ESPN Going Ala Carte Streaming -- 2018

[snoscythe]

Hidden beneath the big headline today that Disney is ending its partnership with Netflix was the nugget that Disney acquired BAMtech (MLB's streaming spin-off) and will launch a standalone ESPN streaming service beginning in 2018.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/08/media/d ... index.html

Expect a subscription based service that does not require a cable or satellite subscription, much like MLB.tv's streaming service--which is an awesome product.

[Gunk]

Oh I hope so. Would be so awesome.

[byufan4ever]

But that also means it probably won't be part of Sling TV or Playstation Vue or any other cable / satellite package. Or am I wrong about that?

Many people for many years have bemoaned how much cable / satellite costs and all of the packaged channels you get that you never watch. It may seem great to truly be able to pick just the handful of streaming channels you want, but each one is quite expensive on it's own. First, you gotta have decent to good Internet or you're going to be getting a lot of buffering. There's $50 a month (taxes, fees, modem lease). Gotta have Netflix. $10. Gotta have Amazon Prime (yes, you get more than just streaming movies). $8.25 ($99/12). Man, that one show I really want to watch is only on Hulu.$8. Star Trek's coming out with a new series and I'm super pumped! $6. Got kids? Need Disney! Price TBD. Love sports? Need ESPN. Price TBD. See where I'm going here? That's $82.25 without the Disney/ESPN because there's no price yet. Ok, you were going to have Internet anyways, that's $32.25 for 4 services. Will be up to around $50 a month once you add in Disney/ESPN. Wow, might as well have a cable/Internet package...

[snoscythe]

But that also means it probably won't be part of Sling TV or Playstation Vue or any other cable / satellite package. Or am I wrong about that?

Many people for many years have bemoaned how much cable / satellite costs and all of the packaged channels you get that you never watch. It may seem great to truly be able to pick just the handful of streaming channels you want, but each one is quite expensive on it's own. First, you gotta have decent to good Internet or you're going to be getting a lot of buffering. There's $50 a month (taxes, fees, modem lease). Gotta have Netflix. $10. Gotta have Amazon Prime (yes, you get more than just streaming movies). $8.25 ($99/12). Man, that one show I really want to watch is only on Hulu.$8. Star Trek's coming out with a new series and I'm super pumped! $6. Got kids? Need Disney! Price TBD. Love sports? Need ESPN. Price TBD. See where I'm going here? That's $82.25 without the Disney/ESPN because there's no price yet. Ok, you were going to have Internet anyways, that's $32.25 for 4 services. Will be up to around $50 a month once you add in Disney/ESPN. Wow, might as well have a cable/Internet package...

I think the trend is going towards having your "core" streaming channels (Netflix, Amazon, ESPN, etc.), and then rotating through the other services--we do Hulu for 2 months, then drop it and add HBO for a couple months to catch up on our shows there, and by the time we're caught up, we can drop it and go back to Hulu where things have been backlogging for us.

[BroncoBot]

But that also means it probably won't be part of Sling TV or Playstation Vue or any other cable / satellite package. Or am I wrong about that?

Many people for many years have bemoaned how much cable / satellite costs and all of the packaged channels you get that you never watch. It may seem great to truly be able to pick just the handful of streaming channels you want, but each one is quite expensive on it's own. First, you gotta have decent to good Internet or you're going to be getting a lot of buffering. There's $50 a month (taxes, fees, modem lease). Gotta have Netflix. $10. Gotta have Amazon Prime (yes, you get more than just streaming movies). $8.25 ($99/12). Man, that one show I really want to watch is only on Hulu.$8. Star Trek's coming out with a new series and I'm super pumped! $6. Got kids? Need Disney! Price TBD. Love sports? Need ESPN. Price TBD. See where I'm going here? That's $82.25 without the Disney/ESPN because there's no price yet. Ok, you were going to have Internet anyways, that's $32.25 for 4 services. Will be up to around $50 a month once you add in Disney/ESPN. Wow, might as well have a cable/Internet package...

I think the trend is going towards having your "core" streaming channels (Netflix, Amazon, ESPN, etc.), and then rotating through the other services--we do Hulu for 2 months, then drop it and add HBO for a couple months to catch up on our shows there, and by the time we're caught up, we can drop it and go back to Hulu where things have been backlogging for us.

what a headache.

[Fido]

Right--that sounds as bad as playing the Comcast price jump/I'm going to cancel unless you give me another promo rate game. Plus if Comcast is your only choice for high speed internet, they price it so your high-speed internet (I work from home so need fast speeds for VOIP and VPN/data transfers) is almost as expensive as your TV bundle on a promo rate).
On Amazon Prime, we have it for the free shipping on Amazon orders--and while we do have the TV streaming service, much of the content you have to pay for on top of the $99/year (the free stuff isn't the "in demand" content). So we don't really use their streaming unless they have something we really want that isn't available on another service (that's very rare).

[Gunk]

I don't watch TV. Sometimes I feel like I am "missing out" because I don't watch all the cool shows people are talking about. Sometimes I think it would be fun to binge a show (could just buy the dvds for cheaper than a subscription). But, then I lose interest.

Only think I want and miss watching on TV are sports. If I can pay a few bucks to watch a game I am interested in seeing, great! Take my money, ESPN.

[hawkwing]

My fear is that ESPN will think they can charge $20/month or more for their channels, when really they are probably worth $4/month

[snoscythe]

The transition is going to be tough for cord-cutters who naively assumed that moving online you could get everything you wanted at a lower cost. Right now, streaming is convenient because (a) you have bundled services (i.e. Hulu gives you Fox, CBS, etc., Netflix delivers Disney and AMC content) etc., (b) the providers aren't cracking down on sharing, and (c) cable and tv viewership ad revenue hasn't completely bottomed-out yet.

Part (a) is fracturing as content developers want to cut out the middleman and go direct-to-consumer.

Part (b) is going to go away as well. HBO openly admitted a while back that they were ignoring people sharing their streaming credentials, because they wanted to build a devoted viewership that is "addicted" to their programming, and then step in with enforcement. But letting things go unchecked for a while, enforcement can raise revenues. If you try enforcing from the get-go, you stymie viewership growth. Netflix did the same--started out ignoring credential sharing, and then started regulating and enforcing it and turning it into a revenue stream.

Part (c) will drive when (a) and (b) happen. When ad revenue from commercials drops below the rubicon, those costs will have to be made up somewhere else--subscription revenues or Hulu-type ads, and credential-sharing will be viewed by shareholders as unrealized potential revenue.

I think it will be better than cable, but it's going to be a hassle getting the programming you want and juggling costs. Basically, you a trading the convenience of a single cable provider handling those hassles for a fee for you doing it yourself for free.

Welcome to capitalism where nothing is truly free and people are efficiency- and profit-motivated.