samsmith: All 380 games can be viewed once AT ANY TIME so you wont have to be up all night - in addition to this 250 of the matches can be viewed multiple times at your leisure....
Thanks. Would be good if the website made that clear on the sign up page as it still states you are subscribing to "all 380 games live, 250 games on-demand"
It's conservative because as the majority of the users of these platforms are technology challenged, making sure an uninterrupted at a consistent quality is higher on the priority list.
Many of us on here are on higher-speed connections (VDSL, Fibre, cable etc), though, so surely it should provide the best viewing experience? I considered that perhaps it was limited to avoid showing people the 'best' quality if they were only going to end up with 'medium' quality, so hopefully we will get an ability to force the sample to 3Mbps to see what it's like.
My ADSL at home is borderline and often I end up at 3.2 Mbps, so the NHL stream can sustain 3 Mbps just.
Sure, some people do not have high-speed connections. Some by choice ($$), and some by luck (or lack thereof, due to location and availability of services). But that's far from a baseline average, particularly among those who will be after this sort of service.
The NHL, MLB, MLS, NBA and NFL which all use this platform don't support "Smart" TVs. They do support mobile devices such as iOS and Android as well as other delivery methods such as Roku, PS3 and Xbox. However to get the software for these you need to pay extra. I'd imagine Coliseum are taking a measured approach over the coming months as demand is more certain. It is after all a business and they need to ensure ROI.
Sure, I agree, it is a business. And as such, offering a relatively low-quality product (in terms of being a reduction in quality from what the user base are used to), at a premium price, and with different (I won't say worse) requirements on how to view it - you said above, many of these users may be technology-challenged, so expecting them to manage to connect their PC to their big-screen TV and configure it properly is perhaps not the greatest plan. I hope the mobile platform support comes soon, as I suspect many people will find it easier to connect their <insert major mobile platform device here> to their TV with an HDMI cable to watch it, than to set their PC/laptop/whathaveyou up to output to their TV.
I'd really like to see this succeed, I'd love to see more content available this way down here in NZ, and I really want my fears about this implementation to be proven wrong. As such, I'm prepared to provide as much comment and criticism as I can in the hope that even some small part of it leads to improvements.
Unfortunately, though, as this stage, I see it being a reduction in image quality and an increase in complexity in terms of coverage in previous seasons. However, obviously the trade off is the benefit of being able to watch every game Live or On-Demand. Personally, I would like to see a higher bitrate option available and ios/android apps. I think that would resolve the majority of the complaints.
Inphinity: Sure, I agree, it is a business. And as such, offering a relatively low-quality product (in terms of being a reduction in quality from what the user base are used to), at a premium price, and with different (I won't say worse) requirements on how to view it - you said above, many of these users may be technology-challenged, so expecting them to manage to connect their PC to their big-screen TV and configure it properly is perhaps not the greatest plan. I hope the mobile platform support comes soon, as I suspect many people will find it easier to connect their <insert major mobile platform device here> to their TV with an HDMI cable to watch it, than to set their PC/laptop/whathaveyou up to output to their TV.
I'd really like to see this succeed, I'd love to see more content available this way down here in NZ, and I really want my fears about this implementation to be proven wrong. As such, I'm prepared to provide as much comment and criticism as I can in the hope that even some small part of it leads to improvements.
Unfortunately, though, as this stage, I see it being a reduction in image quality and an increase in complexity in terms of coverage in previous seasons. However, obviously the trade off is the benefit of being able to watch every game Live or On-Demand. Personally, I would like to see a higher bitrate option available and ios/android apps. I think that would resolve the majority of the complaints.
Yeah that's the problem, people are being irrational and expecting the world from a platform which whilst mature in other markets is in its infancy as a mass deliverable product in a market like NZ. Short term there will be a bit of pain and apprehension, however once Coliseum have had a chance to isolate all the issues the product will mature (pretty much how Sky has).
Personally though I have every intention of subscribing to this, because its going to cost me $150 a season (I won't watch every game) along with the $200 for the NHL is a total cost of c. $350 a year for those two. Compare it to Sky where an outlay of upwards of $1250 a year and I still don't get the access its a bit of a no brainer.
Anyone have an idea what this would look like when using Airplay by iphone through Apple TV on to a 55"? I'm contemplating buying an Apple TV as dont have a HDMI laptop?
It will still look fairly poor on a 55" screen no matter how it is transmitted especially if the screen is 1080p, the bit rate is just too low for a good quality picture.
BermudaBlues: Anyone have an idea what this would look like when using Airplay by iphone through Apple TV on to a 55"? I'm contemplating buying an Apple TV as dont have a HDMI laptop?
It won't be any better/worse than a laptop connected via HDMI but it will be easier to use and less bulk around the TV. I already have 2 Apple TVs so I'm sorted and looking forward to the EPL app becoming available. And once you get an Apple TV you'll open up a whole new world of streaming options. If you're dead set on signing up for EPL this is the way I would recommend doing it. I have plenty of laptops in the house with 4 kids who each have their own plus mine and the work unit, but they're all too bulky and the older ones are quite noisy. Apple TV is the way to go or perhaps a Chromekey if you're and Android fan.
voy1d: Yeah that's the problem, people are being irrational and expecting the world from a platform which whilst mature in other markets is in its infancy as a mass deliverable product in a market like NZ. Short term there will be a bit of pain and apprehension, however once Coliseum have had a chance to isolate all the issues the product will mature (pretty much how Sky has).
I don't think it's that people are being irrational, but that people have become used to watching the games with a quality HD image, and a number are unhappy that this change in provider is, effectively, going to mean a decrease in said quality - which is quite counter-intuitive to the idea of using newer technologies to provide it. I understand not everyone could sustain a higher throughput to stream, say, 4.5Mbps, but I do think it would be a better option, at least from a consumer perspective, where Coliseum to offer a higher bitrate for those who are able to sustain it. Make it easy, make it look good, and people will, I'm sure, be more than happy to pay for the access. But if it's difficult or inconvenient, and of poor quality, far fewer will. Heck, even if 800kbps was the only option, there'd be some fans who'd sign up to watch because they just want to watch their team no matter how they do it. But there's also a group who will stay away until the quality is at least at the level they're used to.
Also, in terms of cost, you've got to bear in mind there are a fair number who will keep their Sky subscription, as they use it for more than just EPL.
Managing customer expectation is a big part of being an early adopter for this sort of technology, so I will be interested to see how it's handled closer to the season start.
voy1d: Yeah that's the problem, people are being irrational and expecting the world from a platform which whilst mature in other markets is in its infancy as a mass deliverable product in a market like NZ. Short term there will be a bit of pain and apprehension, however once Coliseum have had a chance to isolate all the issues the product will mature (pretty much how Sky has).
I don't think it's that people are being irrational, but that people have become used to watching the games with a quality HD image, and a number are unhappy that this change in provider is, effectively, going to mean a decrease in said quality - which is quite counter-intuitive to the idea of using newer technologies to provide it. I understand not everyone could sustain a higher throughput to stream, say, 4.5Mbps, but I do think it would be a better option, at least from a consumer perspective, where Coliseum to offer a higher bitrate for those who are able to sustain it. Make it easy, make it look good, and people will, I'm sure, be more than happy to pay for the access. But if it's difficult or inconvenient, and of poor quality, far fewer will. Heck, even if 800kbps was the only option, there'd be some fans who'd sign up to watch because they just want to watch their team no matter how they do it. But there's also a group who will stay away until the quality is at least at the level they're used to.
Also, in terms of cost, you've got to bear in mind there are a fair number who will keep their Sky subscription, as they use it for more than just EPL.
I have just watched the new sample video on a 55" LED. The quality is still terrible. In the whole 8 minute clip you get a total of about 30 seconds of actual football footage.... It is this footage that we need to see as this is the footage we will be watching. I do not care what the buildup to a game looks like.
The quality of the actual football footage that I did see was terrible.
If you watch the stream when they walk out onto the pitch at timestamp 6.35 you will see how blocky the players look. The grass looks terrible. Fast action looks terrible.
It was just a few months ago when I could make out individual blades of grass on my screen when watching the football....
richardgnz: I have just watched the new sample video on a 55" LED. The quality is still terrible. In the whole 8 minute clip you get a total of about 30 seconds of actual football footage.... It is this footage that we need to see as this is the footage we will be watching. I do not care what the buildup to a game looks like.
The quality of the actual football footage that I did see was terrible.
If you watch the stream when they walk out onto the pitch at timestamp 6.35 you will see how blocky the players look. The grass looks terrible. Fast action looks terrible.
It was just a few months ago when I could make out individual blades of grass on my screen when watching the football....
The more I watch the clip the more I wonder why it is so bad. Sure, its better than iSky but for what its being 720p at 3000kbps there should be more detail in each of those frames.
If you look at NFL Gamepass at 3000kbps there is considerable detail differences (check out the grass for example).
The cause of this? Could be anything but I suspect its poor encoding methods.
I can only think your footage Richard was perhaps adapted down. I don't pretend the clip is perfect but I wouldn't say it's terrible. The best descriptive word I can come up with is adequate.
As to the pitch looking terrible well in my feed I can see exactly why. It's. because the pitch is in a terrible state. Huge divots everywhere and heaps of sand thrown down to try and cover up the huge patches where grass has been cut up. I can see this clearly on my 50" plasma as clear as I can see the individual raindrops during what must have been a severe weather event.
Might it be you're not seeing it as good as it can be perhaps. A good test would be to watch some NFL replays and fix the setting to 3Mbps. Now compare that to the EPL clip. Is it similar? If not it could indicate that your feed might be being adapted down and not showing at the best available. Just a thought.
Yeah that pitch was in shocking condition. they reduced the halves to 40 minutes in one of the games. it would of been about the 6th or 7th game in a week I think.
Inphinity: Sure, I agree, it is a business. And as such, offering a relatively low-quality product (in terms of being a reduction in quality from what the user base are used to), at a premium price, and with different (I won't say worse) requirements on how to view it - you said above, many of these users may be technology-challenged, so expecting them to manage to connect their PC to their big-screen TV and configure it properly is perhaps not the greatest plan. I hope the mobile platform support comes soon, as I suspect many people will find it easier to connect their <insert major mobile platform device here> to their TV with an HDMI cable to watch it, than to set their PC/laptop/whathaveyou up to output to their TV.
I'd really like to see this succeed, I'd love to see more content available this way down here in NZ, and I really want my fears about this implementation to be proven wrong. As such, I'm prepared to provide as much comment and criticism as I can in the hope that even some small part of it leads to improvements.
Unfortunately, though, as this stage, I see it being a reduction in image quality and an increase in complexity in terms of coverage in previous seasons. However, obviously the trade off is the benefit of being able to watch every game Live or On-Demand. Personally, I would like to see a higher bitrate option available and ios/android apps. I think that would resolve the majority of the complaints.
Yeah that's the problem, people are being irrational and expecting the world from a platform which whilst mature in other markets is in its infancy as a mass deliverable product in a market like NZ. Short term there will be a bit of pain and apprehension, however once Coliseum have had a chance to isolate all the issues the product will mature (pretty much how Sky has).
Personally though I have every intention of subscribing to this, because its going to cost me $150 a season (I won't watch every game) along with the $200 for the NHL is a total cost of c. $350 a year for those two. Compare it to Sky where an outlay of upwards of $1250 a year and I still don't get the access its a bit of a no brainer.
For about $60/mth (~$720/yr - including the Sports Package) On Sky I am able to watch Formula 1, NRL, Super 15, Test Match Rugby, Tour De France, Champions League Football, Netball, Cricket, etc.
Now imagine if I had to pay at least $100/season + bandwidth costs for each of the major sports events mentioned above. Imagine then for each of them, I had to use my laptop to hook up to my 55" TV to watch just the way most of us like or would like. No remote and stupid fiddly way to log into each events web page just to access. An experience no different to iSky.
No thanks I'll take Sky any day. I hope PLP fails and we are back to watching EPL on TV, the old fashioned, convenient and reliable way.
Whilst I applaud new initiatives, I do feel similar to SSP although I hope they don't fail but realise they need to provide more options including sharing with Sky.
This deal is only good for those that enjoy one sport or perhaps two if you include the delayed rugby... For me, I love F1 and lots of other sports on Sky so this is a really bad deal for me...
Imagine if all the sports unbundled, we'd have very high sports bills for those that enjoy a few as most will try to price themselves around $10/15 a month I'd imagine. NZ simply isn't big enough for multiple ppv sports I feel.
Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly
to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.
