I noticed the point raised by "binary Solo" about how this would cost MS to supply the service. That may be the case however in the case of the PS3, the iPlayer just utilises the inbuilt browser. I would assume that the rest is just routing rules streaming either via the PSN or even possibly straight from the cloud.

In the case of MS, without knowing the technical details, it is probably a more complex task to supply the BBC iPlayer and there may be a greater impost. We don't know. We do know that there is no inbuilt browser so there may be more custom software requirements to make this work in the Live setup. Pure speculation but it does raise an interesting scenario.

Morally, though, I think the BBC have an obvious point. The service is funded by the public through license payments. Just doesn't see right to charge again (though it is minimal). The fact it is minimal is not the point. On principal, I think it's wrong.

In Australia we get the ABC iView streamed to the PS3. It just shows up as an icon under the TV section of the X-bar and then it invokes the built-in browser.

Correct. The iPlayer on Ps3 has nothing to do with PSN, just uses the browser.

I don't think I'll understand why people are willing to pay for Live when you can get similar or better (dependent on your needs) services elsewhere for free. It's just one huge source of pure profit for MS. They don't even have to maintain dedicated servers which even Sony does for certain 1st party titles. And now they want only Gold members to have access to TV paid for by the UK license payers?!

Can MS really keep this up?

Sony wanna make money by selling things they specialize in (entertainment), but not with PSN itself, sony is a pretty righteous company. They have just enough ads and publisher that pay per gb of download to maintain PSN without loosing money. Microsoft wanna makes money all the way they can, which is normal for an american company. Im not saying that one is better than the other because you can have different views on that depending on your position. Something sure is that its rare to have a righteous company in america, the only one I know is the one I work for and Costco.

On topic, microsoft are consequent, it wouldnt be fair for other service like netflix to offer BBC i player in the silver subscription. I back Microsoft and BBC also.

"Microsoft wanna makes money all the way they can, which is normal for an american company"

Not sure I understand that comment, but I think you're right about how Sony views PSN vs. M$, but rather than simply looking at it on a greed vs. free model, it's how both consoles were constructed.  What people don't understand is that M$ made Xbox Live a core of the Xbox 360...whereas Sony had PSN as an accessory.  Sure, they have since reconsidered the importance of service, as we now see them looking at some services to provide on a premium subscription model, but it seems like a testament to how M$ got it right, and how Sony got it wrong.  They thought bluray would lead the way, and THAT was suppose to be the core. 

Im sorry you did not understand what I meant, english is not my primary language. I meant to say that most american company (administrators) doesnt care for their customer nor their employees and at the end they dont really care about the product they offer either as long as they can earn money with it.

Your right with how the companies saw the online, its pretty apparent that Sony didnt think it was a really important factor when they released the PS3.

I won't even touch the first part of your reply...yikes!

as for Sony's online strategy, it's been evolving and morphing...somewhat for the better, but it's funny that they missed the boat initially as they did, considering that they had the Station for years.  Of course, that is not to say that M$ has been completely on their game...errr...RROD...but they have been very proactive on many front.  From the continuing improvements to XBL (Avatars were ragged as being Mii copies...lol...that discussion has be shelved) , to the integration of more and more services into XBL, M$ is trying, and succeeding at making the console into an appliance, thereby making it interchangeable with far greater ease.  The reason this is SO important is because it will make adoption and migration to Nexbox an easy transition for both the consumer and developer/publisher.  If you look at the escalating cost of games development cost of console games from last generation to this one…the primary reason was because the last gen was so alien to this one.  M$ is a software company, so they are of course going to try and get the iterative gaming refresh cycle in the mode of PCs.  

This is bullcrap.

They could really differenciate Gold from Silver and competitors offering clan support, cloud backup of savegames and other features. Instead they do this.

@Icyedge: gosh, that's dumb. ALL or MOST no matter where they come from execs worry about maximising profit. Trying to spray it as a sort of attack on american-based corporations reeks of short sight. Nintendo is a pure japanese driven corporation and they've shown extreme greed this gen: they've generated massive profits with the Wii and they haven't kicked it back to the consumers at all.

As PSN get more capable, M$ is going to have to refine their implementation of XBL.  Even with the demo fee Sony charges publishers...they are still managing to get demos to PSN...even if it's late. 

:O