I was working at the BBC at the time this was first suggested (on web stuff, not video) and saw the edges of this project. From the start it felt like the start of a good idea, but with a huge remit and no focus.<p>The idea of being able to edit video locally using a low quality version of the file, seems like a good one. All the rendering is done on high end servers working at full capacity with no wasted machines. Users can edit from their desktop without having to use a high end machine too. Until you talk to anyone who works in video - how can they be sure the video is lit, focused and presented correctly without viewing the source file. And the process of uploading files, waiting for edit versions and downloading the final files, even over a decent connection added huge overhead.<p>Felt like there wasn't enough discussion with the actual teams that would use this.<p>But as I say, I was not involved nor did it affect me and my team directly so I could be way off in my very small view of the project.
I'd be interested to know what technology platform was being used. Around the time this project was being commissioned, the UK govt and the BBC were VERY close to Microsoft.<p>As part of the NHS's connecting for health project, a huge amount of money was spent on MS licenses and associated infrastructure.<p>Time to make public these contracts with Siemens and see what's what. Like that's going to happen...
Is the produced code open sourced or publicly downloadable? That's possibly what BBC should do, providing £100M actually produced something worth open sourcing.
There's a damning inspector general report on this, dating back to 2011:<p><a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmpubacc/808/808.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/c...</a><p>Here's a key conclusion, along the themes of "this is what happens when the people with the money don't really understand what the developers are doing":<p><i>The BBC transferred too much financial risk to the contractor, Siemens, given
the level of technological innovation involved. This approach meant that that
BBC did not have a good enough understanding of the contractor’s design and
development work, and was unable to intervene effectively even when it knew
delivery was at risk. This resulted in a two year delay in securing the technology
for the Programme. We welcome the BBC’s commitment to consider more carefully
the appropriate degree of risk transfer for future contracts. It should have a close
understanding of the design and development approach being taken by a contractor
and should retain the ability to intervene without waiting for non-delivery or
contract termination.</i>