The BBC is generally well regarded outside of the UK, and some of its shows—including Doctor Who and Top Gear—are torrented like crazy. When Apple TV rentals yomped on in, it appeared the BBC was one of the very few non-stupid corporations in the field, since it joined Fox and Disney in offering content for Apple’s device, rather than whining about how Apple was somehow ‘devaluing’ their content. (Hello, Warner Bros.! I’d still love to know how 99 cents per episode is worse than eight bucks per month for everything through Netflix!)

Now, director general Mark Thompson says things are going to be taken a step further. An international version of iPlayer will “definitely” launch in 2011 and will cost “a small number of dollars a month—less than 10” (source: Journalism.co.uk and others).

It remains to be seen how many holes end up in the schedule, but it’s likely the BBC’s own content at least will be made available through the player. It’ll be interesting to see whether the organisation making it affordable and readily available will encourage non-Brits to fund the service, or whether they’ll still consider “less than 10” dollars too much outlay and continue to torrent.

Articulate argument from Tim Anderson on why 24-bit will not fix computer audio and why 16-bit is fine:

[What] are the limitations of 16/44 audio? We can be precise about this. Nyquist’s Theorem says that the 44,100 Hz sampling rate is enough to perfectly recapture a band-limited audio signal where the highest frequency is 22,500 Hz. Human hearing may extends [sic] to 20,000 Hz in ideal conditions, but few can hear much above 18,000 Hz and this diminishes with age.

In fact, despite the claims of audiophiles, most people cannot tell the difference between studio-quality output and an MP3 file, especially given that output is usually sub-optimal (car stereos, crappy headphones, TV speakers, and so on). And given that music is distorted beyond belief in all commercial recordings these days (to make everything sound ‘loud’, audio is compressed and peaks are clipped, wrecking dynamic range), upping the audio from 16- to 24-bits won’t make the slightest bit of difference in the vast majority of cases, even if you have high-end kit.

To my mind, as long as sources are offering ‘high enough’ quality lossy files (256–320 kbps AAC or MP3), that’s enough. Any move to 24-bit will just be corporate PR wankery—a pissing match that aims to snare users who think higher numbers are better. And I bet you’d get charged more for the privilege.

Nigel Whitfield on eBooks that ‘wear out’:

[New] Harper Collins eBooks sold to libraries will have a licence (enforced by the Digital Rights system embedded in the files) that allows a book to be loaned only twenty-six times, before it expires.

After that, if the library wants to carry on lending the book, it will have to buy a new copy.

I think—especially in harsh economic times—the publishers would do well to support anything that helps people to carry on reading, and learn to love books, rather than to put obstacles in the way, and make it more expensive for readers and libraries alike.

Since the Sunday Times claimed Jonathan Ive is about to quit Apple, the tech press has gone into OMG APPLE DOOMED mode again, and the Guardian’s Apple’s worst nightmare: Is Jonathan Ive to leave? headline sums things up pretty well.

To answer that particular question: no. Ive is a good designer who’s worked on some iconic products, but he’s not irreplaceable. There are other great, visionary designers in the world. The Guardian article also echoes a commonplace sentiment:

Surely Apple’s board, though they must be desperate to retain Ive, would find it in their interest to allow flexible working in this instance?

Suggestions that Ive should get ‘flexible working conditions’—when the report suggests he’s going to move back to the UK—are ludicrous. Industrial design for an industry giant isn’t something you can work remotely on. Ive can’t just check in now and again via Skype, fling over some ideas via email and pop over to Cupertino every month or so. A designer of his seniority needs to be there, available to see how things are progressing, leading teams, utterly in the mix.

The article also notes one of the most bonkers rumoured points of contention:

There was no hint in Apple’s recent annual meeting that Ive’s position was in doubt in any way, but also no suggestion that it might be Ive rather than current acting chief executive Tim Cook who might replace Jobs permanently.

Gosh, I wonder if that’s because Ive doesn’t have any experience at running an Apple-sized business, unlike, say, Tim Cook, who’s done the job ably already, and continues to do so?

Personally, I hope the Sunday Times is talking bollocks (and, frankly, it wouldn’t be the first time), because Apple with Ive is likely better than Apple without Ive. But if Ive did decide to leave, it wouldn’t be the end of Apple, and nor would it be a case of Apple somehow being unfair and inflexible regarding an employee’s demands.

VP of worldwide publishing Gonzague de Vallois on Pocket Gamer, commenting on EA’s pre-Christmas 59p/99-cent videogame price-point slash:

We weren’t that happy with the Christmas promotion because it was backed by Apple and they highlighted it on their store worldwide

One of their roles is to highlight premium content and to help publishers make money out of the platform. It’s a long-term market, and we have to be careful that we don’t get people used to the 59p price range.

Uh huh. I guess that’s why Gameloft has now slashed the price of 30 of its games to 59p/99 cents.

I’m in two minds about low pricing for games on the App Store. There’s no question that big brands can make more money with permanently low pricing, and it’s clear some games are well-suited to that lowest tier (such as Pac-Man, which makes far more sense at a buck than five). However, EA and Gameloft are both rapidly devaluing their brands on the platform through regular bottom-tier sales. I already know plenty of people who hold off buying anything by either company, because they figure that sooner or later it’ll cost just 59p/99 cents. It’s like the budget-game industry from the 1980s all over again—albeit at a third (or less) of the price.