ESPN actively planning to offer linear feed directly to consumers, has deals with two leagues

[Bruce]

I think some theaters would be better than others. Adjustable seating would be nice, and food options would need to be a thing, mainly stadium fare. But for college towns and the suburbs, for away games, it could really work. So more a regional thing. New England? Probably not. But the South, parts of the Midwest, yeah.

Might have the potential for the younger folks to see the beauty of a big screen, instead of being on their **** phones.

Had to go to my son’s house to check on his dogs (business trip), when I arrived, found out he returned a day early, on his couch, watching a movie on his ipad, he has a 85” Sony 95J, not even turned on.

I remember being his age (33), wishing I had a 50” Rear Projector TV.

 

[Yespage]

Might have the potential for the younger folks to see the beauty of a big screen, instead of being on their **** phones.

Had to go to my son’s house to check on his dogs (business trip), when I arrived, found out he returned a day early, on his couch, watching a movie on his ipad, he has a 85” Sony 95J, not even turned on.

I've watched a movie once on a tablet... when a tree knocked out the power to my home for a few days. I was actually impressed with the speakers! But umm... not doing that any other way unless there are no electrons piping in on the cables.

I remember being his age (33), wishing I had a 50” Rear Projector TV.

Personally, visual size is nice, but I've been more about surround sound. The visual is always in front, but having the audio around you, that makes it a theater experience. No where near an audiophile, but that was always my goal.

 

[Bruce]

Personally, visual size is nice, but I've been more about surround sound. The visual is always in front, but having the audio around you, that makes it a theater experience. No where near an audiophile, but that was always my goal.

I just bought a Anthem AVM 70 Processor, sounds so good, makes my older Yamaha 5200 Processor sound like ****, using it with Hypex 500OEM Monoblock Amplifier for each speaker, including the rear/sides.

 

[Yespage]

Cool. I have speakers around the room that make noise. Speakers that have ohm numbers too!

 

[Bruce]

Cool. I have speakers around the room that make noise. Speakers that have ohm numbers too!

Classy.

Was going to update mine, but since I needed a new roof, will wait until next year.

 

[Yespage]

Classy.

Was going to update mine, but since I needed a new roof, will wait until next year.

You live in Florida... every year you need a new roof.

FYI, I'm reporting any post that takes this post seriously!

 

[Bruce]

Sooner or later, when a company might be for sale, Apple’s name is always brought up, yet they never buy/merge/pull the trigger-

Apple wants to be a force in live sports. Buying ESPN could be the answer.

Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives raised eyebrows this week by declaring it a “no-brainer” for Apple to acquire ESPN from The Walt Disney Co. at a...

www.marketwatch.com

 

[SamCdbs]

Apple is FAR too well run to fall for Disney's attempted sale of it soon to be toxic asset.

If Apple wanted to be in this or that sport, it simply can bid on the individual sport without the need for ESPN.

 

[Bruce]

If Apple wanted to be in this or that sport, it simply can bid on the individual sport without the need for ESPN.

Can’t, rights are already tied up.

The only ones coming up in the next few years are the NBA (expires following the 2024-2025 season) and College Football Playoffs (through the 2025-26 season).

MLB, NHL and of course, the NFL have many years to go.

 

[SamCdbs]

Actually, MLB and NHL expire in 28, which is not really that long. NASCAR, Indy Car, and several second tier college conferences expire before that. But that really doesn't matter if ESPN held the rights for a century to come. Actually it makes things worse, the longer the rights, the more money Disney owes in a system where it cannot recoup it.

Disney has turned a cash cow into a toxic asset in the span of less than four years. Faced with the blunt and irrefutable math that selling ESPN a la carte will yield less money than it cost to produce ESPN (just like all streaming, except the one) unless they sell it at a three figure/month price, all the MBAs at Disney can do is a truly silly theory about "dual distribution". Which is dumb people paying for cable to subsidize the smart people who will get ESPN at a huge discount. That is truly insane. The correct answer to "Operation Mothership" was "it can't be done". Simple.

What we are seeing the current big dispute with Charter is, and this is hard to believe, cable being the adult in the room. ESPN, as an exclusive, provides value to bundled packages. ESPN, if you can just buy it a la carte, has no place in a cable company's line up. Why burden your customers with material they don't want, when the minority that does can simply buy it extra?

ESPN is thus, very soon, becoming toxic. Tied up in huge contracts for material that, outside of the bundle, simply cannot cover their costs. Apple, nor Amazon, nor whatever, are all too well run to tie up Disney's toxic asset.

If they want sports, they can pick them up when the rights expire, or from the Disney bankruptcy, whichever comes first.

 

[Bruce]

Disney has turned a cash cow into a toxic asset in the span of less than four years.

Was not just Disney that did this, it was all providers and broadcasters ( both OTA and Cable Channels) that did this.

With the bad service, high prices, not enough new content and creating channels of reruns just to get a per sub fee, are just some of the reasons why people are leaving Traditional Paid Live TV, now at 32 million have left and a average of 2 million more leave every reported quarter.

The sports channels are feeling the losses first, RSNs because they are more regional and then the national channels like ESPN next.

And the non sports channels are feeling it also, less and less new programming is being produced for old fashioned Live TV, we are now at a point where new stuff premieres on the streaming services first, then to TV Channels.

By the way, if Live TV had not lost the 32 million subs, ESPN would be taking in a extra $352 million more a month ( ESPN at $9, ESPN 2 at $2 a month in per sub fees).

 

[Juan]

Was not just Disney that did this, it was all providers and broadcasters ( both OTA and Cable Channels) that did this.

With the bad service, high prices, not enough new content and creating channels of reruns just to get a per sub fee, are just some of the reasons why people are leaving Traditional Paid Live TV, now at 32 million have left and a average of 2 million more leave every reported quarter.

The sports channels are feeling the losses first, RSNs because they are more regional and then the national channels like ESPN next.

And the non sports channels are feeling it also, less and less new programming is being produced for old fashioned Live TV, we are now at a point where new stuff premieres on the streaming services first, then to TV Channels.

By the way, if Live TV had not lost the 32 million subs, ESPN would be taking in a extra $352 million more a month ( ESPN at $9, ESPN 2 at $2 a month in per sub fees).

Only 3 or so companies control ALL the major cable channels...thats the real issue

 

[Bruce]

Only 3 or so companies control ALL the major cable channels...thats the real issue

Disney, Warner, Fox, Universal (Comcast), Paramount, Hearst, AMC, Hallmark, that is 8, more then 3.

That is ignoring Nexstar, Sinclair and the other owners of smaller channels, for example Nexstar owns Newsnation and the CW.

 

[SamCdbs]

By the way, if Live TV had not lost the 32 million subs, ESPN would be taking in a extra $352 million more a month ( ESPN at $9, ESPN 2 at $2 a month in per sub fees).

Correct. How grossly Disney managed this. Some people want to use Netflix as their only form of entertainment, rather than the HBO-like supplement it was designed to be, and Disney (and the rest of Big Media, save the well-run Fox and Sony (Columbia) ) panicked and launched all these money losing streaming services. Rather than simply say "the good material is on linear TV, as always, if you want access, get cable (et al), we wish those that don't want what we are selling well, enjoy the Extraordinary Attorney Woo", they actually gave access to the material people wanted without cable. And turned the ESPN cash cow into a toxic asset.

 

[Yespage]

Of course, sports were also propping up the costs of Sat/Cable, which is one reason people were leaving. The other issue is that

You are under this odd presumption that had channels just stood pat, subscribers wouldn't have plummeted. One of the issues is beyond the people leaving, it is there are fewer and fewer new subscribers. People that were born after 1995 have a much different view of media from people born before 1980. Sat/cable is highly reliant on inertia at this point.

ESPN has many issues.

• grossly overpaid for rights like MNF
• dropping subs to cable/sat due to price escalation
• dropping number of new subs entering the market as streaming is how the newer generations roll
• overall competition for eyeballs with the amount of entertainment out there being way too big
• generally among streamers, they set the initial price way too low

Some of this is self-inflicted, some is just changing attitudes and economic realities.

 

[Juan]

Of course, sports were also propping up the costs of Sat/Cable, which is one reason people were leaving. The other issue is that

You are under this odd presumption that had channels just stood pat, subscribers wouldn't have plummeted. One of the issues is beyond the people leaving, it is there are fewer and fewer new subscribers. People that were born after 1995 have a much different view of media from people born before 1980. Sat/cable is highly reliant on inertia at this point.

ESPN has many issues.

• grossly overpaid for rights like MNF
• dropping subs to cable/sat due to price escalation
• dropping number of new subs entering the market as streaming is how the newer generations roll
• overall competition for eyeballs with the amount of entertainment out there being way too big
• generally among streamers, they set the initial price way too low

Some of this is self-inflicted, some is just changing attitudes and economic realities.

Let's not forget local channels greed ...but it was consolidation in cable channels.that is the major reason for high prices otherwise known as you want this channel then you need to buy these 30

 

[Bruce]

Let's not forget local channels greed ...but it was consolidation in cable channels.that is the major reason for high prices otherwise known as you want this channel then you need to buy these 30

Local Channels ( CBS, FOX, NBC, ABC) are the most watched stations and wished to be paid accordingly.

I am bothered by the channels that do not get good ratings like the RSNs and ESPN, that get paid more the the local channels, yet get a much smaller rating.

Then the providers are not helping by charging a extra Broadcast Channel and RSN fees, on top of the high monthly cost.

 

[Juan]

Local Channels ( CBS, FOX, NBC, ABC) are the most watched stations and wished to be paid accordingly.

I am bothered by the channels that do not get good ratings like the RSNs and ESPN, that get paid more the the local channels, yet get a much smaller rating.

Then the providers are not helping by charging a extra Broadcast Channel and RSN fees, on top of the high monthly cost.

Not anymore..broadcast channels are supposed to be FREE..atleast they were until the 1990s

 

[Bruce]

Not anymore..broadcast channels are supposed to be FREE..atleast they were until the 1990s

Why should they be free?

 

[Juan]

Why should they be free?

They have exclusive fcc licenses to serve specific cities...thats why