BBC is a media org but it seems they have trouble extending that to the web. I think a lot of it is down to how old the demographic of the BBC is now, and how out of touch they all are.
Note: Yes I realise this is almost a flame and really off-topic but still, had to say it.
Well you're kind of missing the point. Let's say I'm a developer who wants to do a travel website. I shell out my money and I do a bang up job. My site's pretty popular, everyone's happy.
Later the BBC want to do a travel site, do they shell out their money to compete with me? No, they dip into the huge pot of money, (~2 billion GBP?), that's available to them 'cos the government force us to pay a licence fee. That's the point.
No one's saying the BBC shouldn't do these sites, they're saying if they want to use licence payer's money then they have to do "public service" sites and if they want to do commercial sites and compete with commercial companies then it has to be on an even footing, i.e. they have to use their own money. That seems fair to me.
Your Google / Yahoo analogy would only hold up if Google were receiving billions of dollars from the US government to help develop their product and Yahoo were having to survive on what it could earn commercially.
If you RTFA you will notice that the BBC are cutting back on their web sites because they are outside of the corporations current remit for its web portal.
The BBC is funded mainly by television tax from the British television owning population and therefore the corporation has a responsibility to the public when spending their money.
The sites being closed down are duplicating information found on other sites. The fact that the BBCs sites may be 'better' than the other sites is irrelevant.
The primary goal is to provide information, education and current affairs news, without political bias, to the masses.
The BBC do produce language courses, but you have to pay for them - you get free education at school If you want education after the age of 18 then more often than not you are going to have to pay for it and unfortunately, providing free learning courses to the public is just outside the remit of the BBC web sites as the PureSoap info site for fans of EastEnders and Neighbours.
Yeah, your right. It just bugs me that there is so little in the way of education presented in anything other than large text documents.
Some people believe it or not don't find reading long texts about a subject that easy to swallow. I bet given a day and $200 I couldn't find a C++ course in anything other than text format or similar static media.
hmm am i thinking "The Channel 9 Chronicles".
community submitted articles for development, and what better way than using the express tools