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

[MacRumors]

ESPN has added two new channels to its WatchESPN apps on the iPhone, iPad and Apple TV, according to an ESPN press release.

ESPN today officially launched the availability of ESPN Deportes and ESPNEWS on WatchESPN, accessible online at WatchESPN.com, on smartphones and tablets via the award-winning WatchESPN app and on Apple TV to fans who receive their video subscription from an affiliated provider (coming soon to ESPN on Xbox LIVE to Gold members). The launch debuts just in time for the second leg of Spain's Supercopa Final between Barcelona and Atlético Madrid live on ESPN Deportes at 5 p.m. ET tonight.

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

 

[jayhawk11]

And yet you still can't watch it without a cable subscription. You're putting the nail in your own coffins, fellas.

 

[anubis]

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.

 

[TheseGoTo11]

Do I yell at DirecTV or Apple since DirecTV isn't on the list of any of these apps?

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

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.

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 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.

 

[lunaoso]

Good! Now I can finally watch Mike and Mike on the Apple TV when tennis is on . (nothing against tennis it's actually mesmerizing )

 

[Tronic]

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.

 

[JoEw]

I like how my internet provider lets me watch it on my pc but not with the mobile app ha

 

[bpcookson]

Funny how the Apple TV is just becoming a glorified OnDemand service.

 

[bpcookson]

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.

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.

 

[budselectjr]

Do I yell at DirecTV or Apple since DirecTV isn't on the list of any of these apps?

ESPN and DirecTV

 

[Apaulo11]

Do I yell at DirecTV or Apple since DirecTV isn't on the list of any of these apps?

Or how about Dish?

 

[scapegoat81]

And yet you still can't watch it without a cable subscription. You're putting the nail in your own coffins, fellas.

I'm watching it right now w/o a cable subscription....

 

[aneftp]

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.

 

[bushido]

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 ^^

 

[foodog]

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 ^^

I think the benefit is its on demand programming.

 

[TheRealTVGuy]

I'm watching it right now w/o a cable subscription....

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...

 

[paulrbeers]

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?

Let's just say he's using a less than "honest" method to get WatchESPN to work.

 

[FirstNTenderbit]

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.

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.

 

[bpcookson]

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.

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.

 

[bnnentertainmen]

no thanks. i'll save my money and stay updated with the help of the CNN app.

 

[Oldschoolers]

Funny how the Apple TV is just becoming a glorified OnDemand service.

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.

 

[bpcookson]

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.

Agreed. I'm really looking forward to an Apple TV app store. That'll be a big deal. What's the holdup?

 

[scapegoat81]

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...

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

 

[TheRealTVGuy]

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

Nice!
That reminds me... My buddy has an account with Brighthouse. I really need to get his email address...