http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/espn-launches-15-college-conference...
so is this a stop gap while we work on a cable TV network, or is this the future model? if the latter, what is the incremental revenue potential for the conference? will be interesting to see how this plays out...
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Chromecast needs to add WatchESPN to their apps.
Word to this.
Love my Chromecast.
With put.io I can stream everything under the sun
I was about to give him instructions, but I realized this post is almost a year old.
a
I like this move simply because I use a PS3 and Roku to watch things and was never able to get ESPN3 to the TV. Now there's this beauty.
Seeing as I already use my AppleTV to stream WatchESPN, I see this as a more organized package for ACC sports. Maybe we get a little more content (olympic sports, commentary, etc.), but ultimately this feels like a way of improving the coherence of they way they deliver their various sporting events.
If ESPN wants to improve my ease of access, I'm completely on board. Now stop trying to raise my cable.
i think the ultimate user experience will be when all of this online only content is available via an app or "channel" directly through a cable set top box. one remote, one TV input, one fluid experience. Cable companies should embrace streaming as a supplement to their service (as most people currently use it) as opposed to viewing it as competition.
when i go to my onDemand menu, ESPN3 is there, ACC Network is there, etc. i shouldn't have to switch over to my Roku or Apple TV, etc.
that's my dream, anyway...
I don't think there's much monetary incentive (yet) for MOST businesses to invest in designing apps. But I agree with your dream. I'd love to get rid of my cable box and just use appletv. The only thing stopping me is that not enough channels have a live stream on Apple TV (like ESPN). If CNN, ESPN, HBO, SHO, NFL, NBA, and NCAA all had an Apple TV app allowing me to watch anything on their network, I would drop my cable box immediately.
Not to go further off-topic, but I highly recommend reading the ESPN book by James Andrew Miller. It gives a lot of insight into how ESPN started, why it is where it is today, and how the TV/Cable business works.
i think you may have misunderstood me. i don't want to replace my cable box. i want my cable box to add Roku/appleTV apps/features to create an integrated cable/streaming experience. the bandwidth for cable still allows for a better live TV viewing experience IMO. streaming is catching up, but it's not there yet. i just hate switching from cable to Roku and back to cable. i should be able to treat my streaming experience like a cable channel. esily bouncing from a game on ESPN3 to a game on CBS to a game on the ACCDN to a game on ESPN...all from one remote through one device.
I want to replace my cable box.
No wait, I want to replace my cable company
Boo Commiecast.
Totally on board with you on this one.
I'm pretty sure the technology and infrastructure is already there for the cable companies to treat ESPN3 like a regular channel. It wouldn't be much different than the ESPN Goal Line channel, in terms of only having limited programming. The main issue would be about where to put multiple games at the same time.
But I wonder if that's eating into ESPN's pay per view package.
yeah, it's definitely all about contracts, rights and $$, not technology anymore. i envision ESPN3 (or WatchESPN) being an onDemand channel, not a broadcast channel, but i'm sure there are a few ways to do it. it'll be interesting to see where everything goes over the next few years. ESPN has to protect their primary revenue (carriage fees), but they seem to be one of the best companies at embracing IP/OnDemand sports broadcasts. i'm sure they have a plan, but they are keeping it close to the vest right now. NBC, too. NBC LiveExtra is a great app (just need it on Roku!)...
What sucks is that you need to be a cable subscriber to use WatchESPN. It's a supplement and not a replacement. You could use someone's login info to access it if you want to go that route i guess, but it's a shame you can't just way a monthly fee.
I'm sure it's due to advertising and exclusivity contracts. I noticed watchespn only shows commercials for about 1/5th of a commercial break and it's generally the cable providers commercial.
They might also have contracts with cable and satellite providers not to offer it any other way. Notice how the main ESPN channels are only available, or "sponsored", by some providers.
Or you just use vtphreak's streaming link. He usually also posts a username and password combo for WatchESPN too. But I do agree, they should consider a monthly subscription fee as should many other premium TV and streaming services. I really want HBO to offer a monthly subscription to HBOGo, but that's another story.
if i subscribed to everything i wanted (assuming it became available), it would cost me as much as or more than i pay for my cable and i would be getting less...
Depends on what you are looking at. Network channels offer their shows on their website. If they don't, consider $8 for Hulu Plus. Then say $10 for ESPN streaming per month, $15 for HBO, and whatever else you want at nominal prices, it could be pretty low. It all depends on what you want, but it allows any user to customize what they want to watch and not pay for what they don't want. It's a concept that will never happen though because that's just not how television will ever work.
Exactly. My wife wanted to cancel cable before i left on deployment to save money and to try out other options. An HD OTA antenna works great for local channels and then have Amazon Instant Video and Hulu. But that leaves a gap in ESPN for college football. I don't think paying for individual channels will ever happen sadly, but i'd pay $20 a month to access all the ESPNs so it's not like they'd be losing money but cable contracts probably say otherwise.
ESPN wouldn't lose money, but they are owned by ABC/Disney, who would lose money. ABC/Disney/ESPN/other channels are 'sold' to the cable providers as one package. If viewers were able to pay for ESPN individually, ABC/Disney/other package channels are available to a lower amount of viewers, thus they are a less desirable destinations for advertisements, thus advertisers will pay less to advertise on those channels, thus less money is made.
And that is the reason that for every real channel there's 1.5 channels of useless reality TV you only watch when you're drunk in the middle of the night and Adult Swim is playing your least favorite Aqua Teen Hunger Force episode.
yeah, i think a stand-along WatchESPN subscription would easily cost $50/mo to justify Disney abandoning their carriage bundles. they may try to "bundle" you via streaming, too. stand-alone Disney Subscription (include the multiple Disney channels) would be $20, but it would only be $5 to add it to your $50 ESPN bundle (or only $35 to add ESPN to your Disney subscription). cord cutters who watch sports won't save money in the long run, it will all wash out to be roughly equal...
I thought we were talking about this topic more recently than this thread, but this seems to be just as good a place to put this as any, so sorry for reviving such an old thread, but I couldn't find the recent discussion:
ESPN available through a streaming service, no cable required
This, after the massive failure of the WatchESPN app during the Rose Bowl. Hopefully this is the first crack in cable's armor.
I used my chromecast to toss onto my bigscreen the last game we played that was only available online.
Don't remember the game but it worked very well.
Chromecast just basically makes a non-Bluetooth enabled TV a Bluetooth enabled TV, right? (I'm talking in practical effect here, not specifics.)
No. It grabs whatever stream you point it to, and streams it independently of your controlling device (ie. your phone)
Controls are all over wifi.
you want to see something cool, look at how it sets up an ad-hoc guest mode network using high frequency tones out of human range to detect new devices that want to cast.
We have an extra big screen TV that needs setup but I don't want to pay extra for another cable box.
I'm going to use a Amazon firestick to sling wifi to the TV.
Speaking of Amazon, the new Amazon Echo is something I'm keeping my eye on very closely right now. This device has the potential to be a huge game changer for home computing. It has its limitations for right now, but with further development and coding with updates in the future, if it ends up being a big enough hit, Amazon just created the Star Trek computer for everyday use.
I'm a big fan of the Amazon ecosystem. Has Fire TV, has Kindle. Will be getting Kindle Fire soon enough. Have Chromebook. Got Chromecast. Will be getting GooglePhone.
But Echo...I think it's filling a need I don't know I have yet.
Thanks for this. I thought you were tethered to your device for it to function.
No, once you've got your program set, it runs off your wifi Internet connection.
The Amazon one has it's own remote if you don't want to use your iPad or something. You can program it onscreen.
When this all settles out, we will be paying more for less tv. Right now, the cable companies are our tv viewing unions keeping the individual companies from gouging us. In the short term though, it provides opportunity for savings.
I never thought about it before, but streaming tv may be the biggest reason for the drop in interest for live sports by millenials. Could hulu be the reason for the decline in ticket sales?
High Def TV with the ability to pause it for snacks and pee breaks, self replay of plays, better snacks for a cheaper price and a serious savings over the cost of club fees, tickets, parking and worrying whether you can see over the guy in front of you.
Seriously, driving 4-6 hours to get a canopy and kitchen setup by 9:30 so you can cook a hot meal and drink a couple beers in time to walk 15 minutes into a stadium for a 12:00 kickoff and the cell phone tower so clogged you can't send that great picture to your Dad that couldn't attend. then drive home 4-6 hours.
If you don't love the atmosphere then High Def with a dozen buddies screaming at a TV, drinking beer, bourbon and ordering pizza is a very viable option. That, I think, is the competition.
I agree this all keeps the alumni away, but what about the students? Remember when students would camp out for days to get tickets?
Because you don't have to. There's no sense in camping out when you just have to say you want them before a deadline. The students also fill up on the good games. Games against cupcake opponents have less value and there are better things to do like watch the good games from your dorm, apartment, or bar. When I was there years ago, the stadium wasn't full for Bill and Mary and it sure as hell lost a lot of the crowned around halftime.
Notice the ACC is the only P5 conference they listed. the rest are mid majors.