Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
I'm making a complaint about SW - please post your complaints
- Thread starter adrian29uk
- Start date
TWOCHOICEStom
Well-known member
I use it and it seems like it's stuck in the past. Compared to almost every other video streaming site I can think of... it's worse.
IT SHOULD WORK WITH OS X
YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO SELECT A FORMAT OTHER THAN THE VERY POOR WMV CRAP.
That is all....
IT SHOULD WORK WITH OS X
YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO SELECT A FORMAT OTHER THAN THE VERY POOR WMV CRAP.
That is all....
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,747
Ironic post alert...
I wonder why they introduced the Digital Right Managements (which unfortunately is incompatible with Mac OS X)
... I wonder why....
Any ideas ?
Last edited:
The Merry Prankster
Pactum serva
Mac no worky. 20th Century Luddites.
Soton Seagull
Well-known member
Since I switched to Firefox I've had sound only on videos. A bit rubbish.
seagullsovergrimsby
#cpfctinpotclub
Video match highlights only last a couple of minutes , other SW club sites have extended match highlights (6 or 7 minutes).
Several occasions during the first half of the season the commentary wasn't available until the games had started.
Unable to log-in caused frustration as well.
Several occasions during the first half of the season the commentary wasn't available until the games had started.
Unable to log-in caused frustration as well.
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,747
No, that isn't the issue really.
Probably more due to the fact they were forced to use a method of protecting their content because people were downloading it and uploading it to YouTube or their own sites.
Funny that people who do things like that are now complaining about the problems resulting from them using a form of DRM isn't compatible with your operating system.
Very funny indeed.
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,747
Make sure you have the latest Media Player plugin and it should work fine.
adrian29uk
New member
- Sep 10, 2003
- 3,389
- Thread starter
- #29
The BBC and E4 have now seen sense in removing the stupid restrictions. Because of this they are getting more hits to the site, which is of course keep the advertisers happy on E4. The BBC where forced to do it, because we all pay the license fee.
Many of these sites are losing out to customers these days, because of them making it Windows Only for streaming, and in some cases IE only. They need to wake up and stop thinking it ends just at Windows, especially on SW world where you pay.
I wont cancel SW, and I am still forced to boot in to Windows to use it. That is why I am annoyed, because I don't want to use Windows.
Secondly there are many other issues with the site. Have you tried the site on a netbook? Lucky sometimes if you can download the page due to all the advertisements.
Many of these sites are losing out to customers these days, because of them making it Windows Only for streaming, and in some cases IE only. They need to wake up and stop thinking it ends just at Windows, especially on SW world where you pay.
I wont cancel SW, and I am still forced to boot in to Windows to use it. That is why I am annoyed, because I don't want to use Windows.
Secondly there are many other issues with the site. Have you tried the site on a netbook? Lucky sometimes if you can download the page due to all the advertisements.
Last edited:
seagullsovergrimsby
#cpfctinpotclub
Assuming you have already paid for a TV license (this includes radio on the license as well) then yes.
I've got video only, maybe we should hook up?!
Porky
New member
That would be my question. For the price of about one game. including travel and artery clogging burgers and fries you get a season of audio commentary. I have no complaints.
And to think that I thought Live Text was the cat's meow!!!
eastlondonseagull
Well-known member
I can't get any of the match highlights / interviews to work. The only reason I use it nowadays is for the SCR commentary.
HP Seagull
Danny Cullip: Hero
- Sep 26, 2008
- 1,798
The complaint isn't just about how expensive or cheap SW is. It's the fact that it's so easy to improve, and that other clubs get a far better service than we do at the same cost.
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,747
The remit of BBC and Seagulls World are completely different. One is there to try and reach as many viewers as possible on as many platforms (as is their remit) whilst Seagulls World is there purely to make money.
What you also need to bear in mind is the issue of rights and contracts which is central to whole thing.
When the broadcasters buy, or commission a programme there now needs to explicit reference to how that programme is going to be broadcast, how many repeats can be played. Also whether that programme can be played as live on the internet or available later on IPlayer for a limited amount of time.
The reason Sky, ITV, BBC and Channel Four are doing what there are doing is because this has been specifically agreed in the contract with programme makers.
You've got to factor in things like repeat fees, whether the music in the programme is ok to be broadcast etc..
It's very very complicated. So you say "see sense", well I would argue it was a position they alwasy wanted to get to but have had to put a lot of work behind the scenes in order to get there.
Still there are some programmes not available on the net, because they havent got the rights to play them. Watch SKY player and on the odd occasion they break the transmission.
Back to Seagulls World, it's all about "rights" again. The football league own the rights and I'm not sure if you've noticed but football rights are really really tied down.
Look at the strict hierachy on a Saturday over who get's to show the Premier League ?
Live Sky (subscription)
Match Choice Sky (subscription)
Match Of The Day (free to air)
and then and only then do get SKY Sports News get a chance.
Very strictly controlled, you can't even type out the league table on here legally !
I would imagine that it was the League that enforced PremiumTV to introduce a form of digital rights management because people were downloading the highlights and putting them in YouTube. Unlikely to have anything to do with Brighton, but more like clubs further up the pyramid where the assets for sale are worth more.
They probably looked at the model and pissing off Mac Owners was probably considered, but in the bigger scheme of things wasn't going to hit their profits.
That's the reality these days and we're all responsible because we're all bought into it.
Lastly the football commentary. It's simple, the BBC don't own it. The Football League do.
BBC: Can we come in and cover the game ?
League: Sure, but you can only broadcast it locally. We have full control over the internet access and we will charge for it.
BBC: What if we say no ?
League: You can't come in.
Until the league change their stance on the issue people can bang on about it until they are blue in face. Take a look at what happened at Leeds with their commentary or Charlton's live streaming when they dropped out the Premier League.
Last edited: