'ESPNews' and 'ESPN Deportes' Added to WatchESPN App on iOS and Apple TV

Discussion in 'iOS Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Aug 28, 2013.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]
    ESPN has added two new channels to its WatchESPN apps on the iPhone, iPad and Apple TV, according to an ESPN press release.
    The channels are available to authenticated pay TV subscribers with the following cable companies:

    - AT&T U-verse
    - Bright House Networks
    - Charter
    - Comcast XFINITY
    - Cox
    - Midcontinent Communications
    - Optimum
    - Time Warner Cable
    - Verizon FiOS TV

    WatchESPN is a free download on the iPhone and iPad. [Direct Link]

    Article Link: 'ESPNews' and 'ESPN Deportes' Added to WatchESPN App on iOS and Apple TV
     
  2. macrumors 6502a

    jayhawk11

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2007
    #2
    And yet you still can't watch it without a cable subscription. You're putting the nail in your own coffins, fellas.
     
  3. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    #3
    I don't understand ESPN.

    A very large portion of pay TV subscribers (myself included) do so almost exclusively for the sports channels, mainly ESPN. I would rather directly pay ESPN a large percentage of my current Pay TV bill to get access to the ESPN channels. I can't help but think ESPN would make more money selling content directly to the consumer rather than going through a middle man (cable/satellite) that takes a large cut.
     
  4. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    #4
    Do I yell at DirecTV or Apple since DirecTV isn't on the list of any of these apps?
     
  5. macrumors 601

    HobeSoundDarryl

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Location:
    Hobe Sound, FL (20 miles north of Palm Beach)
    #5
    It's simple: where do the make the vast majority of their money now? Would those supplying them with that vast amount of money enjoy it going away? So they put pressure on ESPN and others to do it this way.

    If you are a "glass half full" kind of guy, this could be ESPN trying to give you what you want (over time). Observe how many people will watch ESPN through an :apple:TV instead of via cable (when they have both). If the numbers get interesting enough to motivate the risk of biting the (current) hand that feeds ESPN, gamble on doing what you imagine.

    Meanwhile, nobody loses with this arrangement except those that were already feeling like the losers in this chain.
     
  6. macrumors 65816

    lunaoso

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2012
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #6
    Good! Now I can finally watch Mike and Mike on the Apple TV when tennis is on :p. (nothing against tennis it's actually mesmerizing ;))
     
  7. macrumors 6502

    Tronic

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    #7
    While I'd prefer it to be cheaper, I'd gladly pay what I pay now for cable, for a la carte programming. Like many I watch fewer than 25% of the channels included in my cable package and would love if I never had to see those in the guide.
     
  8. macrumors 65816

    JoEw

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    #8
    I like how my internet provider lets me watch it on my pc but not with the mobile app ha
     
  9. macrumors 6502

    bpcookson

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2012
    Location:
    MA
    #9
    Funny how the Apple TV is just becoming a glorified OnDemand service.
     
  10. bpcookson, Aug 28, 2013
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2013

    macrumors 6502

    bpcookson

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2012
    Location:
    MA
    #10
    As I understand it, the cable companies (providers) will break all ties with content producers if they sell directly to consumers. That means that producers can't make the leap without FULL confidence that revenue can be maintained. For this to be possible, the install base for devices like the Apple TV has to be comparable to providers' client base.

    Obviously a discrete transaction model like we see in iTunes coupled with select, individual subscriptions is the way of the future but content providers seem to have content producers over the proverbial barrel. I'm surprised THIS stuff isn't subject to scrutiny by the DOJ regarding anticompetitive practice. At least here they have a chance to effect long term improvement within a market.
     
  11. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #11
    ESPN and DirecTV
     
  12. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    #12
    Or how about Dish?
     
  13. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2012
    Location:
    Phila, Pa
    #13
    I'm watching it right now w/o a cable subscription....:D
     
  14. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    #14
    U guys don't understand entire web of inter connected systems between cable/satellite, the channels plus most people forget local and state government.

    Everyone takes a cut. If u cut cable out. Guess who loses revenue? Your local governments lose precious tax revenues. You run cable systems out of town. Your local government lose their cable franchise fees.

    That's why the government is lukewarm to getting rid of cable systems. Cause they get a cut also.

    And we all know the relationship between channels like espn and cable systems. Espn charges $4.69 per subscriber for just espn main channel and like 1.50 for rest of channels. That's a ton of guaranteed revenue stream they are collecting.

    Going a la carte withor the cable subscriber fees is very risky. There are many households who don't watch espn yet are forced to pay for it.

    Espn has to do their math and see how much they would have to charge per sub a la carte. My guess is that's for all their channels it would have to be about $20 per subscriber a la carte.

    The average American watches about 8 channels. If they subscribe to 3-4 other cable channels say at $5-10 a pop. They would still end up paying close to $40-50 for those 5-8 channels. So their savings from the current model would be very minimal.
     
  15. macrumors 604

    bushido

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2008
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    #15
    i dont even understand the point of those tv channel apps tbh. if you need a cable subscription anyway why dont you just watch those channels on tv instead of the apple tv ^^
     
  16. macrumors 6502a

    foodog

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #16
    I think the benefit is its on demand programming.
     
  17. TheRealTVGuy, Aug 29, 2013
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2013

    macrumors 6502

    TheRealTVGuy

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    #17
    Oh really?? What's your set-up like? Can anyone confirm to me that if you purchase ONLY Internet from your cable company, if that alone qualifies you to get access to the apps, or do you have to have the TV subscription also.

    Or... Lets say you subscribe to the Internet product and standard, non-digital cable (70 channels or so), can you qualify that way?

    If the only way to get it on AppleTV is to already subscribe to the main channels anyway, then it does seem kind of redundant (at least in the home). I suppose if you traveled a lot and took your AppleTV with you, that might be cool...

    However, I used to have access to WatchESPN on my iPhone, and THAT was pretty cool. I could be waiting in a 45-minute line at the theme parks and be watching live coverage of FSU's games...
     
  18. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    #18
    Let's just say he's using a less than "honest" method to get WatchESPN to work.
     
  19. macrumors 6502

    FirstNTenderbit

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2013
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #19
    A calculator would clear it up pretty quickly. You're willingness to pay ESPN directly is admirable but would in no way account for the revenue shortfall they would experience if they did as you suggested. Besides, if I am ESPN and I get 1 big guaranteed check why would I want to lose that for an opportunity to get a lot of little checks that don't add up to the big one?

    Simply put, there are not enough potential subscribers to come close to turning a similar profit. No matter how much news they get, cord cutters and the like are still simply the fringe.
     
  20. macrumors 6502

    bpcookson

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2012
    Location:
    MA
    #20
    Which is exactly why devices like the Apple TV are slowly becoming 3rd party On-Demand services. These devices just offer better user experiences vs. the lousy On-Demand interface provided by cable companies.
     
  21. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2013
    #21
    no thanks. i'll save my money and stay updated with the help of the CNN app.:D
     
  22. macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #22
    I know!! I was really hoping that Apple was going to do something special and change the way we buy/rent content on the TV. We use ours for mainly for Netflix, Airplay, and occasional streaming movies from the iTunes library.

    Until they open an aTV app store or change the way we get content, it's just another tiny box with Airplay being the differentiator.
     
  23. macrumors 6502

    bpcookson

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2012
    Location:
    MA
    #23
    Agreed. I'm really looking forward to an Apple TV app store. That'll be a big deal. What's the holdup?
     
  24. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2012
    Location:
    Phila, Pa
    #24
    I purchase ONLY Internet from my ISP & can confirm that you DO need a certain tv package in order to get these channels via the Apple TV..... Lets just say I have access to them b/c I have a great family ;)
    Other than that, I have an Obi100 Voip box w/ Google Voice for my landline, & a Mohu Leaf OTA antenna for local HD channels. All for $40/mo :D
     
  25. macrumors 6502

    TheRealTVGuy

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    #25
    Nice!
    That reminds me... My buddy has an account with Brighthouse. I really need to get his email address...
     

Share This Page