<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for markerrington</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/markerrington/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/markerrington/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:42:22 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Will the financial climate accelerate change going into next year?</title><link>http://broadcastengineering.com/automation/financial_climate_change_next_year_1219/#comment-4726807</link><description>&lt;p&gt;David,&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The reason for commenting is precisely because the term "channel in a box" is mis-used and mis-understood.  One box could key the graphics from a separate box over the video content, to stream a complete broadcast channel, but that doesn't make it a channel in a box.  What if the channel requires sub-titles, or WSS for example would the box trigger third party devices, or would that functionality be built into the single box?  I guess it depends on what your definition of a complete broadcast channel is.  Ours is much more inclusive than a playlist with clips and a keyer, and hence I think that unless all broadcast output and control is in one system you can't claim it is a channel in a box.  I have done in the past, and will happily in the future pit our "channel in a box" against any other SINGLE box for features and functionality.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mark Errington&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">markerrington</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:42:22 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Will the financial climate accelerate change going into next year?</title><link>http://broadcastengineering.com/automation/financial_climate_change_next_year_1219/#comment-4706377</link><description>&lt;p&gt;David, This is a very interesting article, and is in line with our thinking at ON-AIR Systems.  I would also like to note that whilst many suppliers make claims regarding "channel in a box" systems, you have to look very closely to find out exactly what functionality is in the box, and based on the challenge issued at IBC 2008 and judged by Dick Hobbs, that no-one is prepared to challenge the feature and function set of playKast - the only true channel in a box system, from ON-AIR Systems.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mark Errington&lt;br&gt;CEO - ON-AIR Systems.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">markerrington</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2008 02:09:08 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: For vendors, automation support is tough business</title><link>http://broadcastengineering.com/news/vendors-automation-support-tough-business-1124/#comment-4000884</link><description>&lt;p&gt;This is a very interesting take on the issues facing the industry.  One of the key issues here is having a centralised approach to software development, whereby all customer requests are input into the core software so no bespoke code is required for any specific customer, and then making those features available to all customers with a support and maintenance contract.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It is important to have a responsive customer support function that demonstrates the value of having a combined support and maintenance contract, as you cannot have just a software upgrade contract, as training and commissioning in new features is critical.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;As a software based "channel in a box" automated playout supplier, we at ON-AIR Systems have averaged 3 new software releases each year for the last three years, with new features developed from customer interviews and support feedback.  This dynamic process helps to ensure the software is always performing at its optimum, and has all the features that broadcasters need.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Customers must understand that a buy it and forget it policy doesn't work with software, and they should budget for the ongoing cost of support and maintenance, but that for this they will keep up to date with all the features and not have to wait for legacy updates as they may have to with alternatives that are not software based, or have been custom developed for them.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">markerrington</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:39:55 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>