OT: Potential Apple TV Content Deal

Submitted by KC Wolve on
Apple is supposedly close to announce a content deal that will include ABC, CBS, and Fox. It will include the ESPN family and other stations. Comcast owns NBC and is reportedly holding out. May be 30-40 per month.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out. Glad the BIG snatched up Rutgers and Maryland before everyone else. /s

Jackhammer

March 17th, 2015 at 1:04 PM ^

Yep - the only thing hard to work around is sports. Fortunately I have a couple family members with Comcast which I only use for ESPN. I cut the cord about 3 years ago and don't think I'll ever go back (maybe Sling TV - thats about all I would go for). I find myself in the dark corners of Netflix documentaries for entertainment sometimes.

PeterKlima

March 17th, 2015 at 10:11 AM ^

Why do people think this mitigates against the Big Ten taking Rutgers and Maryland? I know that the Bg Ten can use those schools to force into those big cable markets. But, isn't it better to have big schools as part of your channel even if people are buying ala cart? Rutgers and MD are top 40 in enrollment, tons of alums and a good percentage of sports fans. What other schools could the conference have added that would have been more financially beneficial than those two, even on an ala cart basis? (Keep in mind they have to be close enough to travel to often).

I may not like the historical performance in sports of those two schools, but financially it still makes sense.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

KC Wolve

March 17th, 2015 at 10:28 AM ^

I don't think there was a reason to add at all unless they brought in significant TV revenue or even then for that matter. It screwed up the home schedules and traditional matchups and now if people start losing access to the Big network, revenues will drop from those areas as well.

MI Expat NY

March 17th, 2015 at 12:31 PM ^

Yes.  If and when there is a movement to four super conferences, one conference (likely the Big 12) is going to have to die.  The Big Ten could have then taken the pick of the litter, or at worst second choice with the SEC.  At a minimum, they would have been no worse off chosing four teams at that point rather than two.  

PeterKlima

March 17th, 2015 at 1:18 PM ^

But, after the additions the conference is less likely to be that odd conference out of the picture, also they add some revenue and they have substantially increased their presence in big markets. That last point is important even if cable gives way to ala cart channels. Which games are picked up by the network for prime time? Those with some appeal in major markets. Who is on national, broadcast TV, a UM versus Mizzou game or UM versus MD (football)? I think the answer is easy. Even if a ton of people in DC and NYC don't order BTN once everything is ala cart (note that both those schools have very big alumni bases), they still may have some passing note rest in the game which increases eyeballs. From a FINANCIAL aspect only, the growth of ala cart cable doesn't do much to mitigate against the benefit over adding those two schools instead of not doing it.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

MI Expat NY

March 17th, 2015 at 2:26 PM ^

You honestly think that the Big Ten would ever have a chance of being the odd-conference out?  Or that Maryland/Rutgers would somehow prevent the Big Ten from being the odd-conference out?  If you truly believe either of those then there's not much point in continuing the conversation because neither position is remotely rational.  

There is no evidence that Maryland or Rutgers appeals to national networks.  They were pure additions based on cable subscribers.  In fact, to take your option, I think networks would lean heavily toward UM v. Mizzou.  Mizzou is at least a football school.  

MI Expat NY

March 17th, 2015 at 10:39 AM ^

I think there's also the argument that their fan bases aren't as big as their local tv markets.  While it may make financial sense when the entire local markets were brought into the BTN coverage area, it may not make as much sense when you're relying on actual Rutgers and Maryland football fans to purchase BTN.

MI Expat NY

March 17th, 2015 at 12:29 PM ^

I think the argument is "nobody."  At least not ayone we could have conceivably gotten.

There was no dire need to get to 14 teams.  Maryland and Rutgers arguably only bring one major program between them that is worth having.  The only reasonable basis for the invitation is the cable subscription numbers of Maryland/DC and New Jersey/NYC.  If that goes up in smoke, will there be enough Maryland and Rutgers fans out there willing to buy BTN to pay their own way?  I have my doubts.  

jaydubya

March 17th, 2015 at 10:20 AM ^

As other posters have noted, is the ability to access the Big Ten Network without ponying up for the necessary cable subscription.  If Sling TV ever adds BTN to their extra sports package (which currently sucks), I will be thrilled. 

death by wolverine

March 17th, 2015 at 10:42 AM ^

One big problem I see with a lot of your guys setups that don't have cable/ satellite is that I still love my DVR. With working and time with family. It's hard to watch everything especially sports live.

Moleskyn

March 17th, 2015 at 11:36 AM ^

I've never had DVR, so I guess I don't know what I'm missing with that, but I have a friend who cut the cord and just got a DVR device that allows him to record TV from his  OTA receiver. I don't remember what the device is called, and I believe it was pretty expensive ($200-$300 range), but it's a one-time cost. I've seen it in action (we actually made use of it during the Super Bowl) and it works well. 

My point is, if you are wanting to cut cable and still have DVR capability there are options.

steve sharik

March 17th, 2015 at 11:47 AM ^

...Cosby/Family Ties/Cheers/Night Court/ER, or Friends/Seinfeld, Comcast might have some leverage.  As is, they're just the finger in the dam.  Of course Comcast wants to stop this.  Once services like these become available, the cable side of their business is dead.

WestSider

March 17th, 2015 at 11:55 AM ^

Roku 3, Chromecast, and Charter Cable- only subscription, including Hulu, Netflix and Sling. Between the devices, including an HD antennae, there is not alot missing. And what's missing can be fixed with a trip to the sports bar or friends' houses.

stephenrjking

March 17th, 2015 at 12:15 PM ^

Let's tap the brakes on any specific assessments until we have more details. A bundle of 25 channels that includes some ESPNs for $40 is a bad deal. A bundle of 40 channels, or a serious sports package that includes BTN (Fox is involved, so this is plausible) that starts at $30 is rather a bigger deal. These "small" details make a big difference, and we don't know what they are yet.

But I'll say this: within weeks of the Sling rollout (I subscribed) Charter offered me the best TV package deal I've ever gotten from them. They are already my internet provider, and the bundle price they gave to add a basic but decent TV package cost me... An extra $20. Isn't that interesting?

The key here is that competition is on the market. And that means we will all be better off.

KC Wolve

March 17th, 2015 at 12:22 PM ^

Google fiber coming to my area and magically I am getting decent offers from other providers. For several years it was only TW in my neighborhood and they just ramrodded everyone because they were the only option outside of dish. I may or may not switch to the new Apple service but the other players will have to react and that overall is a great thing.

cozy200

March 17th, 2015 at 1:31 PM ^

And you are getting fucked so hard on rates that you'll literally do anything to just have an option, this all sounds awesome.



The day I can tell Directv and Frontier to get lost is worth every penny (even if its not cheaper).



As for HBO, netflix etc, just use kickass.to and get it all for free. Fuck 'em