The article is pretty clear ESPN is looking for a partner to distribute the channel on an "ala carte" basis. That tells me no one is subsidizing ESPN or their talent if you don't directly purchase the stream.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Reportedly an Ideal Partner to Distribute ESPN, But Deal Unlikely
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
“ … You can subscribe to ESPN on an à-la-carte basis already. It's called ESPN+ … “. True, but much of the ESPN and ESPN2 content is accessible via the ESPN+ subscription only if you also subscribe to a TV package such as YouTubeTV.Uh, there's an ESPN app for people to stream ESPN content.
ESPN: Live Sports & Scores
Watch thousands of live events and shows from the ESPN networks plus get scores, on-demand news, highlights, and expert analysis. With an active subscription, access ESPN+ content featuring live sports, exclusive originals, and much more. Watch on ESPN: • NFL (Monday Night Football) • NBA •...apps.apple.com
You can subscribe to ESPN on an à-la-carte basis already. It's called ESPN+
Live Sports Streaming, Original Shows & Award-Winning Documentaries
Stream exclusive live sports from UFC, Baseball, College Basketball, Soccer, Golf, and more. Plus, get ESPN+ for the cost of $11.99 monthly or $119.99 with an annual subscriptionplus.espn.com
I wonder what would happen to the UFC.
Dana White and Tim Cook don't seem like a good mix.
I'm having a little trouble understanding what I perceive as fair amount of hating on ESPN.
It is essentially a channel that you choose to subscribe to whether it is Ala carte or part of a package (cable or streaming). Directly or indirectly, those are the only people who are paying for it. I had to put cable back in for some business/remote office related reasons and I had no trouble excluding the sports package that included ESPN.
It is essentially a channel that you choose to subscribe to whether it is Ala carte or part of a package (cable or streaming). Directly or indirectly, those are the only people who are paying for it. I had to put cable back in for some business/remote office related reasons and I had no trouble excluding the sports package that included ESPN.
Yes for the most part.ESPN is considered a "core" asset. Iger will not sell ESPN.
Disney wants to keep ESPN, could offload some traditional TV assets, Iger says
Walt Disney wants to keep ESPN and will look for strategic partners to form a joint venture or buy a stake in the sports network to help take it directly to consumers, CEO Robert Iger said on Thursday in an interview to CNBC.www.reuters.com
And not whoever Iger and the Disney board choose to be Disney's next CEO as they will be following Iger's turnaround playbook.
That contradicts everything Disney CEO Bob Iger has said.
Disney is open to finding a new strategic partner for ESPN, Iger says
Disney is open to selling a stake in ESPN and is looking for a strategic partner as it prepares its transition to streaming, CEO Bob Iger said in an interview.www.cnbc.com
Welcome to cable TV, circa 10s?
MTV hasn't really been about music.
You don't really learn anything on The Learning Channel
History Channel is just ancient aliens (16+ seasons in fact!)
Partnering with ESPN might have been a great idea for Apple years ago. However, recent developments have made it clear that ESPN's parent company is facing significant challenges. As much as Apple may have wanted to partner with ESPN, it's simply not a wise business decision at this point. The potential risks and uncertainties involved in such a partnership far outweigh any potential benefits.
Instead, Apple could consider building its own sports network from scratch. By doing so, Apple would have complete control over the content and user experience without having to worry about external factors that could affect a partnership.
While this is a difficult decision, sometimes in business, it's necessary to take risks and make tough choices. Apple is known for its innovative and forward-thinking approach, and this is an opportunity for them to leverage their creativity and expertise to create something truly remarkable.
With the right team and a clear vision, there's no doubt that Apple can build a sports network that can compete with even the largest players in the industry. It won't be an easy task, but the outcome will undoubtedly be worth the effort.
Instead, Apple could consider building its own sports network from scratch. By doing so, Apple would have complete control over the content and user experience without having to worry about external factors that could affect a partnership.
While this is a difficult decision, sometimes in business, it's necessary to take risks and make tough choices. Apple is known for its innovative and forward-thinking approach, and this is an opportunity for them to leverage their creativity and expertise to create something truly remarkable.
With the right team and a clear vision, there's no doubt that Apple can build a sports network that can compete with even the largest players in the industry. It won't be an easy task, but the outcome will undoubtedly be worth the effort.
Will be good to have more sports content on Apple TV+
Right but at least MTV has 5 other music channels and History shows fake pawn shop shows and some wannabe blacksmiths, too.
Actually, Disney has lost a lot of its market cap since it started going downhill fast. Its total market cap is about $160 billion compared to Apple’s $3 trillion, putting Apple at nearly 20 times Disney’s size. I suspect Apple’s AirPods division alone would be bigger than Disney. Apple could buy Disney with the money in Tim Cook’s couch cushions since Apple has several hundreds of billions in cash and equivalent securities. At one point, Disney was worth twice what it is now. Things are so bad that Iger is looking to offload ABC, ESPN, and a bunch of other TV-related divisions.
Most channels just exist to boost sales of subscriptions. Nobody wants to subscribe to a service that only offers one or two channels. They want at least one hundred to justify the cost of the subscription, even if the reality is that they'll only watch one or two. Hence, the buying up of channels that people have heard of (such as the History Channel and National Geographic) and filling them with cheap junk.
Wow. What went wrong? I know lots of people who watch all the Star Wars stuff and all the comic book stuff, so I assumed they were doing well.
Or just buy Disney. With the drop in Disney stock price over the year or so, it makes it easier..
Disney is losing money on every part of its business except for its amusement parks. A news report showed Disney had lost close to $900 million on its last eight movie projects. With the current disasters of The Little Mermaid, Indiana Jones 5 and The Haunted House, that number is going to rise to about $1.3 billion or more with Indy expected to be the biggest disaster in Disney's history, passing the disaster of John Carter. The upcoming Snow White live action movie is looking to be another huge money loser.
Disney+ is bleeding badly, losing $1.5 billion in the last quarter after losing even more in the previous quarter. Disney Cruise services lost another $300 million in the last quarter despite adding additional ships. Even the parks are not doing well with its slowest summer in decades. There is no part of Disney that is doing well right now, prompting Iger to lay off 7,000 cast members and to float the idea of selling off its TV-related businesses.
Why is Disney bleeding so badly? They've succeeded in alienating its core customer, the parents of small children. I won't go any further since this is a tech site.
tobybrut makes it seem like this is a problem exclusive to Disney; It's not.
Disney's market cap peaked (at around $357 billion) in 2021. Other legacy media companies market cap peaked in 2021 too.
Let's look at Comcast, parent of NBC Universal. It's market cap is currently around $188 billion. At its peak in 2021, it had a market cap of around $283 billion.
Paramount Global's (formerly ViacomCBS) market cap is now around $10 billion. In 2021, it was around $44 billion.
Warner Bros. Discovery's market cap is $31.5 billion. At its peak? $60 billion.
Fox Corp's market cap is around $16.3 billion. In 2021? $25 billion.
AMC Networks (not the movie theater chain) has a market cap of $500 million. It was worth over $6 billion at its peak.
DISH Network's market cap? $4.2 billion. At it's peak? Over $36 billion.
But it's not just legacy media companies either...
Netflix's current market cap is $195 billion. In 2021? Over $306 billion.
Roku's current market cap is $13.5 billion. It's market cap during its 2021 peak? $61 billion.
fuboTV Inc.'s market cap is $1 billion. It's market cap peaked in 2021 at over $5 billlion.
I guess it's not just Disney who's been "alienating its core customer" then. Comast, Paramount Global, Warner Bros Discovery, AMC Networks, Netlfix, Roku, Fox Corp, et al all must be alienating their core customers hence all the declines in their market caps.
Last edited:
ESPN major revenues was ads and viewership. Subscription is band aid to stop bleeding.
Disney is especially being hit hard and has been declining since 2017 when it began changing its philosophy, a philosophy that's infected all of Hollywood. There's a reason why box office receipts for most studios have been awful with the few exceptions of movies that don't follow the usual Hollywood mindset. Disney's sole wins in the last couple of years have been Avatar 2 and the first two seasons of The Mandalorian. Everything else has been an utter failure or have barely broken even. The upcoming The Marvels movie and Snow White are both looking like unmitigated disasters. Indy 5 alone is expected to lose $300 million because it's a trash movie that made Kingdom of the Crystal Skull look like a masterpiece. Even the Pixar movies like Lightyear and Elemental are garbage that no one wants to see. Barbenheimer, Spider-Man, and Top Gun are proof the pandemic or the economy have little to do with those Disney movies performing so poorly. People will turn out to see things they think are good.
Disney isn't alone in suffering. Just look at Warner's DCEU or just about every movie out there that adheres to Hollywood's new philosophy of not bothering to entertain the audience. Movies that don't follow the herd have huge box office numbers, like the Spider-Man movies and Top Gun: Maverick. Why is it that Sony-controlled Spider-Man did so well while every other Marvel Phase 4-5 has been a train wreck? The pandemic isn't the excuse. It's bad movies and bad shows on Disney+, like Willow or She Hulk or Ms. Marvel or the most recent Secret Invasion. No one wants to watch them because they know ahead of time they'll be atrociously bad.
Yes, streaming is a tough business with everyone hurting, but Disney is hurting everywhere, not just in Disney+.
The near vacant theme parks are symptomatic of how Disney has alienated its core audience. Next door to Disney World is Universal Studios, which is packed full during the summer and doing quite well while Disney is at its lowest attendance in decades, excepting the closures during the pandemic. At the rate it's going, even their theme parks may go into the red soon while Universal is laughing all the way to the bank, saying "Thanks, Disney."
Disney is bleeding badly, and anyone following Disney knows why. Iger started the fall but blamed Chapik, while failing to change course when he was brought back. Disney's reputation as family friendly is gone and their bottom line is suffering for it. Millions of families are avoiding anything having to do with Disney like the plague. Some think Iger was brought back to prepare the company for sale, possibly to Apple, but Apple may not want this albatross around its neck because it would take a herculean effort to win back the audience.
ESPN is part of the fallout as well as ABC, which may also be on the sales block along with Iger's promise to cut $5 billion in expenses.
This is my last word on the subject because I don't want to stray too far off topic, but Disney's bad financial situation is very relevant to why this story on ESPN even exists.
Over the years ESPN has become much more of an advocacy offering. There are plenty of other places for sports fans to go to get their sports news without being shouted out by the likes of Stephen A. Smith. Disney knows that ESPN has lost its way and is in serious financial trouble. Apple should not share its pain.
Last edited:
ESPN is a shell of its former self. I remember watching it when it first launched in the late 70’s. Today it is just sports crap with blowhards like Stephen A Smith who gets the headlines.
For my sports news I now go to CBS Sports. Their sports coverage is so much better than what ESPN offers today.
For my sports news I now go to CBS Sports. Their sports coverage is so much better than what ESPN offers today.
They could rebrand to EXPN. When spiraling the drain, shuffle the logos. CEO-ing 101.
