Search results for query: *

Not real good at math, huh? Losing less billions than you lost last time does not make something on a road to profitablity. The market has spoken on ESPN+. Less people want it than it costs to make. Much like all streaming.

Could you please list the things that the "majority" of people watch? I'll help you out. There aren't any. That is the poison of streaming. With the wonderful, consumer protecting, bundle, I, yes, pay a few pennies for things I would never watch. So do millions of people, and writ large...

Because its a bad thing. Because the RSN, or sports generally, is not the only thing going away. Most everything is going away. In fact, the RSN is actually one, if not the, most popular single things on TV under the wonderful, consumer protecting, bundle model. No one thing, NOTHING, is...

Until 2028. Then? No one is going to be around to bid for baseball. In the anti-consumer future, it is just another thing that we will no longer have to enjoy.

Yep. As predicted. Manfred says MLB has cash to cover teams that lose their RSN deals "for two years". He has never been clear if 23 counts as year one for SD and ARI, or not. In any event, tick tock, what happens then? The blunt fact is that less people wish to buy their local MLB team...

Figuring out Disney management is easy. Just think of the dumbest possible move, and that is what they will do. Hulu's content simply costs more to make than there are people who wish to purchase it. And most of Hulu's content is, either reruns, or content that is already available in other...

Multiple issues here. - The playoffs are too long. Baseball should be over by now. Adding levels, meaning all be 4 or 6 teams are "in contention for a playoff spot" until the last weekend creates faux regular season drama, but at the expense of the playoffs' being meaningful. - ESPN, et al...

Well, since people lived for 10s of 1000s of years without it, no one "needs" the internet. But, on a less hyperbolic note, no, no one really "needs" HD video quality internet, which did not even exist not 20 or even 15 years ago. If you have kids in school, or are in school yourself, or work...

Incorrect. You, as most of the agenda driven fan boys do, make up some number for the supposed high cable bill. The average cable bill, with all the wonderful content, if $116. Not the hundreds and thousands you fan boys claim. Answered many time, although it is so self-evident it really...

Both need cash exactly why? Because they own money bleeding streamers. Shut em down, protect the consumer, serve your stockholders, and admit you didn't know what you were paid to know. Ahh, so paying twice for the same content. If only there was a way to insure the customer only paid...

- Of course, the infrastructure costs of DBS, or cable, or, well just about everything else, are huge, and the equipment must be rolled out. This is why it took time for the mega-successful technologies to make some money. Streaming, of course, has no real cost besides content and the...

Yes, yes, yes. Its all a part of the master plan. Someday, for reasons you cannot give, everyone is going to join your minority. And save, save, save. Streaming will, somehow, be profitable, and cable/DBS not, because of reasons. Well, yes. Those without an agenda understand that Big Media...

Anyway, the best hour on the subject I have heard: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-marchand-and-ourand-sports-media-podcast/id1587364692 Points: - DirecTV has no interest in the "dual distribution model" idiocy Disney is spewing out. - DirecTV believes that the costs of sports...

Easy. Who says anything must automatically "survive"? Who says that the amount of entertainment options available to you, and everyone else, must automatically be the same as today? Without the bundle, the consumer is unprotected. The money losing streaming business is in acquisition mode...

So popular it loses BILLIONS of dollars, every quarter. Not every year, every quarter. It doesn't work. That simple. I love the "greed" concept. So who is it that different in the unprofitable streaming world from the profitmaking linear world? Your cable company is probably your ISP, CBS...

EXACTLY. The magic of the consumer protecting bundle. A wonderful thing. You pay a little bit for content you don't want, so do I, and writ large all across the nation (and beyond) ALL the content for EVERYONE gets made and EVERYONE is entertained. Wonderful. But, with a la carte, since...

- ESPN, is going bankrupt, almost certainly. Its business model is just like the RSNs, it is just not quite as far down the path. Streaming, and the idiot idea of a "dual distribution model" just doesn't make any sense. It doesn't work. Less people wish to pay for the material than it costs...

Ahh, so you sell off assets and become profitable by no longer owning assets. Got it. -- Disney is taking a page out of the Ford playbook. If you remember, Ford, just as poorly managed as GM or Chrysler (or Disney, well, that is unfair to Ford, no company is as mismanaged as Disney) avoided...

Actually, just because streaming is an unprofitable bad idea. Every other form of entertainment delivery is a virtual license to print money. Obscenely profitable. Disney is looking for someone dumb enough to buy in, now Paramount. And so on. It doesn't work. That simple. It costs more...

- The only smart thing Fay Vincent ever said was "what the h*** else are they (ESPN) going to show all summer?" That was a long time ago. ESPN, having killed the goose that laid the golden eggs, is soon to be out of cash, so MLB would be wise to get away from it, rather than be a creditor in...

Sad. Stadium, almost unique in the diginet space, was a serious effort to entertain. While low budget, it produced ORIGINAL content aimed at sports fans, seemingly trying to get below the average age of ESPN/Fox viewers. At least in my area, the local used the channel to broadcast some...

Pop goes the bubble.

You do understand what the phrase "not named NFL" means, right? The big money is in the local broadcasts of local games in all sports not named NFL. You wish to have it both ways. Railing about how unpopular MLB (NBA, NHL) really are and how "evil" it is that you actually have to pay for it...

W R O N G. MLB took up broadcasting AT A LOSS of the SD and ARI game. AT A LOSS. Manfred has stated as such. And stated that the other owners would make up the money, FOR TWO SEASONS (not clear if 23 or 24 is year one). Than? Again, do the math. You have gleefully stated how much you...

Then please do the math. Referencing the ratings. I will spot you that 100% of those that watch today would buy it a la carte, if they could afford it. What would they have to charge to break even? I'll wait.