That is true. Also if they go direct to public they then have the issue of fluctuating revenue streams as opposed to guaranteed income. And the added problem they have is if they use the internet or other devices and the picture quaility is not good or buffers they will lose customers.
And while I think about it, going direct could also lead to lost revenue as people will get illegal copies thus reducing income whereas if sold to PAYTV income is set in concrete.
And they will also have to film their own sport which will add to the cost.
Currently the choice is Sky on their terms or don't watch sport legally (Yeah, I know Prime does some delayed coverage). This means we will have the choice of ... Well, that's the thing we don't know yet.
What this means is that things can change. Sure there will be winners and losers but isn't it cool we might actually get something better? Sure, we might get something worse but isn't the chance for something better higher?
Benoire: Improvements and innovation in what though? If they're already seperate, delivered via multiple devices then how can you further innovate what is a fixed 'show'? There are still costs to pay for and license fees, so what would you be innovating in?
Every aspect of the game that makes it appealing....the laws, refereeing, all the technology of broadcasting and delivery.
Benoire: Improvements and innovation in what though? If they're already seperate, delivered via multiple devices then how can you further innovate what is a fixed 'show'? There are still costs to pay for and license fees, so what would you be innovating in?
As I mentioned above. Content could be split. The key is the live internet part. That opens up phones, tablets, pc's and internet connected TV's up to amazing innovation in live sport.
As an example, imagine watching F1 on your Apple TV then being able to view a replay of something you saw whenever you like (separate to the directors stream) on your phone or tablet while not having to pause the race. You could even split screen (being entirely digital) camera angels (in-car) or just have the in-car stream on your tablet for you to glance at. There are heaps of opportunities for innovation. The sooner we get live internet content rights separated from broadcast the more innovation we will (hopefully) see.
That is true. Also if they go direct to public they then have the issue of fluctuating revenue streams as opposed to guaranteed income. And the added problem they have is if they use the internet or other devices and the picture quaility is not good or buffers they will lose customers.
And while I think about it, going direct could also lead to lost revenue as people will get illegal copies thus reducing income whereas if sold to PAYTV income is set in concrete.
And they will also have to film their own sport which will add to the cost.
Yeah that is pretty much the reason they resist doing it, just like movie/tv prodcuers. Picture quality can be fixed though, that's just a technology thing we are behind on.
I think this mostly applies to major sports (Rugby not being one) who film their own sports anyway. F1 is filmed by it's own crews who travel with the circus.
One thing which I think a lot of people here don't understand is the internet streaming services in the US are not available if you live the same area as the team is. The rights to the local market are all still held by PAYTV companies. Even in the US with better and cheaper internet then us people still prefer to watch on their TV's from a cable feed not a internet feed.
again it comes back to the customer base. In most countries where there are multiple choices you have a customer base in the 10's of millions which can support what it costs to secure the rights to the top sports, here we would be lucky to have a customer base of a million people to support multiple pay companies. Cant see them making big profits or even being sucessful
crackrdbycracku: Personally, I think it is all about choice.
Currently the choice is Sky on their terms or don't watch sport legally (Yeah, I know Prime does some delayed coverage). This means we will have the choice of ... Well, that's the thing we don't know yet.
What this means is that things can change. Sure there will be winners and losers but isn't it cool we might actually get something better? Sure, we might get something worse but isn't the chance for something better higher?
Jas777: One thing which I think a lot of people here don't understand is the internet streaming services in the US are not available if you live the same area as the team is. The rights to the local market are all still held by PAYTV companies. Even in the US with better and cheaper internet then us people still prefer to watch on their TV's from a cable feed not a internet feed.
That's a really good idea for the sport itself. If you live in the area you can go to the game and fill seats or watch it if you have cable. If you live out of the area and can't possibly get there then you can watch it on cable/internet.
Yes technology can be fixed but that could anywhere from now to 10 years depending on where you live.
And I just bet that they will have different pricing between SD and HD with small print saying that HD is not gauranteed even if the feed is HD.
I'm just happy to see someone taking a risk and trying something new. There is so much that can be done without Sky holding on to all the content and not allowing individual subs to sports. The cynic in me probably thinks they lost the rights on purpose to start proving they are not a monopoly or want this venture to fail so they can strengthen their position.
The biggest issue I have with this is that I just know that the picture quality for a lot of viewers is going to be sub standard, even if it is offered in HD. You can just imagine what it is going to be like when heavy internet usage occurs.
And also the fact that a lot of people don't use the net to stream and if they have too then will add extra costs not just the cost to stream but to get extra data.
And I for one don't think the individual sports model will make users the savings they expect.
streaming of some content can work really well - Netflix type stuff for example, but I think the speed of movement of soccer and the small size of the ball will make it a much worse experience.
Jas777: The biggest issue I have with this is that I just know that the picture quality for a lot of viewers is going to be sub standard, even if it is offered in HD. You can just imagine what it is going to be like when heavy internet usage occurs.
And also the fact that a lot of people don't use the net to stream and if they have too then will add extra costs not just the cost to stream but to get extra data.
And I for one don't think the individual sports model will make users the savings they expect.
I read a telco is in negotiations to broadcast the games. This is the bit that worries me. If it's like telecom, vodafone, 2d etc and they go down the contract route I think it will struggle. It's only one sport and to pull people in to contracts for one sport I just do not think it will work. Im excited for the press conference at 2pm though.
NonprayingMantis: streaming of some content can work really well - Netflix type stuff for example, but I think the speed of movement of soccer and the small size of the ball will make it a much worse experience.
But the people who bought the rights, for a few million, must know that and think they can make money ... so they would have a fix in mind, right?
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.
