Posted on 09/14/2023 6:58:12 AM PDT by TNoldman
https://ayoumas.com
There are other IPTV services as well.
You need a Firestick and the Smarters app:
https://www.firesticktricks.com/iptv-smarters.html
Oh yes, they will! All of MLS can see the handwriting on the wall.
You can do it easily, or you can do it legally, but you probably can’t get both.
Will check into this. Hubby is a sports fanatic. I am, to a degree, too. I couldn’t care less about basketball and baseball until the seasons are almost over.
But that’s me. I’m cheap and I don’t have much interest in the hundreds of cable channels that show mindless drivel. Ideally, I’d pay $10 per month during college football season for a streaming app. That’s about double of what ESPN charges cable companies per subscriber.
I think the market will fracture like it is doing today, i.e., antenna, cable, and streaming, followed by consolidation to streaming on a per entertainment category basis. There’s a happy medium in what the category includes. For sports, I think a single team streaming is too granular. There won’t be enough subscribers for quality presentation that produces a profit. If it is too broad, say all sports, it will be too expensive. So something in between would work. I’d be satisfied with Big Ten sports or maybe all NCAA football and or sports if the price was reasonable. I suppose people that have broader interests than me would be willing to purchase subscriptions to multiple streaming apps and it would still be cheaper than their current cable bill.
I saw a statistic that something like a third of the people who cut the cord do not go to any streaming—they just go cold turkey on the sports and/or entertainment.
Every consumer has their own preferences—and there will be no Goldilocks that works for any large bloc.
Streaming services are slowly learning this while they bleed cash.
They will catch on—and eventually their investors will figure it out as well.
Just a further thought—one of the iron rules of marketing is that if the customer is paying you for your product (like cable TV) any change they make is very risky for the company.
At the moment of change they may “zero base budget” and look very hard at what they want for the product.
Sports fans are notorious for being “seasonal”, particularly during football season—when the season is over many (most?) will stop paying for that stream.
Entertainment fans may buy a streaming service for a few “big hits” and then cancel after that.
These services cannot survive under such a regime.
The industry insiders know it—they have the numbers.
Yeah...that does sum it up succinctly. But I would add that it is the love of money with concomitant greed that did it in. At all levels in the superstructure of college football.
I learned something interesting in reading about the Charter (Spectrum) -Disney Brewha. I thought Spectrum had a massive market share in the US.
Charter Facts: By the Numbers
56 Million. Homes Passed in 41 States.
32 Million. Customer Relationships.
30.6 Million. Broadband Internet Customers.
14.7 Million. Video Subscribers.
8.5 Million. Voice Subscribers.
6.6 Million. Mobile Lines.
Turns out 15 million of their subscribers don’t actually subscribe to TV service and they only serve probably a 10th of the country’s households with TV.
I could not find a chart of all of the companies and thie breakdown by services. BTW, this actually comes right off Charter’s website so they do not consider proprietary information.
You are correct. I think I read the only profitable streaming service is Netflix. That’s partly due to them owning content. They have made significant moves in recent years to buy/make content that they own. Compare that to the Blockbuster model, which was renting content. That’s one of the reasons I think leagues and conferences will end up streaming. They own the rights. Rent the tech and announcers, cut the middlemen - networks and cable companies. There’s profit to be made, but it won’t be the dollars involved in the unsustainable network deals that exist today, like ESPN losing their butts.
The thing to recognize is that in sports, content had a shelf life. That’s different than movies. Only a very few will care about the Temple-Rutgers game from this year next year or ten years from now. Many more people will enjoy classic movies from decades ago. The flip side to that is sports are meant to be seen live. There’s a premium people will pay for that. Movies on the other hand can wait. People won’t necessarily be driven to watch a movie at a specific time on a specific night of the week. The flexibility of choosing viewing times is one of the advantages of streaming movies. When all these things get weighed and correctly priced the next way of viewing will emerge.
I’m willing to bet that there will be another way of viewing sports and entertainment decades from now; for instance purchasing virtual seats at the sporting event, where you are completely immersed in the venue experience and it is bi-directional. The players on the field will see your virtual image in the stands and hear your cheers and boos. (I’m not advocating that. I’m pretty much tech adverse after spending my entire career in IT.) My favorite ways of watching sports remains going to games where I can interact with people. Next to that would be going to a bar. Virtual does nothing for me, but I could see it working for the generation glued to their XBox and watch other people play games on YouTube. Supposedly, that’s one of the most frequently viewed categories of videos on YouTube.
I find now, I’m happy to go on YouTube and watch the highlights, and not know the score going in.
The not knowing the score would be key.
The entertainment area’s big issue in movies is that most of them become “free” on the Internet over time.
Only customers that want to see the “new thing” are going to have to pay for it.
Entertainment is a luxury not a necessity—and of course in tough economic times paying for it is one of the first household expenses to get axed.
As we all know the mainstream movie industry is getting more and more woke—losing a large chunk of their audience.
It could not happen at a worse time for them—consumers are getting in the habit of either watching old movies for free or just doing something else with their time.
Imho even creating their own content won’t save the streamers—they will produce mostly woke garbage and end up trashing their own brand.
Correct. I haven’t been to a theater in years. I watch old movies and tv shows, but it’s only occasionally. Generally, the TV is off after I watch John Solomon at 6 pm. There’s other things to do.
Both owned by Disney...
Sincerely, and freegards.
Football is football
Ain’t worth watching...since the game is now “pass and catch” , and penalty anyway. Run once in a while. Defense hardly can wrap up and tackle.
Basketball on green grass(or turf).
More and more it’s looking like this is Saban’s last season.
And Pat Summerall on Sundays.
I know. Bama's last natty was 3 years prior. Bama just lost at home to a ranked opponent, but one ranked quite a bit lower than Bama. Other teams seem to be recruiting at least as well. Bama no longer has the caliber of QB they're used to. The writing's on the wall.
.
.
.
And that's exactly what we were all saying after the 3rd game in 2015 when Ole Miss beat Bama in Tuscaloosa. LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.