# Sunday Ticket … via Apple ?



## Sixto

Rumors today all Apple.

New Puck Editor Matthew Belloni says his sources say, “It’s Apple's to lose at this point. (One source told me this weekend that the deal is actually done and is being kept quiet at Apple’s request, which I haven’t confirmed and don’t know for a fact; Apple isn’t commenting.)”


----------



## codespy

And more here……









★ More Rumors on Apple Obtaining the Rights to NFL Sunday Ticket — Daring Fireball


Mon Apr 18 06:02:12 EDT 2022




apple.news


----------



## compnurd

Seems like it’s a done deal


----------



## JoeTheDragon

does apple have any plans to have the apple+ MLB games on commercial tv?

also with NFL ST bars may not be willing to buy 8+ apple tv boxes or even more if apple trys to lockout Matrix *Switchers*.


----------



## compnurd

JoeTheDragon said:


> does apple have any plans to have the apple+ MLB games on commercial tv?
> 
> also with NFL ST bars may not be willing to buy 8+ apple tv boxes or even more if apple trys to lockout Matrix *Switchers*.


Then I guess those bars are watching local games


----------



## JoeTheDragon

compnurd said:


> Then I guess those bars are watching local games


or just get an home account and just show the games is apple ready to enforce it and have staff check bars?


----------



## TheRatPatrol

codespy said:


> And more here……
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ★ More Rumors on Apple Obtaining the Rights to NFL Sunday Ticket — Daring Fireball
> 
> 
> Mon Apr 18 06:02:12 EDT 2022
> 
> 
> 
> 
> apple.news


If true, I wonder if they want to wait until WWDC to announce it?

I hope they offer multi-game view.


----------



## compnurd

TheRatPatrol said:


> If true, I wonder if they want to wait until WWDC to announce it?
> 
> I hope they offer multi-game view.


Unless apple negotiated something to steal next season early. They are in no real rush to announce anything


----------



## wmb

compnurd said:


> Unless apple negotiated something to steal next season early. They are in no real rush to announce anything


I would not be surprised if DirecTV is willing to get out of this season given that they are losing money on it. Of course, if I was them, I’d ask to be bought out of the deal because Apple is certainly willing to pay more than DirecTV is obligated to pay.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long

DIRECTV isn't losing too much on Sunday Ticket and this year all of any losses are being covered by AT&T ... so there is no benefit in DIRECTV ending the exclusive early. The penalty for ending the contract early would be losing any subscribers who are holding on to DIRECTV purely for NFLST.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

wmb said:


> I would not be surprised if DirecTV is willing to get out of this season given that they are losing money on it. Of course, if I was them, I’d ask to be bought out of the deal because Apple is certainly willing to pay more than DirecTV is obligated to pay.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


and then will they cover all early termination fees? buy back hardware from bars and others places?


----------



## slice1900

JoeTheDragon said:


> does apple have any plans to have the apple+ MLB games on commercial tv?
> 
> also with NFL ST bars may not be willing to buy 8+ apple tv boxes or even more if apple trys to lockout Matrix *Switchers*.


I keep telling you guys, Apple won't do the commercial side. They'll either buy consumer rights only and the NFL will sell commercial separately, or if they have to buy everything they'll sell commercial rights themselves. I'd say odds are very high Directv ends up with a commercial exclusive if Apple gets NFLST.


----------



## krel

REPORT: NFL Sunday Ticket Set To Leave DirecTV for Apple TV+


Read “REPORT: NFL Sunday Ticket Set To Leave DirecTV for Apple TV+ ” and other NFL articles from Total Pro Sports.




www.totalprosports.com


----------



## compnurd

James Long said:


> DIRECTV isn't losing too much on Sunday Ticket and this year all of any losses are being covered by AT&T ... so there is no benefit in DIRECTV ending the exclusive early. The penalty for ending the contract early would be losing any subscribers who are holding on to DIRECTV purely for NFLST.


And ATT is going to turn down someone else taking next year to not have to cover those losses?


----------



## Mike Lang

The question is would Sunday Ticket be included in the cost of ATV+ or would users then need to pay an extra fee on top of the service?


----------



## b4pjoe

It is Apple. I can't see them just throwing it in for the $4.99 price it currently is. Although it would surely boost its streaming numbers. But enough to cover the cost they are paying the NFL?


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> I keep telling you guys, Apple won't do the commercial side.


Unless something has changed significantly on the League side, all they want is their periodic wire transfers -- they don't want to lift a finger.

Because the product stands alone, it isn't subject to the carriage agreements that make licensing to commercial venues difficult to sort out. The NFL will grant OOM broadcast rights to whomever wins the bidding and its the winner's responsibility to figure out how to make it work.


----------



## harsh

Mike Lang said:


> The question is would Sunday Ticket be included in the cost of ATV+ or would users then need to pay an extra fee on top of the service?


I don't believe there's any question. When you get up into the ten figures range, you can't afford to give it away.


----------



## Steveknj

harsh said:


> I don't believe there's any question. When you get up into the ten figures range, you can't afford to give it away.


I'm not so sure, at least initially. Apple wants to grow ATV+ and they also want to sell devices, which is their core business (after all, iTunes was built to sell iPods back in the day). So I do think that the bump they get in subscriptions might be worth it for a company that can literally BUY multiple third world countries if they chose to. Short term loss for long term gain. And the rumor is they are coming out with a new ATV that will include a lot of Echo like features, possibly including a camera. So they want to sell their service and they want to sell devices. Having ST could potentially DOUBLE their subscription base. So I can see for a year or two them giving it away to existing subscribers, and perhaps bumping new subscribers to $6.99 (which is STILL cheaper than many of the services, and much cheaper than Netflix and HBO Max).

Another thing, is the plan to require you buy an ATV device for ST? If not, then for commercial use, businesses could invest in a $20 Roku or Firestick (if ATV+ is on the FS) per TV. I don't know what kind of cost outlay they would have to do. But it's also possible the ST service could wind up cheaper for them. I think all of that is yet to be worked out.


----------



## compnurd

Apple Made 34.5 billion last Qtr... So yeh they can well afford the 2.5 billion a year to include this in the current Apple TV price if they so wanted


----------



## Steveknj

compnurd said:


> Apple Made 34.5 billion last Qtr... So yeh they can well afford the 2.5 billion a year to include this in the current Apple TV price if they so wanted


Especially if they seen revenue increase via new subscribers and selling new devices.


----------



## James Long

compnurd said:


> And ATT is going to turn down someone else taking next year to not have to cover those losses?


It is not AT&T's decision. They accepted the potential loss (up to $2.5 billion over the remainder of the contract) when they sold control of DIRECTV to TPG.


----------



## compnurd

James Long said:


> It is not AT&T's decision. They accepted the potential loss (up to $2.5 billion over the remainder of the contract) when they sold control of DIRECTV to TPG.


Right.. and if Apple steps in and says we want it this season.. We will cover the losses for ATT/Directv you think they are going to say no?


----------



## Mike Lang

I could see Apple comping it at least the first year or two to help boost subscriptions.


----------



## slice1900

Mike Lang said:


> I could see Apple comping it at least the first year or two to help boost subscriptions.


Not a chance. My bet is that either the subscription includes a year of Apple TV+, or requires a year's subscription to Apple TV+.


----------



## James Long

compnurd said:


> Right.. and if Apple steps in and says we want it this season.. We will cover the losses for ATT/Directv you think they are going to say no?


Forget AT&T. As long as you are including them in the decision you are expressing a complete misunderstanding of how the company is being operated.


----------



## wmb

James Long said:


> Forget AT&T. As long as you are including them in the decision you are expressing a complete misunderstanding of how the company is being operated.


What I will concede on this is that AT&T is well known for bad business decisions. They clearly own this season’s NFL Sunday Ticket, and are obligated to pay $2.5 billion for it to be on DirecTV.

Knowing this, I can’t imagine next season’s holder also doesn’t know this and is not willing to making an offer to take it over this year. I would. However, I wouldn’t take a big loss to get it a year early, knowing that AT&T is just screwing themselves if they don’t say yes. I guessTPG wouldn’t care if AT&T got screwed by them not taking a deal to give up Sunday Ticket.

Apple has mad money, and may just be crazy enough to make an offer AT&T and TPG can’t refuse. This year will like come at a premium to get AT&T and TPG the break the current contract. But, we all know contracts can be broken if everyone agrees to the terms.

Of course, the last party in all of this, the NFL, knows their downside is the current Sunday Ticket deal for one more year. Right now, no one has this seasons out-of-market streaming rights. They may see them as worth a few bucks. Heck, there may be a termination clause they could invoke, but that might result in litigation.

I would not be surprised if the new deal took effect this season. The current deal has too many losers and downsides. But, saying the deal won’t come into effect this year isn’t a foregone conclusion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wmb

JoeTheDragon said:


> and then will they cover all early termination fees? buy back hardware from bars and others places?


Why should they? Do the agreements guarantee Sunday Ticket? I would suspect that the agreements include a clause that content may change at DirecTV’s convenience. Also, the rest of the service would still be there for bars and other places. Sunday Ticket should be severable from the rest of the service. Down side for DirecTV would be refunding any charges already paid for this fall’s season.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long

wmb said:


> Knowing this, I can’t imagine next season’s holder also doesn’t know this and is not willing to making an offer to take it over this year. I would. However, I wouldn’t take a big loss to get it a year early, knowing that AT&T is just screwing themselves if they don’t say yes. I guess TPG wouldn’t care if AT&T got screwed by them not taking a deal to give up Sunday Ticket.


Any deal that would pull Sunday Ticket off of DIRECTV would be in the hands of TPG (the company that bought control of DIRECTV). At last report DIRECTV was losing "tens of millions of dollars" offering Sunday Ticket. Not bad on a $1.5 billion per year investment that is helping them retain customers. DIRECTV can only lose by giving up Sunday Ticket early.

That being said, look at what DIRECTV owns the rights to. They have exclusive delivery of out of market games and the related channels (including the Sunday Ticket version of Red Zone and Fan Zone) but streaming is limited. DIRECTV has been allowed to offer streaming on an extremely limited basis. They are not able to add Sunday Ticket to DIRECTV Stream and AT&T was not able to add Sunday Ticket to their UVerse service (which I believe they thought they could do when they purchased DIRECTV).

Where does Apple fit in to the current picture? Could Apple launch an NFL streaming service without infringing on the DIRECTV exclusive MVPD contract? Apple isn't an MVPD / vMVPD but I suspect live streaming out of market Sunday games is still protected (cell phone providers are blocked from infringing on Sunday Ticket).

I suspect that if there is a deal we will see NFL content this year on Apple TV+ ... everything except the live games. NFL Network, the NFL's Red Zone, NFL Films content. Anything that the NFL hasn't otherwise sold.


----------



## compnurd

James Long said:


> Forget AT&T. As long as you are including them in the decision you are expressing a complete misunderstanding of how the company is being operated.


I will say the same for you Your responses make it quite clear you have zero clue what you are talking about


----------



## wmb

James Long said:


> Any deal that would pull Sunday Ticket off of DIRECTV would be in the hands of TPG (the company that bought control of DIRECTV). At last report DIRECTV was losing "tens of millions of dollars" offering Sunday Ticket. Not bad on a $1.5 billion per year investment that is helping them retain customers. DIRECTV can only lose by giving up Sunday Ticket early.


Losing $10s of millions on a $1.5 billion investment is not good. At 15% gross margin, that investment should make over $200 million. Plus DirecTV will start losing those customers in January when DirecTV loses Sunday Ticket anyway. I’d imagine that they have a better use for that money.

Personally, if I knew I had it next year, I’d try to see whether I could get it this year. You don’t get what you don’t ask for. Worse case is being told no.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh

Steveknj said:


> So I do think that the bump they get in subscriptions might be worth it for a company that can literally BUY multiple third world countries if they chose to. Short term loss for long term gain.


First off, I don't think there are nearly as many NFLST subscribers (either actual or potential) as many think. I'm thinking the number isn't in the millions at this point.

Secondly, I'm not sure Apple has a proper model for navigating something like sports. I'm certainly not hip to their ATV or app state of the art but I wonder how one might handle game hopping.

Finally, you have to consider what other sports properties that Apple offers to prove that they're more than a one trick pony (pre-recorded content).


----------



## harsh

compnurd said:


> Right.. and if Apple steps in and says we want it this season.. We will cover the losses for ATT/Directv you think they are going to say no?


Apple would have to buy out DIRECTV's contract for that to happen and that would be between TPG and Apple. Apple isn't afforded the option of negotiating with the NFL or AT&T with respect to the 2022-3 season. Unless TPG has exhausted the financial grace that AT&T extended them with respect to NFLST operating losses, it is in their best interest to hang on as it should stem some of the DBS subscriber bleeding for another season.


----------



## B. Shoe

harsh said:


> First off, I don't think there are nearly as many NFLST subscribers (either actual or potential) as many think. I'm thinking the number isn't in the millions at this point.
> 
> Secondly, I'm not sure Apple has a proper model for navigating something like sports. I'm certainly not hip to their ATV or app state of the art but I wonder how one might handle game hopping.
> 
> Finally, you have to consider what other sports properties that Apple offers to prove that they're more than a one trick pony (pre-recorded content).


At the current price point, I agree with your statement on the number of subscribers. I think those that have it are very vocal about the service, how it operates and especially its pricing. Adjust that price point to somewhere in the $200/season range (Similar to a NBA League Pass or MLB.tv subscription) and I think it interests more people who didn't normally passed.

I'd like to think that Apple has enough smart people wandering around their facilities to figure out things like an easily manageable GUI/game navigation menu. And if not, they've got enough money those that can figure it out. Again, I've been running solely on the NFLST app on my Apple TV box (and/or iPad) for the past four seasons. It wasn't difficult to manage.


----------



## Steveknj

harsh said:


> First off, I don't think there are nearly as many NFLST subscribers (either actual or potential) as many think. I'm thinking the number isn't in the millions at this point.
> 
> Secondly, I'm not sure Apple has a proper model for navigating something like sports. I'm certainly not hip to their ATV or app state of the art but I wonder how one might handle game hopping.
> 
> Finally, you have to consider what other sports properties that Apple offers to prove that they're more than a one trick pony (pre-recorded content).


You are aware that Apple now has MLB content, two live games on Friday nights. So they already have forayed in to live sports. Second, they have a year to develop their app to support things like game jumping. Apps like ESPN+ already have the infrastructure built into the app for just this type of game jumping and have for a few years now. I don't think it should be too difficult to implement, and knowing Apple, they will no doubt wind up doing it better than anyone else (And I am NOT an Apple fanboy by any means and have my issues with there my way or the highway approach, though it's not that way with their streaming app). So I am not concerned with it at all. Does DirecTV publish their numbers for DirecTV? I'd bet there's more than a million subscribers, knowing how popular the NFL is these days (and especially with legalized gambling making the ability to watch multiple games more compelling than ever).


----------



## harsh

Steveknj said:


> You are aware that Apple now has MLB content, two live games on Friday nights. So they already have forayed in to live sports.


I'm well aware. I also view this as a rather small toe being lightly dipped into the live sports waters.


> Second, they have a year to develop their app to support things like game jumping.


Apple has a lot of handicaps. I don't make assumptions that they're able to move major software projects apace where keeping the "ecosystem" in mind is job one.


> Apps like ESPN+ already have the infrastructure built into the app for just this type of game jumping and have for a few years now.


ESPN has an advantage that the software they distribute isn't designed with an eye on making the ATV software superior in important ways.


> I don't think it should be too difficult to implement, and knowing Apple, they will no doubt wind up doing it better than anyone else (And I am NOT an Apple fanboy by any means and have my issues with there my way or the highway approach, though it's not that way with their streaming app).


Our speculation and reasoning is largely meaningless when it comes to Apple because they offer little to nothing to base it upon and they've had some pretty spectacular failures along the way.


> Does DirecTV publish their numbers for DirecTV?


DIRECTV is a joint venture and as such, they are only required report to TPG and AT&T. TPG and/or AT&T could choose to relay that information but I'm guessing it isn't something they want disseminated.


> I'd bet there's more than a million subscribers, knowing how popular the NFL is these days (and especially with legalized gambling making the ability to watch multiple games more compelling than ever).


I seem to recall hearing numbers that were getting close to 1 million back when numbers were still reported and DIRECTV's subscriber base has been ravaged since.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

harsh said:


> I'm well aware. I also view this as a rather small toe being lightly dipped into the live sports waters.Apple has a lot of handicaps. I don't make assumptions that they're able to move major software projects apace where keeping the "ecosystem" in mind is job one.ESPN has an advantage that the software they distribute isn't designed with an eye on making the ATV software superior in important ways.Our speculation and reasoning is largely meaningless when it comes to Apple because they offer little to nothing to base it upon and they've had some pretty spectacular failures along the way.DIRECTV is a joint venture and as such, they are only required report to TPG and AT&T. TPG and/or AT&T could choose to relay that information but I'm guessing it isn't something they want disseminated.
> I seem to recall hearing numbers that were getting close to 1 million back when numbers were still reported and DIRECTV's subscriber base has been ravaged since.


ESPN+ has commercial locations (public view) worked out (as well as the enforcement part) and they just have Joe Hand Promotions, Inc deal with that part.

Now does amazon and apple really want to do that them self's + deal with CS with bar staff who are trying to show an game with what ever swticher setup they have I think that NFLST may not enforce HDCP. Some places even have older component HD systems installed.

Does amazon and apple have an way for each site to have there own sub account with own local logins even if say the site master account is say [email protected]
Will they have say admin roles so that site manger can some admin rights to others under them with out giving that site manger domain admin rights? With google no! with amazon business I think no? with apple no? And I don't think that home office IT will want to deal with day to day tv box issues or deal with needed to add / remove each server from the access list just so they can do basic tv work.

Do they even have an way for multi site accounts to be there own billing / size / programing as that is how TV works each site is billed on it's own, billed based on it's size, has there own locals / has there own blackouts / etc (even with an master franchise discount plan)


----------



## James Long

wmb said:


> Losing $10s of millions on a $1.5 billion investment is not good.


It is bookkeeping. DIRECTV as a service is still profitable (although how profitable is a hidden number). I would not consider the "losing 10s of millions of dollars" comment as an accurate portrayal of the full value of NFL ST to DIRECTV. Perhaps a way of expressing that DIRECTV collected slightly less in carriage fees than the $1.5 billion paid but not in any way stating that DIRECTV was not profitable in part due to having NFL ST available as an exclusive.


----------



## wmb

James Long said:


> It is bookkeeping. DIRECTV as a service is still profitable (although how profitable is a hidden number). I would not consider the "losing 10s of millions of dollars" comment as an accurate portrayal of the full value of NFL ST to DIRECTV. Perhaps a way of expressing that DIRECTV collected slightly less in carriage fees than the $1.5 billion paid but not in any way stating that DIRECTV was not profitable in part due to having NFL ST available as an exclusive.


An offer should be made and countered. This may be a path to DirecTV keeping it for a period while allowing Apple to stream it. Who knows? Neither of us are in the room where it’s happening. I know what I’d do if I were in a position to do it, but I am something of a liberal capitalist, so I look for how to maximize the outcome for everyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long

The NFL and then AT&T|DIRECTV went through the math a couple of years ago. Either side could have walked away from the contract at that time but the NFL chose to keep the bird in the hand ($1.5 billion per year) instead of looking for a new partner at that time and while AT&T|DIRECTV wanted to expand the service to streaming they did not want to pay more. The contract remains in force for one more season.

I believe any "losses" on NFL ST are simply on paper and DIRECTV would suffer much greater financial losses if they gave up the service completely. The only way I see the exclusive ending prior to the end of next season is if something better is offered at a reasonable price. A wad of cash to make DIRECTV go away isn't "something better". A semi-exclusive or non-exclusive deal that would allow DIRECTV satellite to continue delivering the service while Apple or another streamer offers a streaming version could be put in place for 22-23. Something that would allow DIRECTV to continue beyond 22-23 with ST if they don't mind giving up their last exclusive year.


----------



## glrush

A larger question, IMO, is even if some streamer gets the deal and if DirecTV would be willing to sell it, and if the NFL would agree to it, would the new company have their infrastructure ready to go by opening day ? I don't think it would be in their interest to roll out some half baked product that hasn't been adequately tested and risk the wrath of a bunch of angry football fans.


----------



## Mike Lang

I'd like to believe Apple could/would do a better job with it than anyone else.


----------



## AZ.

Mike Lang said:


> I'd like to believe Apple could/would do a better job with it than anyone else.


You havent watched the last to weeks of Friday night baseball have you?


----------



## SamC

AZ. said:


> You havent watched the last to weeks of Friday night baseball have you?


Apple is producing, and I agree quite badly producing, its MLB game coverage. NFLST is just feeding a show CBS or Fox has already made. It is pushing a few buttons. A chimp could do it. There will be no difference between what DirecTV does and what the next rights holder does.


----------



## harsh

JoeTheDragon said:


> ESPN+ has commercial locations (public view) worked out (as well as the enforcement part) and they just have Joe Hand Promotions, Inc deal with that part.


ESPN+ is perhaps the polar opposite of AppleTV+.


> Now does amazon and apple really want to do that them self's + deal with CS with bar staff who are trying to show an game with what ever swticher setup they have I think that NFLST may not enforce HDCP. Some places even have older component HD systems installed.


Given that analog is no longer supported by the TV manufacturers, they were going to have to make a change anyway. Matrix switchers are relatively easy to set up and operate.


> Do they even have an way for multi site accounts to be there own billing / size / programing as that is how TV works each site is billed on it's own, billed based on it's size, has there own locals / has there own blackouts / etc (even with an master franchise discount plan)


Joe Hand (and DIRECTV to a lesser extent) has already figured out a way to pull it off. Apple's only problem is figuring out how to do it their way since they have a demonstrated inability to cooperate with other big players.


----------



## Steveknj

harsh said:


> I'm well aware. I also view this as a rather small toe being lightly dipped into the live sports waters.Apple has a lot of handicaps. I don't make assumptions that they're able to move major software projects apace where keeping the "ecosystem" in mind is job one.ESPN has an advantage that the software they distribute isn't designed with an eye on making the ATV software superior in important ways.Our speculation and reasoning is largely meaningless when it comes to Apple because they offer little to nothing to base it upon and they've had some pretty spectacular failures along the way.DIRECTV is a joint venture and as such, they are only required report to TPG and AT&T. TPG and/or AT&T could choose to relay that information but I'm guessing it isn't something they want disseminated.
> I seem to recall hearing numbers that were getting close to 1 million back when numbers were still reported and DIRECTV's subscriber base has been ravaged since.


First of all, yes, baseball is dipping their toe in the water, which is smart if you want to go for something bigger, to test it on something smaller. Think of MLB as Project Mercury and Gemini and NFLST as Apollo (for those of you who remember the Space Program in the 1960s). It's their testing ground. Second of all, ATV+ (which I'm presuming is what this will be on) is available on MANY devices so it's not dependent on the Apple ecosystem (either iOS or mac) for use. Think of it more like iTunes, which was available on both Macs and WIndows. Of course they want to sell ATVs, but it's not required. Third, EVERY business had failures and successes. If you've ever watched ATV+, it's a huge success in how it handles things like video and audio quality. That's pretty important. Imagine watching an NFL game in 4k with Dolby Atmos sound. I would imagine that Apple will strive to get that to us. I generally hated Apple in the days of smug Jobs and their closed ecosystem and over priced tech, but you can't argue that they've been hugely successful and profitable. And they are a company that ALWAYS imagines how to make their products consumer friendly. So while I'm not part of Apple's ecosystem when it comes to hardware (I don't own an ATV, iPhone, Mac for example), I do think they generally do things the right way. It's why I don't doubt they can pull this off. I get a lot of folks are upset that DirecTV is losing this after so many years. I was never a regular sub of ST, though I have gotten it as a freebie a couple of times. But to think they are the only ones who can pull this off is extremely shortsighted. They have at least a year to build this out. If you think that the NFL and Apple haven't thought of the all the scenarios and use cases for ST, you are misguided. The NFL wants maximum eyeballs and Apple wants subscribers. They can make this happen. It'll be interesting how they handle commercial establishments, but, consider this, if the possibility exists that we can go into a bar and pull up the game on our phones, do bars even need to HAVE the game on their screens? I don't know the answer to that. Times change, this is the new reality.


----------



## Steveknj

JoeTheDragon said:


> ESPN+ has commercial locations (public view) worked out (as well as the enforcement part) and they just have Joe Hand Promotions, Inc deal with that part.
> 
> Now does amazon and apple really want to do that them self's + deal with CS with bar staff who are trying to show an game with what ever swticher setup they have I think that NFLST may not enforce HDCP. Some places even have older component HD systems installed.
> 
> Does amazon and apple have an way for each site to have there own sub account with own local logins even if say the site master account is say [email protected]
> Will they have say admin roles so that site manger can some admin rights to others under them with out giving that site manger domain admin rights? With google no! with amazon business I think no? with apple no? And I don't think that home office IT will want to deal with day to day tv box issues or deal with needed to add / remove each server from the access list just so they can do basic tv work.
> 
> Do they even have an way for multi site accounts to be there own billing / size / programing as that is how TV works each site is billed on it's own, billed based on it's size, has there own locals / has there own blackouts / etc (even with an master franchise discount plan)


Of course that's the OLD way of doing things. I'm sure the NFL and Apple have thought of these things. As I said in the previous posts, do bars even need to show all those games if they are available on people's devices right at their tables? This is going to change how things are done. This isn't the old way, it's the new way. You might not like it, but it's not 2000 any more. Perhaps all these establishments need to provide is WiFi.


----------



## B. Shoe

Maybe some of you simply have skin in the game, but I'm really not too concerned about the logistics of sports bars being able to carry NFL Sunday Ticket under a new deal/provider/platform.

If a business really wants it, they'll figure out a way.


----------



## SamC

B. Shoe said:


> If a business really wants it, they'll figure out a way.


And pass the cost of said way on to me, the customer.


----------



## codespy

SamC said:


> And pass the cost of said way on to me, the customer.


Not if they up the cost of a beer to $15 just for carrying ST. I'd have to stop going to the local watering hole once in a while, lol....


----------



## Steveknj

SamC said:


> And pass the cost of said way on to me, the customer.


Ever think it might cost bars LESS now? As I said, perhaps all they need to do is provide wifi so you can stream at your table. No banks of TVs, no DirecTV equipment or carriage fees? You go to a bar, they give you the password, and you stream the games (or anything else for that matter) right at your table. And maybe the real entrepreneurial bars provide a streaming device at the table too? (years ago, when iPads were first becoming popular a local FroYo place did this and you could stream while eating your item, it happens to be the only one around here who survived the FroYo craze and still exists). People are thinking the old way of doing things. That ship has sailed and even DIrecTV has seen that, which is why they are not involved with ST anymore (well after this season).


----------



## Mike Lang

AZ. said:


> You havent watched the last to weeks of Friday night baseball have you?


No, I try to avoid watching baseball unless I need a nap. 
But apples & oranges anyway. Apple doesn't need to produce NFLST, just serve it.


----------



## SamC

Steveknj said:


> Ever think it might cost bars LESS now? As I said, perhaps all they need to do is provide wifi so you can stream at your table. No banks of TVs, no DirecTV equipment or carriage fees? You go to a bar, they give you the password, and you stream the games (or anything else for that matter) right at your table. And maybe the real entrepreneurial bars provide a streaming device at the table too? (years ago, when iPads were first becoming popular a local FroYo place did this and you could stream while eating your item, it happens to be the only one around here who survived the FroYo craze and still exists). People are thinking the old way of doing things. That ship has sailed and even DIrecTV has seen that, which is why they are not involved with ST anymore (well after this season).


No thank you to watching a single pro football game on my cell phone. I go to a particular place with a bank of large TVs where we communally watch all the games. The bar part of it is totally secondary. 

The owner pays for the cost of ST and passes it on to me, like every other cost of doing business is passed on to the customer. Even at the commercial level, he isn’t paying that much, because access to ST is predicated on first buying basic TV from DirecTV. It is a loss leader for DirecTV. Always has been. Home and commercial.

Apple has nothing else, except its poorly produced handful of baseball games, that he needs for his business. Nor most any bar/lounge/cigar store/etc. Thus Apple will have to charge a profitable price, which is way more.

And the place I am talking about has internet, really good internet, because that is something customers want. But the place right across the highway, catering to an older and more blue collar crowd, no internet at all. They also have a great ST business. Now, in addition to what they will need to pay Apple, they will have to pay for killer internet. And by “they” I mean the customers.


----------



## Steveknj

SamC said:


> No thank you to watching a single pro football game on my cell phone. I go to a particular place with a bank of large TVs where we communally watch all the games. The bar part of it is totally secondary.
> 
> The owner pays for the cost of ST and passes it on to me, like every other cost of doing business is passed on to the customer. Even at the commercial level, he isn’t paying that much, because access to ST is predicated on first buying basic TV from DirecTV. It is a loss leader for DirecTV. Always has been. Home and commercial.
> 
> Apple has nothing else, except its poorly produced handful of baseball games, that he needs for his business. Nor most any bar/lounge/cigar store/etc. Thus Apple will have to charge a profitable price, which is way more.
> 
> And the place I am talking about has internet, really good internet, because that is something customers want. But the place right across the highway, catering to an older and more blue collar crowd, no internet at all. They also have a great ST business. Now, in addition to what they will need to pay Apple, they will have to pay for killer internet. And by “they” I mean the customers.


Which is all great, if you you are of a certain age (like me) and watch your games the old way. But this is 2022 and that's not how people watch TV any more, even in communal situations. First of all, as pointed out Apple will NOT have to produce ANYTHING (with the exception or perhaps Red Zone). Fox and CBS will produce them. So all they need to do is figure out how to stream them. That technology exists today. MLB.TV has been doing it for years. It should be NO different than that. Pick your game, and watch. Sorry to say, but your way, is going away. You may not be happy about it, but that's the way it is. The younger generation don't watch TV how we did even 20 years ago. They are content with watching on their phones or tablets. They are content buying an ATV or Roku and hooking it up to their TVs (which any bar BTW could invest in, at a $30 per TV one time investment, not paying monthly fees for equipment any longer). You mentioned the blue collar bar under the highway which can't get internet. Well if that's the cost of doing business (as you say), then, well sorry those days are past. We no longer have troughs in front of saloons to feed your horses any more either. Times change.

We don't know what Apple's plans are for ST yet. We don't know if they plan on rolling it into ATV+, or if they plan to have a separate app for it, or if they plan on just charging more for the content on ATV+ All questions that will be answered. As I said, Apple has a track record of quality content. ATV+ content is almost exclusively Dolby VIsion and Dolby Atmos. If they can work that out with CBS and Fox to stream in those formats, that's a PLUS for me. If not, I still expect the quality to be high (and I can't believe I'm actually here defending Apple after years of bashing them). 

I hate change, but I also understand that times change. They have a year to sort this all out, and I expect glitches. But I also expect that they will ultimately get it right. I just think you aren't happy about it because it's going to change how you've watched games for years and years.


----------



## harsh

Steveknj said:


> First of all, yes, baseball is dipping their toe in the water, which is smart if you want to go for something bigger, to test it on something smaller.


MLB has been doing packaging and distribution for many years. Apple's only experience is iTunes and ATV+ and those have only see wider distribution (outside the ecosystem) in the last several years.


> Second of all, ATV+ (which I'm presuming is what this will be on) is available on MANY devices so it's not dependent on the Apple ecosystem (either iOS or mac) for use.


Since few (if any) of Apple's streaming products are available for businesses, I'm not convinced that needs to be a thing. Paying several dollars on top of $4.99 may be a tough sell. Making it available though ATV+ is a no-brainer but only for residential customers.


> Imagine watching an NFL game in 4k with Dolby Atmos sound.


Given that the big win of Atmos is "object"-based audio, I can't see that being done in real time. Much of the surround that is done now is mostly crowd sounds piped through the surround channels.


> I generally hated Apple in the days of smug Jobs and their closed ecosystem and over priced tech, but you can't argue that they've been hugely successful and profitable.


Not much has changed in this respect so perhaps you've just been beaten down. 


> And they are a company that ALWAYS imagines how to make their products consumer friendly. So while I'm not part of Apple's ecosystem when it comes to hardware (I don't own an ATV, iPhone, Mac for example), I do think they generally do things the right way.


The "ecosystem" may be chummy, but it lacks substantially in flexibility and interoperability.


> I get a lot of folks are upset that DirecTV is losing this after so many years. I was never a regular sub of ST, though I have gotten it as a freebie a couple of times. But to think they are the only ones who can pull this off is extremely shortsighted.


Others are in the space already, it is just that Apple perhaps lags everyone else.


> The NFL wants maximum eyeballs and Apple wants subscribers.


I differ here. I don't think the NFL wants a whole lot more than their wire transfers. They don't have sleepless nights thinking about subscriber numbers and profit margins because they likely have a guaranteed income regardless of whether or not the product is successful.


----------



## Steveknj

harsh said:


> MLB has been doing packaging and distribution for many years. Apple's only experience is iTunes and ATV+ and those have only see wider distribution (outside the ecosystem) in the last several years.


The point I'm trying to make is that it's been done already, successfully. Apple has always been the master at taking what someone's done already and making it better and more user friendly. MP3 players, tablets, smart phones ALL proceeded Apple and all things that Apples improved upon and made them for the masses (it's hard to argue this point). No reason that the same thing can't or won't happen in this space too.


> Since few (if any) of Apple's streaming products are available for businesses, I'm not convinced that needs to be a thing. Paying several dollars on top of $4.99 may be a tough sell.


There no reason that this can't happen, and probably will. How much do businesses already pay for DirecTV and equipment already? Can't see that investment being any different here, and potentially less.



> Making it available though ATV+ is a no-brainer but only for residential customers.


Why? Care to explain? I get that they might need to create a separate tier for businesses to "lock down" the ecosystem to just ST, but again, why does any business need anything more than to provide a WiFi and it all becomes BYOD. That's how I'd envision it. Yeah, it's going to change the concept of a sports bar, but so many things have changed these days. Perhaps they could partner with gambling entities that would be more than welcome to foot the bill with Apple to provide whatever is needed. Both Apple and these gambling entities are flush with case these days.


> Given that the big win of Atmos is "object"-based audio, I can't see that being done in real time. Much of the surround that is done now is mostly crowd sounds piped through the surround channels.


I agree, the tech isn't there yet for Atmos, but I've seen it with other sports (the Olympics for example), so it's again a tech that's been done already and perhaps Apple can do something interesting with it.



> Not much has changed in this respect so perhaps you've just been beaten down.


Despite what it seems here, I'm still very much anti-Apple. As I mention I don't own any Apple devices and haven't since my last iPod (and an iPad I won in a raffle). With that said, I'm impressed by ATV+ and I DO think what they do, they do well provided you want to be in their ecosystem. I choose not to, but that doesn't mean this can't work.


> The "ecosystem" may be chummy, but it lacks substantially in flexibility and interoperability.


Agreed, that's always been their way. That doesn't mean ST can't work.



> Others are in the space already, it is just that Apple perhaps lags everyone else.I differ here.


And that's why they want this, it will help them catch up and give them a larger subscriber base.



> I don't think the NFL wants a whole lot more than their wire transfers. They don't have sleepless nights thinking about subscriber numbers and profit margins because they likely have a guaranteed income regardless of whether or not the product is successful.


I'm sure there's truth to this, but if this experience is poor for the users, they don't want that either. They have a stable but limited product, and this gives them the opportunity to grow their business, and tie in lots of other things, but if the experience is poor, that's a lot of egg on their faces, and the NFL HATES bad publicity.

Again, everyone here seems to be thinking of this as has been done in the past, as if it's the ONLY way it can be done. I'm very interested to see how Apple tackles some of these roadblocks. Perhaps they fail, but perhaps they improve on things and open this up to more than just the folks who want to pay for DirecTV (an entity that's losing subscribers daily). We'll see.


----------



## b4pjoe

Yeah I can't see a couple hundred people in a bar BYOD and watching the games on their phones. Why go to the bar in the first place place? Part of the draw is the multiple big screens.


----------



## Steveknj

b4pjoe said:


> Yeah I can't see a couple hundred people in a bar BYOD and watching the games on their phones. Why go to the bar in the first place place? Part of the draw is the multiple big screens.


To drink? I mean if that's the case, I agree, invite your friends over and do it there. That doesn't mean that's not the way things will go. Things change.

I don't frequent bars so I don't get the appeal anyway. I'd rather watch the game in my own space.


----------



## b4pjoe

Yeah to drink and party with their friends. I can't imagine people squinting at their 5" screens and doing much partying. I think sports bars will still have games on their big screens. I think Apple will have something in place for commercial establishments even if it is having DirecTV supplying the sat signal to them until they come up with their own system.


----------



## glrush

What I can imagine people doing on their phones at a bar is live betting and that's gonna be really interesting with the delay inherent in streaming live events.


----------



## B. Shoe

glrush said:


> What I can imagine people doing on their phones at a bar is live betting and that's gonna be really interesting with the delay inherent in streaming live events.


As someone who lives all-streaming and dabbles in sports gambling and live betting, you get used to it a little bit and adjust accordingly.


----------



## Steveknj

b4pjoe said:


> Yeah to drink and party with their friends. I can't imagine people squinting at their 5" screens and doing much partying. I think sports bars will still have games on their big screens. I think Apple will have something in place for commercial establishments even if it is having DirecTV supplying the sat signal to them until they come up with their own system.


I'm not convinced, and I'll be SHOCKED if DirecTV is involved at all. But, well, local games will still be available via broadcast/Sat/Cable anyway, so most weekends they will still have 4 or 5 games to show regardless. If they are interested in New York to watch the Packers play the Falcons on a non-national game, they'll figure out a way to watch.


----------



## harsh

Steveknj said:


> I get that they might need to create a separate tier for businesses to "lock down" the ecosystem to just ST, but again, why does any business need anything more than to provide a WiFi and it all becomes BYOD.


AppleTV+ currently has a limit of six streams.

Don't forget what I said about Apple not being great at flexibility and interoperation.


----------



## Steveknj

harsh said:


> AppleTV+ *currently *has a limit of six streams.
> 
> Don't forget what I said about Apple not being great at flexibility and interoperation.


*Currently *is the key word here. Again, you'd have to be an idiot to think they haven't thought that through.

Also, again, if the venue provides WIFI and it's BYOD, then it's up to the consumer, not the venue to make sure streams are available. If the venue is going to provide the streams, then they will have to work it out with Apple, whether it's to purchase more than 6 streams or, perhaps Apple will have a business tier that provided more. Either way I can't imagine it being more expensive than DIrecTV.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Steveknj said:


> *Currently *is the key word here. Again, you'd have to be an idiot to think they haven't thought that through.
> 
> Also, again, if the venue provides WIFI and it's BYOD, then it's up to the consumer, not the venue to make sure streams are available. If the venue is going to provide the streams, then they will have to work it out with Apple, whether it's to purchase more than 6 streams or, perhaps Apple will have a business tier that provided more. Either way I can't imagine it being more expensive than DIrecTV.


and with an streams cap then they may need an switcher to feed 8-16 streams to any number of tv's.


----------



## Steveknj

JoeTheDragon said:


> and with an streams cap then they may need an switcher to feed 8-16 streams to any number of tv's.


Wow, you didn't read what I wrote, did you? They CURRENTLY have the cap. Do you really think, a year from now, they will still have that same cap? In fact, they may sell a package with more streams strictly for this use case. I highly doubt that they going into this without considering any of this. If they are, they deserve all the grief they will ultimately get. I still find it amazing that people are thinking about this how it is now, not how it will be when it's actually implemented. I remember when I first considered AT&T TV and they limited you to 3 streams. Ultimately, they offered 20! Isn't it even more now?


----------



## harsh

Steveknj said:


> Also, again, if the venue provides WIFI and it's BYOD, then it's up to the consumer, not the venue to make sure streams are available.


Perhaps you could share how you think BYOD might work and why that might be preferable to wall-mounted big screen TVs.

Dozens of devices seem rather likely to put a major smackdown on the establishment's Wi-fi bandwidth not to mention their broadband bandwidth. Unicast is a harsh mistress when it comes to bandwidth.


----------



## James Long

Steveknj said:


> If the venue is going to provide the streams, then they will have to work it out with Apple, whether it's to purchase more than 6 streams or, perhaps Apple will have a business tier that provided more. Either way I can't imagine it being more expensive than DIrecTV.


The experience most of the people in this thread are expecting IS the venue providing the streams ... via large screen TVs mounted where multiple patrons can view the content. Are you suggesting that individual patrons would use their personal accounts to watch games on their own devices and potentially cast them to a shared monitor?

I don't believe MOST people would want to go to a bar to watch on a personal device. The shared experience is watching on large screen monitors ... Like this:









The fire code occupancy based rate that DIRECTV charges ($1600 for up to 50 patrons, $2900 for up to 100 patrons and $6000 for up to 200 patrons plus additional levels) works out to $32 per patron (closer to $60 if the fire code occupancy is "51" or "101") Obviously the per person rate is more if the venue has a much larger fire code occupancy than attendance. (DIRECTV's private home viewing rate is around $300 per household. Pack in 5-10 people and one be close to the commercial rates.)

To replicate the current experience the venue would need to receive multiple signals and display them on multiple screens simultaneously. This would best be done with one receiver per stream (not a stream from Apple to each individual TV) run through a matrix switcher. Apple will not want to provide multiple identical streams from their servers to the same location just so the venue can display the same content on more than one TV.


----------



## b4pjoe

James Long said:


> Are you suggesting that individual patrons would use their personal accounts to watch games on their own devices


I think he means streaming the games to the customers own device via the bars NFL ST commercial account.


----------



## harsh

b4pjoe said:


> I think he means streaming the games to the customers own device via the bars NFL ST commercial account.


I can't imagine that being attractive to either the establishment or patrons. It would also be an inconceivable nightmare to provide charging for all of those devices that run out of juice during the day.

Implementing multicast at this level would seem to be cost prohibitive.


----------



## b4pjoe

harsh said:


> I can't imagine that being attractive to either the establishment or patrons. It would also be an inconceivable nightmare to provide charging for all of those devices that run out of juice during the day.


I can't either. I wasn't the one that suggested it as a viable option.


----------



## Steveknj

James Long said:


> *The experience most of the people in this thread are expecting IS the venue providing the streams ... via large screen TVs mounted where multiple patrons can view the content. Are you suggesting that individual patrons would use their personal accounts to watch games on their own devices and potentially cast them to a shared monitor?
> 
> I don't believe MOST people would want to go to a bar to watch on a personal device. The shared experience is watching on large screen monitors ... Like this:*
> View attachment 32128
> 
> 
> The fire code occupancy based rate that DIRECTV charges ($1600 for up to 50 patrons, $2900 for up to 100 patrons and $6000 for up to 200 patrons plus additional levels) works out to $32 per patron (closer to $60 if the fire code occupancy is "51" or "101") Obviously the per person rate is more if the venue has a much larger fire code occupancy than attendance. (DIRECTV's private home viewing rate is around $300 per household. Pack in 5-10 people and one be close to the commercial rates.)
> 
> To replicate the current experience the venue would need to receive multiple signals and display them on multiple screens simultaneously. This would best be done with one receiver per stream (not a stream from Apple to each individual TV) run through a matrix switcher. Apple will not want to provide multiple identical streams from their servers to the same location just so the venue can display the same content on more than one TV.


That's EXACTLY what I'm suggesting. Realize that the NEW generation, the under 30 somethings spend half their time in social situations, like bars and restaurants on their phones NOW. They are VERY content to watch any and all content on their phones and tablets. That's normal. What everyone here is thinking is that things will keep going along as they always do, with people watching banks of big screen TVs as they've done for 40 years. That's changing. If the NFL wants to grow the game, the way I suggest is the way to go. Now, I might agree that their could be bandwidth issues with large numbers of people streaming games on their own devices. That would have to be worked out. But I'm sure when ST came into existence, the infrastructure wasn't there for that yet either. As I keep saying (and remember, while everyone here ASSUMED in the end DirecTV would get the package back, not me), times are changing and the old ways of doing things are going away. People don't WANT change, they aren't used to it. Maybe it will hurt bars, maybe it won't. The idea that people want to go to a bar and watch games on these big screens is old fashioned. People at one time didn't think TV would even last. Nobody ever thought about the demise of cable/sat either. Yet here we are.


----------



## Steveknj

b4pjoe said:


> I think he means streaming the games to the customers own device via the bars NFL ST commercial account.


Nope. What I mean is that bars will no longer provide anything other than free WiFi. Maybe they invest in BETTER WiFi and then advertise that so that patrons come in KNOWING they can stream on their own devices, using THEIR OWN ST accounts. Bars will no longer have to invest in equipment, in mulitple TVs (though they could if they want to show locally broadcast events, for example, games on CBS and Fox, and other local sporting events). Is there a reason to still go to bars and restaurants? Sure, to drink, to get together with friends, just like people have been doing for hundreds of years.


----------



## Steveknj

harsh said:


> I can't imagine that being attractive to either the establishment or patrons. It would also be an inconceivable nightmare to provide charging for all of those devices that run out of juice during the day.
> 
> Implementing multicast at this level would seem to be cost prohibitive.


Again, nope. You are thinking like it's 1995. It's not. Again watch the behavior of the under 40 crowd. They LIVE on their phones. Having ST on their phones is just an extension of that. That's the future. Again, I have no idea if that's Apple's plan, but that's what I'd do.


----------



## Steveknj

JoeTheDragon said:


> and with an streams cap then they may need an switcher to feed 8-16 streams to any number of tv's.


Wow, you didn't read what I wrote, did you? They CURRENTLY have the cap. Do you really think, a year from now, they will still have that same cap? In fact, they may sell a package with more streams strictly for this use case. I highly doubt that they going into this without considering any of this. If they are, they deserve all the grief they will ultimately get. I still find it amazing that people are thinking about this how it is now, not how it will be when it's actually implemented. I remember when I first considered AT&T TV and they limited you to 3 streams. Ultimately, they offered 20! Isn't it even more now?


----------



## AZ.

Steveknj said:


> Again, nope. You are thinking like it's 1995. It's not. Again watch the behavior of the under 40 crowd. They LIVE on their phones. Having ST on their phones is just an extension of that. That's the future. Again, I have no idea if that's Apple's plan, but that's what I'd do.


Well all I can say I am much older but hang with very young people....None have TV, stream only a few services and I know none have money to pay $300 for season ticket.....They dont have the cash and do watch a lot on phones and computers...I think thats the point most are missing here!


----------



## Steveknj

AZ. said:


> Well all I can say I am much older but hang with very young people....None have TV, stream only a few services and I know none have money to pay $300 for season ticket.....They dont have the cash and do watch a lot on phones and computers...I think thats the point most are missing here!


Exactly. Heck, I watch TV shows with young people, and their idea of getting together and watching a show is sitting in front of their laptops or iPad and watching while chatting, texting with friends. This is how it's become. There's a reason why some of the streamers have created "parties" where streamers watch shows together with their friends and aren't even in the same location. We have to stop thinking of how it was and start thinking about how it will be. That's why DIrecTV is getting out of the business to begin with. That's why Netflix is starting to realize the password sharing is hurting their business. We are at the very beginning of the streaming phenomena. Companies are figuring out how this should work and how they can monitize it for max profits. We just don't know everything yet, but this where it's going. My parents remember the day when radio was king. I grew up with OTA TV only and a few channels. The next gen grew up with cable and sat and having hundreds of linear channels at their disposal. Now, it's all available online. Cord cutting is in, even among older folks like myself. Doing it the old way is a recipe for disaster.


----------



## SamC

Netflix’s recent collapse actually teaches us that we now in the mature streaming era. 

This, however, has little to do with ST, and especially with commercial ST. Communal watching of multiple games at once is a major activity of many people of many different ages. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make that so.


----------



## b4pjoe

Steveknj said:


> Nope. What I mean is that bars will no longer provide anything other than free WiFi. Maybe they invest in BETTER WiFi and then advertise that so that patrons come in KNOWING they can stream on their own devices, using THEIR OWN ST accounts. Bars will no longer have to invest in equipment, in mulitple TVs (though they could if they want to show locally broadcast events, for example, games on CBS and Fox, and other local sporting events). Is there a reason to still go to bars and restaurants? Sure, to drink, to get together with friends, just like people have been doing for hundreds of years.


One of the main draws of bars and their walls of big screen TV's is that fact you can go there on Sunday and watch all of those games without having to pay for Sunday Ticket. I believe you are 100% dead wrong that it is the way it is going to be a year from September. Even if you are right about "young people" wanting to watch the games on their phones after buying Sunday Ticket why would they want to do that in a bar? They could hang in a lot of other places with their friends to watch the games on their 5" or 6" screens. If it goes the way you are suggesting there are going to be a lot of empty bars on Sunday afternoons.


----------



## b4pjoe

SamC said:


> Netflix’s recent collapse actually teaches us that we now in the mature streaming era.
> 
> This, however, has little to do with ST, and especially with commercial ST. Communal watching of multiple games at once is a major activity of many people of many different ages. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make that so.


I think Netflix's recent collapse has more to do with their lack of good content than anything else. Most of the movies are least 5 years old or older and they are losing a lot of content to the other streamers. I'm very close to canceling for those reasons.


----------



## Steveknj

b4pjoe said:


> One of the main draws of bars and their walls of big screen TV's is that fact you can go there on Sunday and watch all of those games without having to pay for Sunday Ticket. I believe you are 100% dead wrong that it is the way it is going to be a year from September. Even if you are right about "young people" wanting to watch the games on their phones after buying Sunday Ticket why would they want to do that in a bar? They could hang in a lot of other places with their friends to watch the games on their 5" or 6" screens. *If it goes the way you are suggesting there are going to be a lot of empty bars on Sunday afternoons.*


That may very well be. And that's tough noogies if that's the case. Times change. People used to go to vaudeville shows, and then movies came along and killed that business. I'm sure the blacksmith business suffered once everyone drove cars. That's how things go. Then again, people have been going to bars to drink for as long as their have been bars. People want to go to a communal place to drink with friends. They don't want the mess of cleaning up after everyone. Why would people go out to eat if they can just make a meal at home? Do kids no longer go to bars? Of course they do. And perhaps they will still go on a Sunday afternoon and watch games together on their own screens. They do that now with other forms of streaming too. Or perhaps they won't. I don't know the future. But I'm keen enough to see how the landscape has changed and that kids are no longer tethered to that big screen in the living room (or that bank of TVs in the bar) the way my generation is/was. It might not be by next year, but if I'm Apple, I'm betting that it's going to happen and might as well go that way now. Sure us older folks will grumble that the old way of doing stuff is going away. Maybe they will just watch the local games on the big screens while the kids watch the rest of the games. Or maybe the older folks will just pony up for ST (at a vastly cheaper rate) and stay home. We'll see.


----------



## Steveknj

b4pjoe said:


> I think Netflix's recent collapse has more to do with their lack of good content than anything else. Most of the movies are least 5 years old or older and they are losing a lot of content to the other streamers. I'm very close to canceling for those reasons.


That's completely wrong. It has to do with the fact that once they were one of a few, now they are one of many, and MANY have deeper pockets. They've invested BILLIONS of dollars in new content. But there are only so many eyeballs to watch ALL of that content. They've priced themself at a premium rate, yet, they may not have MORE premium content than anyone else. The movies are a smaller draw at this point, and most of their better movies have been self produced at this point.


----------



## James Long

Steveknj said:


> Realize that the NEW generation, the under 30 somethings spend half their time in social situations, like bars and restaurants on their phones NOW.


Are you claiming that they are going to the bar for the purpose of watching subscription content on their phones? I suggest that they are going to the bar to mingle with friends and any content they watch is minimal. Perhaps get caught in a rabbit hole of funny videos ... But not watch one thing for hours.

"What everyone here is thinking"
"everyone here ASSUMED"


Please don't speak for everyone.


----------



## b4pjoe

Steveknj said:


> That's completely wrong. It has to do with the fact that once they were one of a few, now they are one of many, and MANY have deeper pockets. They've invested BILLIONS of dollars in new content. But there are only so many eyeballs to watch ALL of that content. They've priced themself at a premium rate, yet, they may not have MORE premium content than anyone else. The movies are a smaller draw at this point, and most of their better movies have been self produced at this point.


Well it is the reason why I am close to canceling.


----------



## b4pjoe

Steveknj said:


> That may very well be. And that's tough noogies if that's the case. Times change. People used to go to vaudeville shows, and then movies came along and killed that business. I'm sure the blacksmith business suffered once everyone drove cars. That's how things go. Then again, people have been going to bars to drink for as long as their have been bars. People want to go to a communal place to drink with friends. They don't want the mess of cleaning up after everyone. Why would people go out to eat if they can just make a meal at home? Do kids no longer go to bars? Of course they do. And perhaps they will still go on a Sunday afternoon and watch games together on their own screens. They do that now with other forms of streaming too. Or perhaps they won't. I don't know the future. But I'm keen enough to see how the landscape has changed and that kids are no longer tethered to that big screen in the living room (or that bank of TVs in the bar) the way my generation is/was. It might not be by next year, but if I'm Apple, I'm betting that it's going to happen and might as well go that way now. Sure us older folks will grumble that the old way of doing stuff is going away. Maybe they will just watch the local games on the big screens while the kids watch the rest of the games. Or maybe the older folks will just pony up for ST (at a vastly cheaper rate) and stay home. We'll see.


Vaudeville shows and the blacksmith trade died because there were better things to come along and replace them. What you are suggesting is far from better than what is presently there. I might be old but I have always kept up with tech. I love my iPhone because it is a computer I can take with me for all kinds of great uses. I watch youtube videos, listen to music. Check out social media. Google. Web browsing. Keep up on news and weather. Check my email and send/receive text messages. Play games. And gasp!....use it as a phone. Watching sports is not even in the top 100 though. I do have the MiLB app on it since they don't have an app for it on TV's or streaming boxes so what do I do to watch a game on it. I airplay from the iPhone to my big beautiful widescreen LG 4K TV. Maybe bar owners will subscribe to it via a regular Apple TV+ subscription and cast it from multiple iPads to those big screen TV's they already have. It would save them some big bucks over their current commercial accounts. But I would bet Apple would frown on that.


----------



## harsh

Steveknj said:


> Again watch the behavior of the under 40 crowd.


That crowd is pretty well represented at my local BWW and they're all watching the big screens.


----------



## harsh

SamC said:


> Netflix’s recent collapse actually teaches us that we now in the mature streaming era.


It isn't really fair to call what happened to Netflix as "collapse". They lost less than 1% of their subscribers.

What Netflix is experiencing probably has more to do with the competition getting more intense coupled with the movie offerings being pretty thin.


----------



## b4pjoe

Looks like one more game that won't be on any Sunday Ticket package or on any Sat/Cable package.

NFL owners passed resolution that could lead to a Black Friday game on Amazon Prime


----------



## SamC

harsh said:


> It isn't really fair to call what happened to Netflix as "collapse". They lost less than 1% of their subscribers.


I was more referring to the $40B in market cap lost, worst performing stock in the S&P 500.

The streaming market is now mature. Wild predictions that use words like “everybody” and “millennials” and “death of…” are now being replaced by thoughtful, fact based, analysis.. The Market now knows that streaming is a lot like HBO et al 20 or 25 years ago. A supplement to linear TV.

And due to it being on-demand, easy to binge everything cancel and try another one, over and over. Sports is part of fighting binge and cancel, and sports, particularly the NFL, are expensive.


b4pjoe said:


> Looks like one more game that won't be on any Sunday Ticket package or on any Sat/Cable package.
> 
> NFL owners passed resolution that could lead to a Black Friday game on Amazon Prime


The NFL is still bound by the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, which prohibits it scheduling games on Fridays and Saturdays until the HS and college seasons are over. 

I don’t know how many states it takes for HS season to be “over”, but a quick look around the internet shows that most state HS playoffs run at least into the first or second week of December.


----------



## b4pjoe

> The resulting law — the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 — gave the NFL (and other pro sports leagues) a broadcasting antitrust exemption, while also essentially banning the NFL from televising games on Saturdays during most of the fall, to protect college football. *The ban also covers Friday nights in deference to high school football.*


From the article: The game would likely have to be played in the afternoon, as the league can’t televise prime time games on Friday nights in November as part of its antitrust exemption.


----------



## glrush

I am certainly no lawyer, but the language (as I read it ) in the Sports Business Act of 1961 seems to allow games to be played before 6:00 PM without jeopardizing the NFL's anti-trust exemption. So, day games should be fine: Here is a link to the applicable section:

15 U.S. Code § 1293 - Intercollegiate and interscholastic football contest limitations | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)


----------



## harsh

SamC said:


> I was more referring to the $40B in market cap lost, worst performing stock in the S&P 500.


There's all manner of things that impact the bottom line of a company that aren't related to its potential. Netflix lives and dies based on revenues generated by customer subscriptions, not their trading price.


----------



## APB101

*HOW APPLE CAN MAKE SUNDAY TICKET WORK*

by Gavin Bridge (04.25.2022)








How Apple Can Make Sunday Ticket Work


New VIP+ Analysis: How scoring the NFL rights package could be a content investment that leads to a substantial uptick in Apple TV+ subs.




variety.com





“If reports are to be believed, Apple is the successful bidder for the NFL’s Sunday Ticket package, paying at least $500M more a year for the rights for a total worth over $2 billion annually.”

…


----------



## wmb

James Long said:


> Are you claiming that they are going to the bar for the purpose of watching subscription content on their phones? I suggest that they are going to the bar to mingle with friends and any content they watch is minimal. Perhaps get caught in a rabbit hole of funny videos ... But not watch one thing for hours.
> 
> "What everyone here is thinking"
> "everyone here ASSUMED"
> 
> 
> Please don't speak for everyone.


I can’t imagine the terms and conditions of a personal account to allow streaming of content from a personal account, especially a patron’s personal account. That patron may even be liable for commercial use of the content. What sports bar with a lawyer would run that risk? 

But, reliability is also an issue… making sure the quality of the stream from a patron.

Also, risk of people stealing the display for other content at times if crucial plays…

The reasons this won’t work just get longer and longer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Steveknj

James Long said:


> Are you claiming that they are going to the bar for the purpose of watching subscription content on their phones? I suggest that they are going to the bar to mingle with friends and any content they watch is minimal. Perhaps get caught in a rabbit hole of funny videos ... But not watch one thing for hours.
> 
> "What everyone here is thinking"
> "everyone here ASSUMED"
> 
> 
> Please don't speak for everyone.


No I'm suggesting they go to a bar to drink and mingle (same as if ST was on the big screens as well). What I'm saying is that while many of the older generation want to watch content on those big screens, the younger generations are very content with looking and watching content on their phones. Even in their personal space, they are just as likely to grab a laptop or tablet to watch content than to turn on the TV. I love watching people, and I do to restaurants and this is what I've been observing. The "kids" are content watching their screens, while us older people are paying attention to what's on the big screens. What I'm also saying, is that maybe, at the right price point, they'll just get their own ST and forego going to bars altogether, unless they want to drink and hang out with their buddies.


----------



## Steveknj

b4pjoe said:


> Well it is the reason why I am close to canceling.


One person's crap is another person's gold. We all like different things. I find a lot to watch on Netflix. The only problem I have is it's buried in a lot of crap (because in their quest to bring in more content than anyone else they bring in a lot of crap too).


----------



## Steveknj

b4pjoe said:


> Vaudeville shows and the blacksmith trade died because there were better things to come along and replace them. What you are suggesting is far from better than what is presently there. I might be old but I have always kept up with tech. I love my iPhone because it is a computer I can take with me for all kinds of great uses. I watch youtube videos, listen to music. Check out social media. Google. Web browsing. Keep up on news and weather. Check my email and send/receive text messages. Play games. And gasp!....use it as a phone. Watching sports is not even in the top 100 though. I do have the MiLB app on it since they don't have an app for it on TV's or streaming boxes so what do I do to watch a game on it. I airplay from the iPhone to my big beautiful widescreen LG 4K TV. Maybe bar owners will subscribe to it via a regular Apple TV+ subscription and cast it from multiple iPads to those big screen TV's they already have. It would save them some big bucks over their current commercial accounts. But I would bet Apple would frown on that.


Perhaps they will, maybe eventually they won't. I'm sure our parents said, "what do we need TV for? I have a perfectly great radio, I can go to the theater and watch movies? TV? That's just an expensive box where the reception is terrible and blurry. Times change, tech changes. I am with you, I'd rather watch content on my big TV any day, but that's not the kids look at things. If I'm out in bar or restaurant, to be honest, I'm not even paying much attention to all those big screens. I'm talking to family and friends, eating and so forth. I don't GO there to watch games. I'd rather watch at home if I want to pay attention to what's going on. I get there's a segment of people who go to the bar to watch games that are out of town, but I'd imagine it's a small segment of folks who actually watch these games, and if they still want to do that, there's going to be a new option.


----------



## Steveknj

harsh said:


> That crowd is pretty well represented at my local BWW and they're all watching the big screens.


But why are they there? To watch the games or to socialize? Does BWW even have ST? But watch the younger crowd. I'd bet they are on their phones as much, if not more than watching those screens which happen to be there and on.


----------



## Steveknj

APB101 said:


> *HOW APPLE CAN MAKE SUNDAY TICKET WORK*
> 
> by Gavin Bridge (04.25.2022)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How Apple Can Make Sunday Ticket Work
> 
> 
> New VIP+ Analysis: How scoring the NFL rights package could be a content investment that leads to a substantial uptick in Apple TV+ subs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> variety.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “If reports are to be believed, Apple is the successful bidder for the NFL’s Sunday Ticket package, paying at least $500M more a year for the rights for a total worth over $2 billion annually.”
> 
> …


That's what I always thought. Apple was going to use ST as an incentive to join ATV+ at a lot cheaper per season than ST was with DIrecTV. And with that, the need to go to a bar to go watch the games becomes less important. Paying even $10 a month for 4 months is reasonable for most football fans. Imagine if it's only the base $5 a month.


----------



## AZ.

Steveknj said:


> That's what I always thought. Apple was going to use ST as an incentive to join ATV+ at a lot cheaper per season than ST was with DIrecTV. And with that, the need to go to a bar to go watch the games becomes less important. Paying even $10 a month for 4 months is reasonable for most football fans. Imagine if it's only the base $5 a month.


That would be to good to be true!....Dont see how that makes them 1.5 to 2 billion dollars just to break even?


----------



## Steveknj

wmb said:


> I can’t imagine the terms and conditions of a personal account to allow streaming of content from a personal account, especially a patron’s personal account. That patron may even be liable for commercial use of the content. What sports bar with a lawyer would run that risk?
> 
> But, reliability is also an issue… making sure the quality of the stream from a patron.
> 
> Also, risk of people stealing the display for other content at times if crucial plays…
> 
> The reasons this won’t work just get longer and longer.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


None of these issues can't be solved. Is the tech here today? Maybe, but will it be at some point? I have no doubt. Shortsightedness is one major problem we have in these days. People think in terms of how things will "never work" rather than trying to solve the problem of MAKING it work.


----------



## Steveknj

AZ. said:


> That would be to good to be true!....Dont see how that makes them 1.5 to 2 billion dollars just to break even?


Over time, if they bring in enough subs, it might. Remember, this is Apple who can afford even a long term loss for eventual gain. It's not only subscribers, but it's devices that they might sell as well.


----------



## b4pjoe

I really don't believe Apple will give everyone Apple TV+ and NFL ST for $4.99 per month. I think they will bump it up to $5.99 ($71.88 per year) or even $6.99 ($83.88 per year) which is still a deal for NFL addicts. And to thwart people from only subscribing during the season they might make a years subscription less than 12 payments of whatever they charge per month. Yes keeping it at $4.99 will increase their subscriber numbers but Apple has a raising prices when the "experts" think otherwise. Tech writers were sure the new iPhone SE would list for $199 but when it was released it was $429.


----------



## AZ.

b4pjoe said:


> I really don't believe Apple will give everyone Apple TV+ and NFL ST for $4.99 per month. I think they will bump it up to $5.99 ($71.88 per year) or even $6.99 ($83.88 per year) which is still a deal for NFL addicts. And to thwart people from only subscribing during the season they might make a years subscription less than 12 payments of whatever they charge per month. Yes keeping it at $4.99 will increase their subscriber numbers but Apple has a raising prices when the "experts" think otherwise. Tech writers were sure the new iPhone SE would list for $199 but when it was released it was $429.


Interesting thought.


----------



## Steveknj

b4pjoe said:


> I really don't believe Apple will give everyone Apple TV+ and NFL ST for $4.99 per month. I think they will bump it up to $5.99 ($71.88 per year) or even $6.99 ($83.88 per year) which is still a deal for NFL addicts. And to thwart people from only subscribing during the season they might make a years subscription less than 12 payments of whatever they charge per month. Yes keeping it at $4.99 will increase their subscriber numbers but Apple has a raising prices when the "experts" think otherwise. Tech writers were sure the new iPhone SE would list for $199 but when it was released it was $429.


I can see them doing something like ATV+ and ST for $6.99 (maybe even go as high as $10 a month), but, if you sub for a year, it's $60 for the year. This way they have you as a captive audience for a year at least. But even $10 a month for 4 months is more than 7x cheaper than what it cost now for ST.


----------



## SamC

At $2B/year, and if you assume Apple make $4/month per subscriber after paying for all the other content on Apple TV + and the tech costs, Apple would need 41.6M new subscribers. Or nearly triple the current number.

So, no, Apple is going to do exactly what DirecTV did. Predicate access to ST on first buying Apple TV (or perhaps a new phone or other item) and THEN charging a significant amount for the ST package. Perhaps not what DirecTV was, but certainly at least 3 figures/year and far less “retention specials”.

As to commercial, the idea that people are going to bars to watch ballgames on their phones is a non-starter. And irrelevant, since the phones would be on their own accounts. The idea that someone will just use a personal account to toss up the games will happen. There are over a million bars in the country, many local and unwelcoming to strangers, and only so many spies. The bigger chains and more public places will pay up, as watching sports communally is a thing, and always will be. Commercial will be at about what DirecTV charges now, or perhaps more, as DirecTV predicates ST on getting the bar’s regular TV from it, and there is nothing on Apple TV a bar needs, save a small Friday baseball package.


----------



## compnurd

SamC said:


> At $2B/year, and if you assume Apple make $4/month per subscriber after paying for all the other content on Apple TV + and the tech costs, Apple would need 41.6M new subscribers. Or nearly triple the current number.
> 
> So, no, Apple is going to do exactly what DirecTV did. Predicate access to ST on first buying Apple TV (or perhaps a new phone or other item) and THEN charging a significant amount for the ST package. Perhaps not what DirecTV was, but certainly at least 3 figures/year and far less “retention specials”.
> 
> As to commercial, the idea that people are going to bars to watch ballgames on their phones is a non-starter. And irrelevant, since the phones would be on their own accounts. The idea that someone will just use a personal account to toss up the games will happen. There are over a million bars in the country, many local and unwelcoming to strangers, and only so many spies. The bigger chains and more public places will pay up, as watching sports communally is a thing, and always will be. Commercial will be at about what DirecTV charges now, or perhaps more, as DirecTV predicates ST on getting the bar’s regular TV from it, and there is nothing on Apple TV a bar needs, save a small Friday baseball package.


big difference apple MAKES not revenue MAKES around 130 billion a year Losing a billion a year on ST to bring in even some subscribers to the Apple Eco system is an absolute loss they will take.. When this happens say goodbye to 300 dollar a season ST


----------



## b4pjoe

Steveknj said:


> I can see them doing something like ATV+ and ST for $6.99 (maybe even go as high as $10 a month), but, if you sub for a year, it's $60 for the year. This way they have you as a captive audience for a year at least. But even $10 a month for 4 months is more than 7x cheaper than what it cost now for ST.


Raising it to $10 a month would cause them to lose a lot of non football fan subscribers. If they need another $6 per month for ST I think they would just make NFL ST an addon for $6 per month. The catch would be you have to subscribe to Apple TV+ at $4.99 per month before you can buy the addon so for football fans they would be getting $10.99 per month.


----------



## SamC

compnurd said:


> Losing a billion a year on ST to bring in even some subscribers to the Apple Eco system is an absolute loss they will take..



To what end? The break even point for ST as just a part of Apple TV is darn near more people than exist. Why lose a billion dollars a year to get more subscribers for a service that, under that math, will NEVER make money. 

“Hey boss, should be lose a billion dollars and have 45M subscribers, or have 20M subscribers and turn a profit”.

“A”

(Thing said by nobody for $100)


----------



## B. Shoe

SamC said:


> So, no, Apple is going to do exactly what DirecTV did. Predicate access to ST on first buying Apple TV (or perhaps a new phone or other item) and THEN charging a significant amount for the ST package. Perhaps not what DirecTV was, but certainly at least 3 figures/year and far less “retention specials”.


I don't think it's unfair to expect Sunday Ticket to be priced at, just throwing darts, $200/season. That seems reasonable, given the price of other out-of-market sports packages, and an understanding that the NFL is the "premium" sports product out there. The end of this statement is the real reason people are fearful of Sunday Ticket leaving the D* platform; they're afraid that they might have to pay for it. (Some, maybe, for the first time in a long time.)



SamC said:


> To what end? The break even point for ST as just a part of Apple TV is darn near more people than exist. Why lose a billion dollars a year to get more subscribers for a service that, under that math, will NEVER make money.
> 
> “Hey boss, should be lose a billion dollars and have 45M subscribers, or have 20M subscribers and turn a profit”.
> 
> “A”
> 
> (Thing said by nobody for $100)


Following this strategy, no provider should attempt to carry NFL Sunday Ticket at its current asking price, regardless of what you charge for it.


----------



## b4pjoe

To break even on the expected $2.5 billion price tag Apple would need 10 million subscribers paying $250 a pop. The more I think about it the less likely I think Apple is going to give it away for their normal price of $4.99 per month. They didn't get to be the richest company on the planet by giving stuff away. They got that way by charging a premium price for their products. Apple isn't in business to break even.


----------



## compnurd

SamC said:


> To what end? The break even point for ST as just a part of Apple TV is darn near more people than exist. Why lose a billion dollars a year to get more subscribers for a service that, under that math, will NEVER make money.
> 
> “Hey boss, should be lose a billion dollars and have 45M subscribers, or have 20M subscribers and turn a profit”.
> 
> “A”
> 
> (Thing said by nobody for $100)


And as far as we know Directv has never made money on it also


----------



## wmb

B. Shoe said:


> Following this strategy, no provider should attempt to carry NFL Sunday Ticket at its current asking price, regardless of what you charge for it.


There is no subscription model that would support a $2 billion a year cost. None. We’re talking 100 million subscribers at $20 each, or 20 million subscribers at $100 each. 40 million at $50 or 50 million at $40. Nope. Give it up, it ain’t happening.

That’s just to cover bare cost of the content. No recovery of distribution or other overhead. If you could get those subscribe count/price combinations you still lose money.

These guys are going to have to make money some other way. Maybe it helps sell iPhones and Apple TV’s. Maybe Apple make money just like every online service providers like tracking ad impressions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## glrush

What we don't know is if Apple (or whoever) gets Sunday Ticket if their contract will allow a "team only" option, allowing subscribers to watch only their team out of market. For many years, Sunday Ticket has sort of been a one size fits all option, and perhaps there will be a tiered plan. We don't know any of the details and truth be told, we don't even know, for sure, if it will be Apple.


----------



## wmb

Steveknj said:


> None of these issues can't be solved. Is the tech here today? Maybe, but will it be at some point? I have no doubt. Shortsightedness is one major problem we have in these days. People think in terms of how things will "never work" rather than trying to solve the problem of MAKING it work.


The tech isn’t the main issue. The rights to the content is. It’s the same reason bars don’t stream a personal Spotify account. You can show an over the air broadcast, but expect to be sued if you stream something without a license.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SamC

The DirecTV ST model was just that. Residential and commercial, one had to first buy their regular linear TV from DirecTV as a predicate to the ability to buy ST. DirecTV lost money on ST, but its theory was that is made it back on regular packages.

Apple, or whoever, must have the same business model. They have to predicate the ability to buy ST upon first buying something else. That could be Apple TV +, that could be a physical Apple product, that could be subscribing to the Apple Care program which more or less is a subscription to a new phone every so often. 

But it will still, after the predicate, cost significant $$. The $200 guess for residential sounds solid. Maybe $250. Commercial, where Apple really has nothing much to predicate is anyone’s guess. Mine is that they sub-lease it to DirecTV.


----------



## wmb

SamC said:


> Commercial, where Apple really has nothing much to predicate is anyone’s guess. Mine is that they sub-lease it to DirecTV.


Lots of businesses provide managed iPhones to staff. These guys have enterprise accounts.

Lots of businesses use iPads as a POS system.

Apple is well entrenched in enterprise. You can put an Apple TV on an enterprise account. At under $200 each, they are cheaper than a DirecTV receiver (and use the same HDMI port). Surely Apple has an iPad app to control multiple Apple TV’s in a bar setting that’s more user friendly than anything DirecTV has.

I can’t see how a commercial account is an issue.

The other thing I don’t get is there are two other companies similarly positioned, Microsoft and Google, that aren’t part of this discussion. I get Microsoft sitting it out, they’ve struggled in this type of thing, but where is Google?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NashGuy

My guess, should Apple win ST, is that they sell it for a not-outrageous price that includes one year of Apple TV+. But Apple TV+ will remain its own separate thing and won't automatically include ST. You can buy one year of TV+ for $50 (or monthly at $5/mo). Maybe they sell ST with one year of TV+ for, IDK, $200. Maybe even as low as $150 (meaning that the ST part is costing you only an extra $100/yr). I expect something similar would be done by Amazon with ST vs. Prime. In either case, I don't expect the winning bidder to make back the annual cost of their ST contract via residential subscription sales but they're going to want to charge _something_ for it to help recoup some of the cost.

As for commercial viewing of ST (e.g. in sports bars), the most likely scenario is that that will continue to be carried, sold and billed by DirecTV satellite service. Apple/Amazon would probably just work out some deal with DTV so that most of the revenue for commercial ST sales goes to Apple/Amazon, with DTV getting a cut for playing middle-man. It's also possible, I suppose, that Apple/Amazon sells commercial viewing directly to establishments that don't already have DTV satellite gear in place but do have robust broadband. Although I would imagine that DTV would balk at that arrangement as they would want to be the exclusive commercial distributor...


----------



## B. Shoe

wmb said:


> These guys are going to have to make money some other way. Maybe it helps sell iPhones and Apple TV’s. Maybe Apple make money just like every online service providers like tracking ad impressions.


Now we're getting somewhere. To make an obvious statement, all of Apple's stuff works best when it's operated within Apple's ecosystem. For example, when I'm watching a baseball game on my Apple TV box, I'll get an on-screen pop-up that lets me know that the Celtics-Nets game is close in the fourth quarter. (Pops up on my iPhone, too) If I want to go to switch to it, just click the remote and it takes me right to it, regardless if that means switching apps, etc. You're likely not getting that same experience outside of the Apple-sphere, or running Apple TV+ through another streaming device.

Since this thread is all about pontificating and guessing what will happen, here's another thought if/when Apple takes over; *Sunday Ticket remains within its own app*. As a guy who's solely been watching Sunday Ticket through the app for the past four seasons, I'm a fan of the current app format and think it works really well. It's easy to navigate/change games and easy to swap games in and out of the multi-view option. Short Cuts system works well, and I'm sure you could implement more features.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

wmb said:


> Apple is well entrenched in enterprise. You can put an Apple TV on an enterprise account. At under $200 each, they are cheaper than a DirecTV receiver (and use the same HDMI port). Surely Apple has an iPad app to control multiple Apple TV’s in a bar setting that’s more user friendly than anything DirecTV has.


AppleCare for Enterprise is available in volume-based price tiers starting at 200, 1000, and 5000 covered.
Apple also has business stuff.
But public view TV is a different thing. Will apple be able to deal with franchised restaurants where each site needs to be it's own account with it's own blackouts / billing size?


----------



## harsh

As so many of the technical types are concerned about how an establishment is going to get the bandwidth to satisfy the needs for their own TVs a and more general broadband usage, I can't fathom how they would also accommodate most or all of their patron's individual bandwidth requirements as well. Dozens of individual streams is a lot to ask.

If the patrons are using their own bandwidth, that would seem make authentication next to impossible.


----------



## harsh

Steveknj said:


> People think in terms of how things will "never work" rather than trying to solve the problem of MAKING it work.


The solution to the problem is multicast. So far, it has typically been limited to arenas and stadiums.

Whatever solution is arrived at has about 12 months to be put in place so you can't summarily ignore the hurdles waiting for the ideal to come along.


----------



## compnurd

JoeTheDragon said:


> AppleCare for Enterprise is available in volume-based price tiers starting at 200, 1000, and 5000 covered.
> Apple also has business stuff.
> But public view TV is a different thing. Will apple be able to deal with franchised restaurants where each site needs to be it's own account with it's own blackouts / billing size?


I mean then only deal with 10’s of millions of iCloud and iTunes accounts. Several thousand business that want to have the service will
Be the least of there problems


----------



## NashGuy

B. Shoe said:


> Since this thread is all about pontificating and guessing what will happen, here's another thought if/when Apple takes over; *Sunday Ticket remains within its own app*.


I'd be shocked if Apple did that. Surely part of the reason they'd have to shell out big bucks for ST would be to get folks hooked on Apple TV+. And you don't do that unless ST is streamed inside the Apple TV app (where all their other add-on subscriptions, i.e. Apple TV Channels, exist). Maybe ST gets it own dedicated tab in that app, or maybe it just shows up on the Sports tab. But I really can't see it continuing to have its own separate app.


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> The solution to the problem is multicast. So far, it has typically been limited to arenas and stadiums.


Multicast must be implemented on a network-by-network basis. Comcast can do multicast on their own network, AT&T on their own, Verizon on their own, Charter on their own, T-Mobile on their own, Frontier on their own, Cox on their own, etc. But a content provider (e.g. Apple) can't stream something in multicast to end users.

As everything eventually moves to direct-to-consumer streaming services (e.g. Prime Video, HBO Max, Apple TV+, etc.), perhaps we'll see the major content providers and the major network operators come together to create some kind of multicast consortium in the interests of economizing bandwidth usage and improving the reliability of popular live streams (e.g. major sports) for their customers.


----------



## James Long

Steveknj said:


> As I said in the previous posts, do bars even need to show all those games if they are available on people's devices right at their tables?


Yes, they do. As I have stated in subsequent posts, the streaming you are seeing the young folks (too young to remember Mercury or Apollo other than school and movies) do isn't full length games. If the bar doesn't have Sunday Ticket they will likely have whatever is available on local TV (CBS and Fox) playing on their big screens. With volume up and noisy patrons watching those games. Watching streaming of an entire game in that environment would not be pleasant.

If they didn't have a local game on the bar would likely have other content on their screens. Golf or auto racing anything that draws a crowd. That's why they invested in the big screen TVs and hardware to drive it.

I don't believe Apple needs commercial establishments to make money on Sunday Ticket. But I don't see it being part of their plan to have individual subscribers taking the content into public venues where it would be seen by groups of people.


----------



## James Long

APB101 said:


> *HOW APPLE CAN MAKE SUNDAY TICKET WORK*
> 
> by Gavin Bridge (04.25.2022)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How Apple Can Make Sunday Ticket Work
> 
> 
> New VIP+ Analysis: How scoring the NFL rights package could be a content investment that leads to a substantial uptick in Apple TV+ subs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> variety.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “If reports are to be believed, Apple is the successful bidder for the NFL’s Sunday Ticket package, paying at least $500M more a year for the rights for a total worth over $2 billion annually.”
> …


Noting that the "reports" is the same rumor that started this thread.


----------



## James Long

b4pjoe said:


> Raising it to $10 a month would cause them to lose a lot of non football fan subscribers.


We have a winner. Double the price needs to increase the DESIRED content for all subscribers - not just one niche.


----------



## James Long

wmb said:


> There is no subscription model that would support a $2 billion a year cost. None. We’re talking 100 million subscribers at $20 each, or 20 million subscribers at $100 each. 40 million at $50 or 50 million at $40. Nope. Give it up, it ain’t happening.


Perhaps you gave up a little early ... try 5 million at $400. That would match the current DIRECTV rate. DIRECTV needs 3.75 million subscribers to cover their $1.5 billion cost. A small bar (50 or less occupancy) is effectively four subscribers. The $2 billion (or higher) rate would take more subscribers to cover, but set a good price and the math might work.

The question to start with is how many people WOULD pay for a subscription to Sunday Ticket. Then work on setting a price that would attract as many of those people as possible without going broke.


----------



## wmb

James Long said:


> Perhaps you gave up a little early ... try 5 million at $400. That would match the current DIRECTV rate. DIRECTV needs 3.75 million subscribers to cover their $1.5 billion cost.


Just curious, which year did DirecTV have those 3.75 million Sunday Ticket subscribers? It’s hard to believe people are going to buy it from Apple at those prices if they wouldn’t buy from DirecTV at those prices.

Certainly price elasticity will play a role in things, but the price isn’t that elastic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> We have a winner. Double the price needs to increase the DESIRED content for all subscribers - not just one niche.


This is the issue facing big general-entertainment streaming services with regard to sports. They have to be targeted in how much they spend on sports rights and _which_ sports rights they buy. Spend too much and you have to raise the cost of the service to a degree that won't be tolerated by non-sports fans. This is essentially what happened with the traditional cable bundle and led to many cost-conscious non-sports-fans becoming cord-cutters who quit cable for Netflix.

I see it playing out this way: local (Sun. afternoon) and national (Sun/Mon/Thur night) regular season NFL games are very popular, due partially to how few of them there are each year compared to other major pro sports. It makes sense to splash the cash for those rights and the NFL will likely seek to spread those games between multiple big streaming outlets (e.g. Amazon, Apple, Disney, WBD) when the current contracts end in 2033.

Same holds true for the playoffs and championship of all the major pro sports, including MLB, NBA and NHL, as well as for some college sports, e.g. NCAA March Madness, NCAA Football Championship, etc. Lots of folks want to see those games, so there's a return on investment there for the big general-audience streamers to buy those rights.

Beyond that, you probably just see those big streamers buying the rights for a sprinkling of national regular season MLB, NBA and NHL games, plus maybe some other sports that can be bought cheaply enough to make sense (e.g. various soccer leagues, foreign sports, a Grand Slam tennis tourney).

But for the 95% of regular season local MLB, NBA and NHL games that aren't shown on one of the major streamers, you'll need a dedicated service for that, i.e. whatever the RSNs evolve into. Maybe they're operated by a third party (e.g. Sinclair/Bally), maybe by the league (e.g. MLB) or maybe by individual teams (e.g. Cubs). These services won't be cheap but if you're a big fan of your local team, you'll pony up.

What I have a hard time envisioning, though, is where ESPN fits into this scheme after cable TV collapses and everything is in one direct-to-consumer streaming service or another. Even now, I'm not sure which fans ESPNs caters to. In terms of live sports, it seems like the ESPN family of channels is mainly for college sports fans -- particularly via the SEC and ACC Networks they own. IDK, perhaps they could nab rights to some or all of the NASCAR and/or PGA calendar when those rights are up for bidding again. But then we might see those leagues do their own DTC services too, with a few of their most popular events (e.g. Daytona 500, The Masters) streaming instead on Amazon, Apple, Disney or WBD.


----------



## Mike Lang

Now how do we get CBS & Fox to bump up the production to 4K so I can watch in glory on my Apple TV 4K.


----------



## wmb

NashGuy said:


> What I have a hard time envisioning, though, is where ESPN fits into this scheme after cable TV collapses and everything is in one direct-to-consumer streaming service or another.


ESPN, um well, Disney Streaming is going to do the distribution of a lot of sports. Currently they have NHL and MLS out of market, along with a lot of international sports no one carries.

The cable TV collapse is somewhat dependent on the streamers being able to include linear channels in the streaming package. Part of the attraction of cable for me is it’s a little easier to browse the guide than dive into a streamer to choose something to watch. Excess choice makes it hard to decide. I expect the streamers to offer linear channels of their content as cable declines.

This is another thing that Apple TV does well… it provide a federated list of shows across streamers. It has a decent recommendation system, too.

I’ll also add that the NBC has a bit of a problem with the English Premier League. Simultaneous games are carried on one or more linear channels and Peacock. It’s hard to know where to go to watch the game you want.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## b4pjoe

James Long said:


> Perhaps you gave up a little early ... try 5 million at $400. That would match the current DIRECTV rate. DIRECTV needs 3.75 million subscribers to cover their $1.5 billion cost. A small bar (50 or less occupancy) is effectively four subscribers. The $2 billion (or higher) rate would take more subscribers to cover, but set a good price and the math might work.
> 
> The question to start with is how many people WOULD pay for a subscription to Sunday Ticket. Then work on setting a price that would attract as many of those people as possible without going broke.


The $400 price tag is for Max. I'm sure many people buy the $300 standard package. Not sure whomever buys it will have two different plans like that. I'd really like to be able to just buy Red Zone instead of the whole Sunday Ticket Max Plan.


----------



## harsh

Mike Lang said:


> Now how do we get CBS & Fox to bump up the production to 4K so I can watch in glory on my Apple TV 4K.


Absent a way to broadcast 4K games through their local stations -- that can only come after DTV is sunset -- they're mostly stuck. CBS could use Paramount+ but I'm not sure there's enough of a fan population there to make it worthwhile.

I'm just happy that some of the Fox games are available in 1080p through my local Fox affiliate.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

B. Shoe said:


> It's easy to navigate/change games and easy to swap games in and out of the multi-view option.


I sure hope they offer multi-game view. The Apple TV box is powerful enough it could do 4/6/8 games at once. One way for Apple to sell more Apple TV’s.


----------



## NashGuy

wmb said:


> ESPN, um well, Disney Streaming is going to do the distribution of a lot of sports. Currently they have NHL and MLS out of market, along with a lot of international sports no one carries.


Yeah. What I'm thinking ahead to is when cable TV penetration falls low enough that Disney is forced to begin selling the entirety of ESPN as a direct-to-consumer streaming service. Not just ESPN+ (which is essentially a streaming-only ESPN 4) but all the content across all the ESPN channels. My guess is that that day arrives by some point in 2025.

By that point, Disney will have shut down Hulu as a standalone service, trimmed down its content library (to reduce the amount they spend to license third-party content for Hulu), and made it a non-optional adult-focused branded hub inside of a more expensive Disney+, right next to the Disney, Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars and Nat Geo branded hubs. (This is how it already exists in the UK, except the hub is branded Star instead of Hulu.)

But I don't think ESPN gets sucked into Disney+ as yet another non-optional content hub. Because the cost of those sports rights are too high. If they made all of ESPN part of Disney+, they'd probably have to jack up the price of Disney+ by $12/mo, which would run off a lot of their subscribers who aren't big sports fans (or who don't care for the particular sports that ESPN mainly carries). So instead, I think they'd sell all of ESPN via the standalone ESPN app, maybe for $16-18/mo, with a bundling discount for folks who bought it and Disney+ too. At least, those are my guesses in terms of price points that they'd need to charge so that ESPN could bring in the same amount of revenue via streaming as it has been bringing in via cable TV, where a lot of folks are paying $8/mo out of their cable bill for it even though they don't watch it.

But I guess my larger question is whether a standalone ESPN service would be viable. It won't be for the hard-core fans of MLB, NBA or NHL, who will need their local RSN service to see their nearest team play the vast majority of their regular season games. And in terms of the most-watched sport, NFL, ESPN only carries Monday Night Football there. Would ESPN survive mainly as a place to watch college football and basketball? And what's to keep the SEC, ACC and Big 12 (which is on ESPN+) from eventually just rolling out their own direct-to-consumer subscription services for their games, as the Pac-12 has already done on cable with their Pac-12 network? Meanwhile, coverage of another major conference, the Big 10, is already on the Fox-owned Big 10 Network (which, like the Pac-12 Network, will eventually need to be taken direct-to-consumer OTT).


----------



## SamC

NashGuy said:


> Yeah. What I'm thinking ahead to is when cable TV penetration falls low enough that Disney is forced to begin selling the entirety of ESPN as a direct-to-consumer streaming service. Not just ESPN+ (which is essentially a streaming-only ESPN 4) but all the content across all the ESPN channels. My guess is that that day arrives by some point in 2025.
> 
> By that point, Disney will have shut down Hulu as a standalone service, trimmed down its content library (to reduce the amount they spend to license third-party content for Hulu), and made it a non-optional adult-focused branded hub inside of a more expensive Disney+, right next to the Disney, Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars and Nat Geo branded hubs. (This is how it already exists in the UK, except the hub is branded Star instead of Hulu.)
> 
> But I don't think ESPN gets sucked into Disney+ as yet another non-optional content hub. Because the cost of those sports rights are too high. If they made all of ESPN part of Disney+, they'd probably have to jack up the price of Disney+ by $12/mo, which would run off a lot of their subscribers who aren't big sports fans (or who don't care for the particular sports that ESPN mainly carries). So instead, I think they'd sell all of ESPN via the standalone ESPN app, maybe for $16-18/mo, with a bundling discount for folks who bought it and Disney+ too. At least, those are my guesses in terms of price points that they'd need to charge so that ESPN could bring in the same amount of revenue via streaming as it has been bringing in via cable TV, where a lot of folks are paying $8/mo out of their cable bill for it even though they don't watch it.
> 
> But I guess my larger question is whether a standalone ESPN service would be viable. It won't be for the hard-core fans of MLB, NBA or NHL, who will need their local RSN service to see their nearest team play the vast majority of their regular season games. And in terms of the most-watched sport, NFL, ESPN only carries Monday Night Football there. Would ESPN survive mainly as a place to watch college football and basketball? And what's to keep the SEC, ACC and Big 12 (which is on ESPN+) from eventually just rolling out their own direct-to-consumer subscription services for their games, as the Pac-12 has already done on cable with their Pac-12 network? Meanwhile, coverage of another major conference, the Big 10, is already on the Fox-owned Big 10 Network (which, like the Pac-12 Network, will eventually need to be taken direct-to-consumer OTT).


Disney would lose billions selling the ESPNs for $15. The break even price for the ESPNs is thought to be about $40/month. 

All you people who wanted “a la carte”, well, enjoy.


----------



## gio12

I am not worried how Apple will figure this out. I am sure Apple will figure something out for Bars and Commercial establishments. I still think Bars, etc will still need Traditional TV setups. But yes, younger people will be fine watching on phones and say iPads at the tables. Maybe 2-3 for multiple games.

Apple has a chance to double subscribers in my opinion. 
1. You must have DIRECTV to get the Ticket. How many people refuse a dish, can't or cant get service who now can?
2. Cost is a HUGE issue for many people. $200-240 can be a lot for folks just to see some games.

This can be so much better now locked into DTV.
Apple can sell a ton of ATVs now and many newer Smart TVs can get apple+

I don't think apple will include the NFL Ticket in the $4.99 Apple+ subscription.
But say for apple+ its a $20 add on for the season for current subscribers or say $50 for non apple+ subs. Not only do I think 99% of Tickets subs would stay, they can double, triple or quadruple subs. $20-50 just for the novelty of having it and RedZone. Maybe even $75 will work. 
I want Apple to sell a RedZone only channel as well.

We will see and I think Apple will do this right!!!


----------



## NashGuy

SamC said:


> Disney would lose billions selling the ESPNs for $15. The break even price for the ESPNs is thought to be about $40/month.
> 
> All you people who wanted “a la carte”, well, enjoy.


$40/mo?! Nah, don't think it's that high. Would like to see your source for that. It would definitely be higher than the per-sub carriage fees they get from cable TV distributors, though. Industry analyst Kagan put that figure at $7.64 in 2020, plus $1.04 for ESPN 2, $0.93 for SEC Network and $0.67 for ACC Network, totaling up to $10.28. I guess round up to $10.50 to include ESPNews and ESPN U. That's surely a bit higher now in 2022, so maybe $11.50/mo total.

But even so, I don't think they'd need to charge anywhere close to $40/mo if ESPN were to only be sold as a standalone DTC product. Sure, there are quite a few cable TV subs who wouldn't opt to pay for it separately but a ton of non-sports fans have already ditched cable TV anyhow.

But I do think it's likely that ESPN will never be anywhere close to as profitable as it's been up to now once the dam finally breaks on the cable bundle and everything moves to DTC. Which may be one reason Disney is considering selling ESPN. The more I think about it, the less I think that ESPN would make sense as a standalone DTC service. As I said before, the main content they seem to offer now is college sports and I don't know why the Pac-12 (which already owns their own cable channel) doesn't get together with the SEC, ACC, and Big 10 to form a joint DTC streaming service, at least once current distribution agreements lapse and allow such a move. Why use ESPN or Fox as a middle-man? Why not take their product directly to consumers OTT as the Pac-12 has already been doing on cable TV?


----------



## b4pjoe

Right now a large part of ESPN's income is from non-sports fans paying for Cable/Sat/YTTV, Hulu Live, DTV Stream, and Fubo. They will be hard pressed to come up with that kind of money if their only income is from sports fans. While they love their sports they aren't going to love it that much.


----------



## Steveknj

b4pjoe said:


> Raising it to $10 a month would cause them to lose a lot of non football fan subscribers. If they need another $6 per month for ST I think they would just make NFL ST an addon for $6 per month. The catch would be you have to subscribe to Apple TV+ at $4.99 per month before you can buy the addon so for football fans they would be getting $10.99 per month.


No, I don't envision them raising it for everyone, I envision them raising it to $10 for ST subscribers (which would include their $5 services as well). For current ST subscribers, that's STILL a huge savings and for current subs who want ST, it's still a fairly reasonable cost for 4 months. And if they offered a year at $60, that's even better (and that's the current cost per month for their current service).


----------



## Steveknj

wmb said:


> The tech isn’t the main issue. The rights to the content is. It’s the same reason bars don’t stream a personal Spotify account. You can show an over the air broadcast, but expect to be sued if you stream something without a license.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Except, how I envision it, rights is a non-issue becasuse bars won't even be in the equation, except to provide WiFi (which technically isn't even needed if you have an unlimited data plan). People aren't reading what I'm saying. Will it put bars out of the "Come watch the games with us on Sunday" business? Perhaps. If people still want to watch games communally, then maybe not, but they will be doing it a different way than they do now.


----------



## b4pjoe

Steveknj said:


> No, I don't envision them raising it for everyone, I envision them raising it to $10 for ST subscribers (which would include their $5 services as well). For current ST subscribers, that's STILL a huge savings and for current subs who want ST, it's still a fairly reasonable cost for 4 months. And if they offered a year at $60, that's even better (and that's the current cost per month for their current service).


Yeah the more I think about it I really don't think the price is going to be much cheaper if any from the DirecTV price. I don't think you are going to get ST for $10 a month for 4 months which $4.99 of that would be for Apple TV+ which means ST would be $5.01 for 4 months. It will never happen.


----------



## compnurd

b4pjoe said:


> Yeah the more I think about it I really don't think the price is going to be much cheaper if any from the DirecTV price. I don't think you are going to get ST for $10 a month for 4 months which $4.99 of that would be for Apple TV+ which means ST would be $5.01 for 4 months. It will never happen.


Stop thinking. Things will be easier


----------



## wmb

Steveknj said:


> Except, how I envision it, rights is a non-issue becasuse bars won't even be in the equation, except to provide WiFi (which technically isn't even needed if you have an unlimited data plan).


On the music side, you have BMI and ASCAP license music. Don’t have a license, stream music, get sued. A personal account is not licensed for commercial use.

Right now, TV is either OTA and free to use, or purchased through a provider granting rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## b4pjoe

compnurd said:


> Stop thinking. Things will be easier


Brilliant.


----------



## wmb

NashGuy said:


> But I guess my larger question is whether a standalone ESPN service would be viable.


I get this, and this aspect is at the heart of the future of video content consumption that is still evolving.

For me, i could allocate part of the $70 a month I pay for a mid tier cable package to streaming packages if the content was there and conveniently accessible. Given what they have, ESPN would be something I would pay $10-20 per month for, absent the cable package charge.

I am assuming that the carriage agreement between Disney and cable cos prevent the ESPN cable networks from being available outside of through a MVPD, basically they are exclusive to cable companies. But as networks want more, the run into cable co price constraints, I can see this as driving change. When and how are up in the air… not having these channels available through streaming is what is keeping cable cos alive today. (Yes, YouTube TV, AT&T are streamers, but they are structured as cable replacements).

Long story short, I think a stand-alone ESPN product is viable, but the marketplace is structure prevents it, for now. But how much longer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wmb

SamC said:


> All you people who wanted “a la carte”, well, enjoy.


The streaming model removes one layer of middle man from the value chain. That alone can cut the cost of a product substantially.

It separates the content from the content delivery, allowing the end user greater choice for content selection. Individual pieces may cost more, but you have greater choice and more flexibility, and a lower total cost.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long

wmb said:


> The streaming model removes one layer of middle man from the value chain. That alone can cut the cost of a product substantially.
> 
> It separates the content from the content delivery, allowing the end user greater choice for content selection. Individual pieces may cost more, but you have greater choice and more flexibility, and a lower total cost.


Nice theory, but the fragmentation of content is leading to a higher total cost. Where one once paid a MVPD (cable or satellite) for a large selection of content (including undesired content) streaming is dividing each person's desired content into multiple subscriptions.

There seems to be more "exclusive" content that is only available on one service - and those exclusives are "forever". Want to watch Thursday Night Football? If one of the teams isn't in your market there is only one provider for those games this coming season. No more out of market broadcast or cable available via multiple MVPDs.

Non sports content once followed a cycle where someone had an exclusive but if it wasn't a broadcast station that exclusive would end within a year or less and the content would be available later via other distribution. Movies were "only in theaters" then released to PPV then to a premium distributor such as Showtime or HBO (or both) then released to general cable channels then released to broadcast TV. If one did not want to pay the "only in theaters" price one could pay the PPV price. Too much? Wait for the HBO/Showtime price. Still too high a price? Wait for the cable or broadcast release. Theatrical movies still follow a similar path but other content goes direct to streaming and often gets locked away as an exclusive to one service.

The only way one gets a "total lower cost" is to have much less content available to them. Less content available is fine as long as all of the desirable content is available on services one subscribes to - but less content available is not a good thing when something is locked away on yet another subscription.



wmb said:


> Long story short, I think a stand-alone ESPN product is viable, but the marketplace is structure prevents it, for now. But how much longer?


The marketplace structure is keeping ESPN and other mid-price channels alive. For the last few decades ESPN has been in a "must carry" position ... a decade ago a MVPD without ESPN would be set up for failure. The same could be said about an MVPD without the regional sports networks. But over the past decade MVPDs have tested that theory and found that they can still attract customers without RSNs ... they lose some customers but remain viable systems. Losing ESPN is more difficult due to the non-sports channels. An MVPD that doesn't want to carry ESPN must be willing to give up other Disney controlled channels.

Breaking ESPN away from the MVPD structure is a risk for Disney/ESPN. ESPN survives because of tens of millions of subscribers who never watch - and by never watch I mean not even one program a month on any of the ESPNs. Possibly not even knowing what channel number ESPN is on. Younger subscribers may not even know ESPN is on their system (just another one of the hundreds of channels of undesired content). Give people a chance to dump ESPN and they will ... the ESPN cable channels have dropped below 80 million subscribers. And while ESPN+ has grown above 20 million subscribers the content does not overlap.

So look at simple math ... 80 million subscribers paying ESPN $10 per month. This $10 is all ESPNs - not including any markup the MVPD can add. Money passed through the subscriber's MVPD. ESPN gets $800 million. ESPN goes a la carte. Assuming they can get 20 million people to OPT IN to paying for their current MVPD subscription exclusive content how much would ESPN need to charge to collect $800 million? Can ESPN get 20 million people to OPT IN to paying $40 per month plus any markup?

For the consumer willing to pay ESPN $40 per month what channels do they need to drop to keep their total spend at or below what they are currently spending for a MVPD. The cost of their MVPD may drop $10. It isn't going to drop $40. That consumer is going to need to dump a lot of other content to keep their spend at the same level.


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> My guess, should Apple win ST, is that they sell it for a not-outrageous price that includes one year of Apple TV+. But Apple TV+ will remain its own separate thing and won't automatically include ST. You can buy one year of TV+ for $50 (or monthly at $5/mo). Maybe they sell ST with one year of TV+ for, IDK, $200. Maybe even as low as $150 (meaning that the ST part is costing you only an extra $100/yr). I expect something similar would be done by Amazon with ST vs. Prime. In either case, I don't expect the winning bidder to make back the annual cost of their ST contract via residential subscription sales but they're going to want to charge _something_ for it to help recoup some of the cost.
> 
> As for commercial viewing of ST (e.g. in sports bars), the most likely scenario is that that will continue to be carried, sold and billed by DirecTV satellite service. Apple/Amazon would probably just work out some deal with DTV so that most of the revenue for commercial ST sales goes to Apple/Amazon, with DTV getting a cut for playing middle-man. It's also possible, I suppose, that Apple/Amazon sells commercial viewing directly to establishments that don't already have DTV satellite gear in place but do have robust broadband. Although I would imagine that DTV would balk at that arrangement as they would want to be the exclusive commercial distributor...


I don't see DirecTV involved at all. Perhaps they sell the service to various cable/sat services as an add in, but this goes against everything Apple has done ever. Apple always wants as much control as possible. Selling this to some other party and letting them broadcast doesn't make sense. I don't understand why people here don't believe that Apple (APPLE of all companies...perhaps the most innovative company of our lifetime), cannot come up with a scheme to make this work commercially, or, cut out the commercial aspect altogether use the scheme I'm suggesting. Nobody here seems to think that it's even remotely possible to make this work without DirecTV and it could ONLY work the way DirecTV has been doing it for more than 20 years? Why? That's beyond silly. Think out of the box people. If it's Apple, they will make it work. Might be lots of glitches to start, but it's hard to imagine DirecTV had it all working perfectly the first year or so either. To me it's a matter of how it's going to work, but what they will charge. Are they willing to take a major loss in the hope that bringing in ST will lead to subscribers and sales of their devices? Or will they charge close to what DirecTV does and hope that this how they can recoup some of their money. To me, that's the interesting part of the equation. I couldn't care less about how bars deal with it. They will work it out, or just move on to something else.


----------



## Steveknj

B. Shoe said:


> Now we're getting somewhere. To make an obvious statement, all of Apple's stuff works best when it's operated within Apple's ecosystem. For example, when I'm watching a baseball game on my Apple TV box, I'll get an on-screen pop-up that lets me know that the Celtics-Nets game is close in the fourth quarter. (Pops up on my iPhone, too) If I want to go to switch to it, just click the remote and it takes me right to it, regardless if that means switching apps, etc. You're likely not getting that same experience outside of the Apple-sphere, or running Apple TV+ through another streaming device.
> 
> Since this thread is all about pontificating and guessing what will happen, here's another thought if/when Apple takes over; *Sunday Ticket remains within its own app*. As a guy who's solely been watching Sunday Ticket through the app for the past four seasons, I'm a fan of the current app format and think it works really well. It's easy to navigate/change games and easy to swap games in and out of the multi-view option. Short Cuts system works well, and I'm sure you could implement more features.


Something like what you describe might actually make me want to go to the dark side and buy an ATV. And that's probably a big reason why Apple would consider this. Sell a bunch of their $200 boxes (which probably cost them maybe $50 to make, if that). Nice tidy profit.


----------



## Steveknj

JoeTheDragon said:


> AppleCare for Enterprise is available in volume-based price tiers starting at 200, 1000, and 5000 covered.
> Apple also has business stuff.
> But public view TV is a different thing. Will apple be able to deal with franchised restaurants where each site needs to be it's own account with it's own blackouts / billing size?


Yes, yes they will, if that's their goal. Only a fool would think they can't. I don't think it's going to work how you envision it though, but we'll see. Those questions have not been answered yet.


----------



## Steveknj

harsh said:


> As so many of the technical types are concerned about how an establishment is going to get the bandwidth to satisfy the needs for their own TVs a and more general broadband usage, I can't fathom how they would also accommodate most or all of their patron's individual bandwidth requirements as well. Dozens of individual streams is a lot to ask.
> 
> If the patrons are using their own bandwidth, that would seem make authentication next to impossible.


Authentication to what? Their own accounts? If customers are provided Wifi, then it's bring your own device and bring your own account. The establishment is no longer in the ST business. Now, another way this could be done, thinking about it, is that the establishment provides a small screen at each table with the ability to cast to that screen so the table could share someone's account and watch communally on a screen at the table. Apple for years has talked about their own Apple OS TVs, maybe that's the use case here. Again, thinking outside the box here. Don't assume that, for establishments things will work the same as they always have. It won't.


----------



## Steveknj

harsh said:


> *The solution to the problem is multicast.* So far, it has typically been limited to arenas and stadiums.
> 
> Whatever solution is arrived at has about 12 months to be put in place so you can't summarily ignore the hurdles waiting for the ideal to come along.


It's A solution, one that exists today. Innovation could drive other solutions as there may be a need. Or, perhaps it's something completely different than the current model of banks of TVs showing games the way it works now. If Apple buys ST, they probably have their own ideas on how they want this to work, and it's probably much different than any of us are thinking and it might upset the apple cart and p**s people off here. So be it.


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> This is the issue facing big general-entertainment streaming services with regard to sports. They have to be targeted in how much they spend on sports rights and _which_ sports rights they buy. Spend too much and you have to raise the cost of the service to a degree that won't be tolerated by non-sports fans. This is essentially what happened with the traditional cable bundle and led to many cost-conscious non-sports-fans becoming cord-cutters who quit cable for Netflix.
> 
> I see it playing out this way: local (Sun. afternoon) and national (Sun/Mon/Thur night) regular season NFL games are very popular, due partially to how few of them there are each year compared to other major pro sports. It makes sense to splash the cash for those rights and the NFL will likely seek to spread those games between multiple big streaming outlets (e.g. Amazon, Apple, Disney, WBD) when the current contracts end in 2033.
> 
> Same holds true for the playoffs and championship of all the major pro sports, including MLB, NBA and NHL, as well as for some college sports, e.g. NCAA March Madness, NCAA Football Championship, etc. Lots of folks want to see those games, so there's a return on investment there for the big general-audience streamers to buy those rights.
> 
> Beyond that, you probably just see those big streamers buying the rights for a sprinkling of national regular season MLB, NBA and NHL games, plus maybe some other sports that can be bought cheaply enough to make sense (e.g. various soccer leagues, foreign sports, a Grand Slam tennis tourney).
> 
> But for the 95% of regular season local MLB, NBA and NHL games that aren't shown on one of the major streamers, you'll need a dedicated service for that, i.e. whatever the RSNs evolve into. Maybe they're operated by a third party (e.g. Sinclair/Bally), maybe by the league (e.g. MLB) or maybe by individual teams (e.g. Cubs). These services won't be cheap but if you're a big fan of your local team, you'll pony up.
> 
> What I have a hard time envisioning, though, is where ESPN fits into this scheme after cable TV collapses and everything is in one direct-to-consumer streaming service or another. Even now, I'm not sure which fans ESPNs caters to. In terms of live sports, it seems like the ESPN family of channels is mainly for college sports fans -- particularly via the SEC and ACC Networks they own. IDK, perhaps they could nab rights to some or all of the NASCAR and/or PGA calendar when those rights are up for bidding again. But then we might see those leagues do their own DTC services too, with a few of their most popular events (e.g. Daytona 500, The Masters) streaming instead on Amazon, Apple, Disney or WBD.


If you watch ESPN, I don't except for games, but I was laid up for a few weeks and had limited TV so watched some ESPN, and it caters to...first and foremost, NFL football fans. The majority of their day, maybe 50% is spent on NFL stories, even during the off season. So where do they fit in? Their partnership with the NFL includes a lot of off game content, but remember, they have the MNF package and a few playoff games. In 2033? Who knows? They are trying to build up ESPN+ as a viable streaming service and THAT'S their future. Right now it feels like a bit of a joke, but there's a reason why they have brought in a lot of game available through ONLY that service. I could envision them, in the future porting MNF to that service at some point. Heck, it was originally on a broadcast network, then moved to cable. The next logical step is streaming. Amazon is doing it with TNF. Why not MNF. That's where this is going.


----------



## Steveknj

wmb said:


> On the music side, you have BMI and ASCAP license music. Don’t have a license, stream music, get sued. A personal account is not licensed for commercial use.
> 
> Right now, TV is either OTA and free to use, or purchased through a provider granting rights.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Except it's NOT commercial use. It's personal use on the go. The bar provides WifI. No accounts, nothing. If you sit in a bar and check email, is that commercial use?


----------



## wmb

James Long said:


> The marketplace structure is keeping ESPN and other mid-price channels alive.


I don’t disagree with anything you are saying. It reflects the current state of the market. I am highlighting this statement because there is an underlying assumption that the marketplace structure is static. It’s not. There are forces acting on it in a variety of ways.

The big one: Younger people haven’t been signing up for multichannel services. I think cable was one of those baby boomer things that younger generations find they don’t need.

Next up: People are still dropping cable and satellite.

I’ll also point out that during the golden age of television, TV content and delivery were ad supported for decades and didn’t rely on subscription revenue.

As for cost, I get Netflix, Apple TV+ and a $10 You Tube TV discount as part of my T-Mobile subscription. I bundle Disney, ESPN+ and Hulu, and have Peacock for $5 for EPL and $5 for Paramount +, and $15 for HBO Max. When I left DirecTV, my bill was almost $ 150 a month for Choice plus, advanced receiver, HD fees and four boxes. Streaming can easily cost less, especially if you can rotate services, given no termination fees.

But, I agree with the thought that given the current market structure, the streaming based future is not promising for current cable channels. However, I think assuming the current market structure will remain is wrong. Channels are not essential to streaming. If that turns out wrong, then a streaming service can easily create virtual channels at will (look at the Billy Joel and Christmas channels on Sirius XM as examples).

So talking about how the market works now is like talking about how profitable buggy whips were to make. Take a look at what happened to the horse population in this country between 1920 and 1950. The pay TV marketplace is in the middle of a similar change. 

Cable uptake happened over a fairly narrow time frame -mid 1970s to about 1990. It can go away just as fast.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wmb

Steveknj said:


> Except it's NOT commercial use. It's personal use on the go. The bar provides WifI. No accounts, nothing. If you sit in a bar and check email, is that commercial use?


Sorry, missed your point… watching the game on your own phone at the bar.

Have you ever gone to a sports bar to watch a game? If so, you’d know why this won’t work.

I routinely go to a sports bar to watch my university’s football and basketball games with the local chapter of the alumni association. I also go to watch an EPL club’s games (often at 7:30 am on a Sunday). The game is on the big screen. People are on their phones using social media, checking other games that effect the league standing, ordering food, fact checking someone’s statement, and other phone uses. No one is watching a game on their phones. If a rival team is playing and the outcome of that game effects our team, it may be in relegated to a smaller screen.

People are walking around, talking, getting a beer. A goal is scored and the bar cheers in unison. We talk about how a player was out of position, or how someone looks much better/worse than last game/year. Maybe someone starts the bar in a team song.

I know a Packers and a Steelers bar in town. I won’t step foot in them during a game. Those guys are as insufferable as Tottenham Hotspur fans. Although, the NLD was fun back when the Gooners and Spurs supporters shared the same small bar.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## glrush

Apple has their quarterly earnings call today. Gonna be interesting if they make an announcement or get a question on Sunday Ticket.


----------



## Steveknj

wmb said:


> Sorry, missed your point… watching the game on your own phone at the bar.
> 
> Have you ever gone to a sports bar to watch a game? If so, you’d know why this won’t work.
> 
> I routinely go to a sports bar to watch my university’s football and basketball games with the local chapter of the alumni association. I also go to watch an EPL club’s games (often at 7:30 am on a Sunday). The game is on the big screen. People are on their phones using social media, checking other games that effect the league standing, ordering food, fact checking someone’s statement, and other phone uses. No one is watching a game on their phones. If a rival team is playing and the outcome of that game effects our team, it may be in relegated to a smaller screen.
> 
> People are walking around, talking, getting a beer. A goal is scored and the bar cheers in unison. We talk about how a player was out of position, or how someone looks much better/worse than last game/year. Maybe someone starts the bar in a team song.
> 
> I know a Packers and a Steelers bar in town. I won’t step foot in them during a game. Those guys are as insufferable as Tottenham Hotspur fans. Although, the NLD was fun back when the Gooners and Spurs supporters shared the same small bar.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That won't work, because, well you think it won't work. They said planes would never get off the ground, yet here we are. More and more people are watching content on small screens. While us older folks (and I'm not sure how old you are) the younger kids are happy watching on small screens. They don't care. Games are on the big screens because they always have been. Who ever thought of watching TV on our laptops? Our iPads? Nobody, but it's a viable option. The future is not what we think it is now, people gathering in a bar to watch games on a big screen. That's the way it's been done for years. The future is watching your own content on whatever device you have, wherever you want to watch. People are going to complain and grumble. Most will just figure out a way to make it work. Apple has a LOT of experience with this sort of thing and they are very content with putting a stake in the ground and saying, this is the way it's gonna be, join us or take a hike. They did it with Intel based Macs, dropping headphone jacks from their devices, new types of cables, and so forth. People complained, and you know what? Other companies followed them and did the same thing. It might be the end of sports bars as we know it, and it won't make people happy. Or, they will just figure out another way. That's what I'm suggesting. Not that the way it's done now is wrong, only that time change, people hate change and if things didn't change, society would never move on. All I'm asking is that we stop thinking in the box and start thinking outside the box.

And it's entirely possible I'm completely wrong about all of this. But I refuse to believe a company as innovative as Apple hasn't thought this through before they invest billions of dollars into something. That's never been the way they do business. Even their failures have tended to be well thought out.


----------



## wmb

Steveknj said:


> Games are on the big screens because they always have been.





Amazon.com



I put this link up because I have one of these that I sometimes use to put a game up on my phone at the bar during our Sunday afternoon wine tasting. You don’t want to have to hold your phone while drinking wine, and it’s a pain to see the screen if the phone is laying on the bar. But, I’m not watching the game, I’m tasting a couple of wines. I have also used it to hold my phone while streaming a soccer game I was curious about while watching a college football game with the alumni association at BWW. I actually left it at BWW once and when I came back the next week it was sitting behind the bar. The bar tender and I shared a laugh and he gave it back to me. He knew it was mine because he saw me using it.

I get where you are coming from. The main activity at the sports bar is watching the game you came to see and interacting with who you are watching it with. What you are doing with your phone at that time is ancillary to that.

BTW, I’m a little older. My kids are in their 20s. They and my wife laugh at me and my dinosaur, but they also made me buy them one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Steveknj

wmb said:


> Amazon.com
> 
> 
> 
> I put this link up because I have one of these that I sometimes use to put a game up on my phone at the bar during our Sunday afternoon wine tasting. You don’t want to have to hold your phone while drinking wine, and it’s a pain to see the screen if the phone is laying on the bar. But, I’m not watching the game, I’m tasting a couple of wines. I have also used it to hold my phone while streaming a soccer game I was curious about while watching a college football game with the alumni association at BWW. I actually left it at BWW once and when I came back the next week it was sitting behind the bar. The bar tender and I shared a laugh and he gave it back to me. He knew it was mine because he saw me using it.
> 
> I get where you are coming from. The main activity at the sports bar is watching the game you came to see and interacting with who you are watching it with. What you are doing with your phone at that time is ancillary to that.
> 
> BTW, I’m a little older. My kids are in their 20s. They and my wife laugh at me and my dinosaur, but they also made me buy them one.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


And that's it. I have three grown kids and I watch what they do. My 20 something daughter especially. They LIVE on their phones. There are times at home with 2 big screen TVs, and at least a 40" TV in every bedroom in the house that she's just watching content on her phone, on her tablet, or on her laptop. You know what she uses her TV for? Steaming music, because it has a better speaker! And that's how it's going, the kids don't watch how do. Heck half these kids idea of "socializing" with their friends is an online chat of some sort. Most of the newer streaming apps have "Watch party" functionality where they can sit in their own locations and interact with each other. This is how things are going. Going to a bar is a place to drink, or get food, not watch games the way we would. That's why I am so adamant that we need to stop thinking in terms of how we do things now. If an innovative company like Apple wants to spend THIS kind of money to stream NFL games, they are not considering doing it the old way. They are looking for the best way THEY can do it that not only works for them and the consumer, but also ties into any existing infrastructure they have currently and any new infrastructure they have on the board. Apple has been talking about Apple based TVs. Maybe that's something they could consider deploying (for a cost) to bars and restaurants. I don't know anything about what they ware thinking. I just know from past history that Apple will do things THEIR way, and if the rest of us don't like it, too bad, but they also know that ultimately, people come around, and others follow. So thinking they need DirecTV is silly. Thinking they need to do things as they've always been done, equally silly. DirecTV sees this handwriting on the wall as well. I've been saying for a couple of years that DirecTV will ultimately become a streaming first company, and that SAT will be niche. Losing ST is a step in that direction.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> I don't see DirecTV involved at all. Perhaps they sell the service to various cable/sat services as an add in, but this goes against everything Apple has done ever. Apple always wants as much control as possible. Selling this to some other party and letting them broadcast doesn't make sense. I don't understand why people here don't believe that Apple (APPLE of all companies...perhaps the most innovative company of our lifetime), cannot come up with a scheme to make this work commercially, or, cut out the commercial aspect altogether use the scheme I'm suggesting. Nobody here seems to think that it's even remotely possible to make this work without DirecTV and it could ONLY work the way DirecTV has been doing it for more than 20 years? Why? That's beyond silly. Think out of the box people. If it's Apple, they will make it work. Might be lots of glitches to start, but it's hard to imagine DirecTV had it all working perfectly the first year or so either. To me it's a matter of how it's going to work, but what they will charge. Are they willing to take a major loss in the hope that bringing in ST will lead to subscribers and sales of their devices? Or will they charge close to what DirecTV does and hope that this how they can recoup some of their money. To me, that's the interesting part of the equation. I couldn't care less about how bars deal with it. They will work it out, or just move on to something else.


Eh, you could be right. I've argued that side before myself, ha! (Although with Amazon being the distributor, not Apple.) But more than one rumor piece in the past few months has talked about the NFL wanting satellite distribution to still be available, at least for commercial establishments. So I do think that that's the most likely scenario. Could many sports bars live stream the games? Yes. But there are certainly some that couldn't or wouldn't want to deal with it. Maybe Apple/Amazon don't care about those bars, but maybe the NFL does. IDK.

As for Apple/Amazon not licensing ST to commercial establishments at all, that doesn't seem likely to me as it would be leaving too much money on the table. I suspect they'll lose money on ST regardless, if they spend the rumored $2 billion a year on it, but I'd think they'd prefer to lose as little as they can and chalk up the shortfall as a marketing expense for their other services.

If DTV does carry satellite feeds for ST games as a sub-contractor for Apple or Amazon, I would expect the on-screen graphics/branding to look identical to the version streamed directly from Apple/Amazon, with no mention of DirecTV at all. Viewers in the sports bar wouldn't know that they're watching via satellite TV. Well, once the picture goes out because it's raining, they'd probably figure it out...


----------



## B. Shoe

Let's recap with some statements on both sides of the fence, where both statements can be true:

It's true that younger consumers aren't watching media/programs in the same capacity that other generations are. But lots of folks are still watching programs on their 70" televisions (even my 14-year-old daughter!).
It's true that some bars/establishments might not be equipped at the present to handle large streaming requirements. At the same time, there are several that are, and will be able to make hardware/logistical changes necessary, if streaming-only is the way Sunday Ticket goes.
It's true that things are changing a little bit, and that you can't be stuck in "that's the way we've always done it." Also, sports bars aren't disappearing tomorrow because of young people playing on their phones 24/7. (Also, lots of older people play on their phones 24/7, too.  )
It's fair to be excited about a change in Sunday Ticket (like I am), but also leery (as I know some of you are) of what this means for consumers because of the unknowns of a premium commodity changing hands.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> If you watch ESPN, I don't except for games, but I was laid up for a few weeks and had limited TV so watched some ESPN, and it caters to...first and foremost, NFL football fans. The majority of their day, maybe 50% is spent on NFL stories, even during the off season. So where do they fit in? Their partnership with the NFL includes a lot of off game content, but remember, they have the MNF package and a few playoff games. In 2033? Who knows? They are trying to build up ESPN+ as a viable streaming service and THAT'S their future. Right now it feels like a bit of a joke, but there's a reason why they have brought in a lot of game available through ONLY that service. I could envision them, in the future porting MNF to that service at some point. Heck, it was originally on a broadcast network, then moved to cable. The next logical step is streaming. Amazon is doing it with TNF. Why not MNF. That's where this is going.


Some or all MNF games were on ESPN+ last year (in addition to being on regular ESPN). I think on ESPN+, they had an alternate audio feed with Manning doing the color, though.

Seems odd to me to think of ESPN as a mainly NFL-appeal service given that they only carry one live NFL game a week (and that's obviously only from Sept. through Dec.). Plus maybe a few playoff games in Jan. and maybe some pre-season games in Aug. I mean, sure, they can fill time with lots of NFL talk, highlights, etc. but then every other sports outlet can too. The free streaming CBS Sports HQ can do that. Talk is cheap. The future of any subscription sports channel/service will come down to which and how many live sports events it carries.

Once the cable bundle subscriptions (and therefore ESPN revenue) sinks low enough, they'll have to try to reach some of those streaming-only customers via a DTC service. And they obviously already have that with ESPN+, but that will have to expand. I think it's plausible in the next few years that ESPN reduces what they spend on broadcast/streaming rights, doing fewer/cheaper sports, so that by the time ESPN goes fully standalone DTC, it looks like something in between the current ESPN and ESPN+. IDK. Seems like they've passed their peak revenue level and will probably never get back up there again due to the long-term irreversible decline of cable TV. So if revenue goes down, their costs must go down too. Or their profits. Or both.


----------



## James Long

I am interested in hearing from people who actually go to a bar to watch an out of market football game. I am sure that such people exist otherwise no bar would be paying for the games. The occupancy based rates are fairly low if one assumes that everyone in the bar is watching an out of market game. The bar can sell enough booze and wings to cover the cost of Sunday Ticket. But I believe most bars would do fine with three football feeds on Sunday afternoons: The local Fox affiliate, the local CBS affiliate and NFL Network Red Zone. Unless the bar is big enough to provide a viewing area for each game or serve a niche (such as Bears fans in Florida) I don't see the value of the out of market feeds.


----------



## AZ.

James Long said:


> I am interested in hearing from people who actually go to a bar to watch an out of market football game. I am sure that such people exist otherwise no bar would be paying for the games. The occupancy based rates are fairly low if one assumes that everyone in the bar is watching an out of market game. The bar can sell enough booze and wings to cover the cost of Sunday Ticket. But I believe most bars would do fine with three football feeds on Sunday afternoons: The local Fox affiliate, the local CBS affiliate and NFL Network Red Zone. Unless the bar is big enough to provide a viewing area for each game or serve a niche (such as Bears fans in Florida) I don't see the value of the out of market feeds.


I go to watch the Bears from time to time...Before game time starts each TV has who will be on the early games for seating. The place is always packed, we dont have many bars that have season ticket...The early games are far busier as most people are from east of here....I cant see just 3 games staring at 11am? If they could pick and choose ?I think they will lose lots of customers or they will get lots of phone calls who will be on....I wont spend 35 minutes driving to get there and my game isnt on.


----------



## wmb

James Long said:


> I am interested in hearing from people who actually go to a bar to watch an out of market football game.


I’ve tried a couple of times, but haven’t found a local bar that gets fans of my preferred team. It’s not fun to sit alone at a bar watching a TV.

I don’t think the NFL does enough to cultivate out-of-market fans. I looked at a couple of team sites, and none had a list of remote fan clubs. In a way, it makes sense because teams don’t really want other teams in there market.

There are some third party sites that list NFL bars, but it really isn’t up to date.

That said, I know of bars for other teams.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long

AZ. said:


> I go to watch the Bears from time to time...Before game time starts each TV has who will be on the early games for seating. The place is always packed, we dont have many bars that have season ticket...The early games are far busier as most people are from east of here....I cant see just 3 games staring at 11am? If they could pick and choose ?I think they will lose lots of customers or they will get lots of phone calls who will be on....I wont spend 35 minutes driving to get there and my game isnt on.


Are you talking about current state with the bar picking some of the available out of market games or are you pondering a future state where instead of showing every Sunday Ticket game in some corner of the room they will choose less games?



wmb said:


> I’ve tried a couple of times, but haven’t found a local bar that gets fans of my preferred team. It’s not fun to sit alone at a bar watching a TV.


I agree and that is what I would expect at a bar that shows every game including the ones with a limited number of devoted out of market fans.


----------



## harsh

Steveknj said:


> Authentication to what? Their own accounts?


A good portion of the reason to watch games at a commercial venue is to have access to whatever content that the establishment brings. Having to subscribe on your own entirely defeats that purpose.

I can't imagine how you expect these venues to serve up dozens of private streams.


----------



## Steveknj

AZ. said:


> I go to watch the Bears from time to time...Before game time starts each TV has who will be on the early games for seating. The place is always packed, we dont have many bars that have season ticket...The early games are far busier as most people are from east of here....I cant see just 3 games staring at 11am? If they could pick and choose ?I think they will lose lots of customers or they will get lots of phone calls who will be on....I wont spend 35 minutes driving to get there and my game isnt on.


Hypothetical. Lets say ST on Apple or whoever is priced much cheaper. Would you still go to a bar to watch your game? Or would you rather sit at home with a six pack and a few friends over and watch that way? I get the feeling that most people who go to bars go for a couple of reasons. One, ST is too expensive to justify spending that much at home and TWO, they want to drink. In the first case, I imagine they probably go to the bar and actually watch the games. The second, drinking is the priority and the game happens to be on. I get the whole "out of town team" bar, but if ST is cheap enough that you can get it at home, then it's not necessary to go to a bar. How much business to those bars do for the weeks that the out of town team is on locally? If you are in Arizona and the Bears are the late national game, to fans still show up at the bar?


----------



## Steveknj

harsh said:


> A good portion of the reason to watch games at a commercial venue is to have access to whatever content that the establishment brings. Having to subscribe on your own entirely defeats that purpose.
> 
> I can't imagine how you expect these venues to serve up dozens of private streams.


What content? The contention here is that people go to bars to watch games is because that's where the games are on. What other content? Minor league lacrosse? Japanese baseball? If the other content is why you are going, well then what do you need ST for? The bars can still provide other content, just not ST. Or they can choose not to if they want to rid themselves of the expense of satellite and the bank of TVs and let the consumer provide their own content.


----------



## harsh

Steveknj said:


> What content? The contention here is that people go to bars to watch games is because that's where the games are on. What other content? Minor league lacrosse? Japanese baseball?


NFLST would be a draw as would league soccer. For DIRECTV subscribers on the Left Coast, I'd imagine Pac12 would be of significant interest.

Your assumptions that everyone lives to subscribe directly to NFLST, that everyone with such a jones has unlimited broadband on their phone and that they would be willing to stare at their phone for the better part of three hours straight seem unrealistic.


----------



## James Long

Steveknj said:


> I get the feeling that most people who go to bars go for a couple of reasons. One, ST is too expensive to justify spending that much at home and TWO, they want to drink.


I understand that your claim to fame in this thread is being in tune with the younger generation that lives staring at their phones, but if you read a couple of posts back you will have an answer ...


wmb said:


> I’ve tried a couple of times, but haven’t found a local bar that gets fans of my preferred team. It’s not fun to sit alone at a bar watching a TV.
> 
> That said, I know of bars for other teams.


In the stone age (any year prior to 2020 apparently) people "socialized" by "getting together" in one physical space. In Chicago I could find a thousand "Bears bars" which makes sense since the stadium is right there on the lakefront and the games are on free TV. Cleveland is overrun with "Browns bars". Same concept, different lake. People go to the bar to have a shared experience. It is less fun yelling "did you see that" when you're watching alone. Sure, you could Tweet, TikTok or Instragram your reaction or even post on MySpace if you are a dinosaur, but it isn't the same as being in a crowd of like minded fans.

Available food and drinks is a bonus, although "hey sweetheart, get me another beer" would probably get different negative reactions at the bar vs at home.

So what happens when someone who learned to love the Bears or Browns or any other team gets uprooted and finds themselves in some desert? They look for an oasis. Some place where hopefully enough of their home team fans show up to recreate the good old days of watching the game in a bar at home.



Steveknj said:


> I get the whole "out of town team" bar, but if ST is cheap enough that you can get it at home, then it's not necessary to go to a bar. How much business to those bars do for the weeks that the out of town team is on locally? If you are in Arizona and the Bears are the late national game, to fans still show up at the bar?


Market it right and I believe they will show up. The bars still have food and booze when the game is on "free TV". And if one tips well one might get away with an occasional "sweetheart" while asking for a beer.

ST is cheap enough to have at home now with carriage on DIRECTV. I am not going to say it is too expensive for someone else who is willing to pay for it.

One change that Apple may support is a "one team" subscription. A Bears fan could receive every out of market Bears game every week for a lower price than buying "every game, every Sunday". I don't know if that subscription offer would be given to commercial accounts but no one can guarantee that Apple will offer any of Sunday Ticket to commercial establishments. Except the NFL and they have yet to make that call.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Steveknj said:


> If you watch ESPN, I don't except for games, but I was laid up for a few weeks and had limited TV so watched some ESPN, and it caters to...first and foremost, NFL football fans. The majority of their day, maybe 50% is spent on NFL stories, even during the off season. So where do they fit in? Their partnership with the NFL includes a lot of off game content, but remember, they have the MNF package and a few playoff games. In 2033? Who knows? They are trying to build up ESPN+ as a viable streaming service and THAT'S their future. Right now it feels like a bit of a joke, but there's a reason why they have brought in a lot of game available through ONLY that service. I could envision them, in the future porting MNF to that service at some point. Heck, it was originally on a broadcast network, then moved to cable. The next logical step is streaming. Amazon is doing it with TNF. Why not MNF. That's where this is going.


and if they push to far then ESPN is gone from the basic on many cable systems unless they make as an add on channel.
Now will they be an push to combine streaming live feeds of say ESPN+ with the cable ESPN? Put the live feeds of ESPN+ on cable??

Will cable / sat more less become only for live feeds (unless we can better muilt cast worked out) + maybe some non live steraming stuff for people who don't have good internet? 

other special cases like prsions / jails in where if you take away tv and can't have streaming lifers with nothing to lose may just go off.


----------



## Steveknj

James Long said:


> I understand that your claim to fame in this thread is being in tune with the younger generation that lives staring at their phones, but if you read a couple of posts back you will have an answer ...
> 
> In the stone age (any year prior to 2020 apparently) people "socialized" by "getting together" in one physical space. In Chicago I could find a thousand "Bears bars" which makes sense since the stadium is right there on the lakefront and the games are on free TV. Cleveland is overrun with "Browns bars". Same concept, different lake. People go to the bar to have a shared experience. It is less fun yelling "did you see that" when you're watching alone. Sure, you could Tweet, TikTok or Instragram your reaction or even post on MySpace if you are a dinosaur, but it isn't the same as being in a crowd of like minded fans.
> 
> Available food and drinks is a bonus, although "hey sweetheart, get me another beer" would probably get different negative reactions at the bar vs at home.
> 
> So what happens when someone who learned to love the Bears or Browns or any other team gets uprooted and finds themselves in some desert? They look for an oasis. Some place where hopefully enough of their home team fans show up to recreate the good old days of watching the game in a bar at home.
> 
> 
> Market it right and I believe they will show up. The bars still have food and booze when the game is on "free TV". And if one tips well one might get away with an occasional "sweetheart" while asking for a beer.
> 
> ST is cheap enough to have at home now with carriage on DIRECTV. I am not going to say it is too expensive for someone else who is willing to pay for it.
> 
> One change that Apple may support is a "one team" subscription. A Bears fan could receive every out of market Bears game every week for a lower price than buying "every game, every Sunday". I don't know if that subscription offer would be given to commercial accounts but no one can guarantee that Apple will offer any of Sunday Ticket to commercial establishments. Except the NFL and they have yet to make that call.


Like everyone here, I can only speak of personal experience, and mine is different from yours. One person's experience is different from another person's experience and different towns and cities might be different as well. My personal experience is that when I go to somewhere there's games on, usually there's a few older folks at the bar the folks at the tables, with 20 somethings are on their phones as much as they are watching or even talking to people they are sitting with. Now I have never frequented a "team" bar. I know certain towns are very provincial and that's a real thing on a Sunday. 

Personally if I want to watch a game, REALLY want to watch a game, outside of going to a stadium live to watch, I'd much prefer to watch at home where I can really pay attention, I can rewind if I missed something or pause if I have to eat, go to the bathroom or whatever. And I can still have friends over, over a few drinks and food and watch and have a good time. But that's me, I guess I'm the minority. You find $300 cheap enough to have at home? That's a lot of money for some folks, though, I guess if you go out for a few beers, it might cost you the same (though for some people, they'd have gone out for beers anyway!).

But again, I'd bet Apple is not looking at it this way and I'm curious to see if they even consider these bars going forward. BTW, a "Browns" bar in Cleveland or "Bears" bar in Chicago has no need for ST, do they? Heck they can throw an antenna on the roof and show the games for free! 

Another thing that makes this more interesting is gambling. Back in the day, well (and this I know first hand because of how a close family friend worked) bookies might frequent bars and you'd go to place your bet, or collect your bed, or even gamble among friends. That's all on your phone now. So that equation has changed too.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

and what happens to streaming if ISP that also have cable TV set the there internet CAPS very low?

Maybe we can get state weights and measures on them so they working and fare meter or they don't botter at all.


----------



## Steveknj

JoeTheDragon said:


> and if they push to far then ESPN is gone from the basic on many cable systems unless they make as an add on channel.
> Now will they be an push to combine streaming live feeds of say ESPN+ with the cable ESPN? Put the live feeds of ESPN+ on cable??
> 
> Will cable / sat more less become only for live feeds (unless we can better muilt cast worked out) + maybe some non live steraming stuff for people who don't have good internet?
> 
> other special cases like prsions / jails in where if you take away tv and can't have streaming lifers with nothing to lose may just go off.


Nobody knows what the future is yet. It's pretty clear to me, watching this all unfold that the future is streaming. That's where the money will be and I think it will follow the cable model where the future will include lots of advertising opportunities. What happens with ESPN on cable might not matter if streaming continues to take off. Again, I'll keep reiterating. We are really at the beginning of streaming becoming mainstream and issues that exist now, in five years (or less) will no longer be issues. Remember what watching anything streaming was 15 years ago, where bandwidth issues were a huge problem and everyone complained about buffering. I haven't heard that complaint in years for most of us. Five years from now? We just don't know, but you can bet that folks are already looking into it. That's why I laugh a little when people talk about Apple and how they are going to handle this or that. ESPN on cable, might very well be low on Disney's priority list right now.


----------



## B. Shoe

Steveknj said:


> BTW, a "Browns" bar in Cleveland or "Bears" bar in Chicago has no need for ST, do they? Heck they can throw an antenna on the roof and show the games for free!


Specific "team" bars, even if they're within a team's immediate broadcast market, still has plenty of use for Sunday Ticket to broadcast divisional opponent games. Not the utmost priority, but if your team isn't playing, those are most likely the games you're paying attention to. (Ex: The Dallas-Fort Worth market normally broadcasts NFC East opponent games, if available and the Cowboys are in a different window/primetime.)


----------



## Steveknj

JoeTheDragon said:


> and what happens to streaming if ISP that also have cable TV set the there internet CAPS very low?
> 
> Maybe we can get state weights and measures on them so they working and fare meter or they don't botter at all.


Why would they? It depends on what they are going to prioritize. Remember, some of those cable systems are also developing their own streaming service (the recently announced Charter/Comcast system comes to mind). These systems TOO see the handwriting on the wall. So, you could see cap limits unless they use their own system, which could lead to legal battles. A lot to figure out over the next few years.


----------



## Steveknj

B. Shoe said:


> Specific "team" bars, even if they're within a team's immediate broadcast market, still has plenty of use for Sunday Ticket to broadcast divisional opponent games. Not the utmost priority, but if your team isn't playing, those are most likely the games you're paying attention to. (Ex: The Dallas-Fort Worth market normally broadcasts NFC East opponent games, if available and the Cowboys are in a different window/primetime.)


I'd bet though that most fans are there to watch the Cowboys. I get what you are saying though. Those who are interested can still stream those games on their devices, can't they?


----------



## glrush

Gambling and fantasy also feed into the desire to watch the games that might not be in the home market. Funny how interested in a game you can be if you have a couple quatloos riding on the outcome.


----------



## James Long

Steveknj said:


> BTW, a "Browns" bar in Cleveland or "Bears" bar in Chicago has no need for ST, do they? Heck they can throw an antenna on the roof and show the games for free!


Apparently you stopped reading:


James Long said:


> So what happens when someone who learned to love the Bears or Browns or any other team gets uprooted and finds themselves in some desert? They look for an oasis. Some place where hopefully enough of their home team fans show up to recreate the good old days of watching the game in a bar at home.


The concept of supporting teams more popular than the one(s) "in market" is also a valid reason to have out of market bars devoted to a team.

And I don't believe $300 per year is too much to spend for something one wants (home viewing of games). Joining "the gang" at the local bar just may be more convenient (the aforementioned availability of beer and food and companionship without having to clean up your home before and after).


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Steveknj said:


> us. Five years from now? We just don't know, but you can bet that folks are already looking into it. That's why I laugh a little when people talk about Apple and how they are going to handle this or that. ESPN on cable, might very well be low on Disney's priority list right now.


But say like some ISP they lag on node upgrades what happens when an neighborhood get's over loaded at peak times? Will ISP push for something like an Netflix Open Connect setup to make it easy to have an live multicast steam + an buffer for non live content?

Cable sues Disney over the local channels being tied to ESPN?

ESPN+ / disney get blocked for all subs of X ISP due to there cable system not haveing ESPN on basic?


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Steveknj said:


> Why would they? It depends on what they are going to prioritize. Remember, some of those cable systems are also developing their own streaming service (the recently announced Charter/Comcast system comes to mind). These systems TOO see the handwriting on the wall. So, you could see cap limits unless they use their own system, which could lead to legal battles. A lot to figure out over the next few years.


Now let's say that is only on Charter/Comcast ISP's will that lead Network neutrality issues?? and can that lead to stuff like no apple tv can not be the only way to get NFL ticket and that NFL must offer it to all cable / steaming systems?

remember the old csn philly rulings?? Let's just say that comes to steamings No terrestrial exception 2.0 allowed now that does not mean that all system will have it but any one can pay for the rights to have it.


----------



## compnurd

JoeTheDragon said:


> But say like some ISP they lag on node upgrades what happens when an neighborhood get's over loaded at peak times? Will ISP push for something like an Netflix Open Connect setup to make it easy to have an live multicast steam + an buffer for non live content?
> 
> Cable sues Disney over the local channels being tied to ESPN?
> 
> ESPN+ / disney get blocked for all subs of X ISP due to there cable system not haveing ESPN on basic?


Lmao NFL Sunday ticket isn’t going to overload a node


----------



## Steveknj

James Long said:


> Apparently you stopped reading:
> 
> The concept of supporting teams more popular than the one(s) "in market" is also a valid reason to have out of market bars devoted to a team.
> 
> And I don't believe $300 per year is too much to spend for something one wants (home viewing of games). Joining "the gang" at the local bar just may be more convenient (the aforementioned availability of beer and food and companionship without having to clean up your home before and after).


But is that enough to support a whole infrastructure? A few bars in a town where that team is a minority? That's the thing, it's all great that you can do that now, but the cost of bringing that to enterprises might just make it not worth it, at least the way it's done now.


----------



## Steveknj

JoeTheDragon said:


> Now let's say that is only on Charter/Comcast ISP's will that lead Network neutrality issues?? and can that lead to stuff like no apple tv can not be the only way to get NFL ticket and that NFL must offer it to all cable / steaming systems?
> 
> remember the old csn philly rulings?? Let's just say that comes to steamings No terrestrial exception 2.0 allowed now that does not mean that all system will have it but any one can pay for the rights to have it.


I thought Net Neutrality is dead? I don't think that's an issue any more. But again, you are thinking how it is now. The landscape is changing. I don't think the NFL can be forced into offering to all cable/sat systems the same way that when DirecTV had it, they weren't forced to offer it to cable companies. It's really no different when you think about it. And when DirectTV got it, Sat was relatively new tech, compared to cable anyway. Just like streaming is now.


----------



## Steveknj

JoeTheDragon said:


> But say like some ISP they lag on node upgrades what happens when an neighborhood get's over loaded at peak times? Will ISP push for something like an Netflix Open Connect setup to make it easy to have an live multicast steam + an buffer for non live content?
> 
> Cable sues Disney over the local channels being tied to ESPN?
> 
> ESPN+ / disney get blocked for all subs of X ISP due to there cable system not haveing ESPN on basic?


I don't see any of that happening. I see, perhaps a protracted contract fight, and them having to pay more. Ultimately money talks. And ultimately we pay.


----------



## Mike Lang

So what's everyone's guess on a price for ST under Apple above & beyond the cost for ATV+ itself?


----------



## glrush

i really think that will depend on what they offer, IOW, will there be a team only option, one with limited streams, one with unlimited streams, will they throw you a bone if you subscribe to Apple+, etc.

I expect the top end product, minus discounts, will be priced at a similar price point as Sunday Ticket Max in DirecTV (about 400 bucks).


----------



## compnurd

I think it will be included in the current price


----------



## Steveknj

compnurd said:


> I think it will be included in the current price


I think this will be the case for current subscribers, though I could see that happening only if you use an Apple device like ATV. Apple for years have sold services that were either better using their closed ecosystem or you are forced into that ecosystem. So I can see that if you use one of their devices (ATV, iPhone, iPad etc...in other words ONLY if the app is downloaded from their app store), you get the discount. The idea is that ST can be used to drive sales of Apple devices where they make a tidy profit. For those of us who are not in there ecosystem, they pump up the subscription price a few dollars (or maybe force you to buy a year subscription). This way they recoup some of what this costs them. I'd be surprised if they wind up charging something similar to how it is today. Apple to me still feels like a hardware company that sells services rather than a software company where the software works on their devices. I remember how reluctant they were to port iTunes over to Windows until they realized that they were hurting sales of their own device by cutting out half the market. I don't see them making that mistake again. I think, to this day, their highest profit margins are on devices.


----------



## b4pjoe

I think it will be an addon for Apple TV+ somewhere in the $300 to $400 range for the season.


----------



## James Long

Steveknj said:


> ... the cost of bringing that to enterprises might just make it not worth it, at least the way it's done now.


The way it is done now is probably the cheapest way to deliver the content to businesses. If Apple gets an exclusive they could (as ESPN+ is done) be delivered to businesses via DIRECTV.

Converting those businesses over to live streaming over various internet providers would be more expensive.


----------



## harsh

compnurd said:


> Lmao NFL Sunday ticket isn’t going to overload a node


That depends on the viewing model. Under Steveknj's viewing model, a single establishment could represent dozens (or even hundreds) of independent streams.


----------



## harsh

compnurd said:


> I think it will be included in the current price


Spending two billion to promote a $5/month product is a much different proposition than doing so with a $190/month product.


----------



## SamC

Residential price will be between $200 and $300/year, and require one to first purchase Apple TV+. A discount of about 50% will apply to purchasers of new Apple products for the first year.


----------



## wmb

James Long said:


> The way it is done now is probably the cheapest way to deliver the content to businesses. If Apple gets an exclusive they could (as ESPN+ is done) be delivered to businesses via DIRECTV.
> 
> Converting those businesses over to live streaming over various internet providers would be more expensive.


Does NBC distribute the EPL games provided only Peacock through DirecTV? Where I go to watch Arsenal, I believe they are streamed. The reason I ask is the bar has an iPad they use to control what games are on which TV.

I think if Apple gets Sunday Ticket, sports bars buy a nearly uncountable number of Apple TV’s and connect them to their displays. Apple develops an iPad app to control the Apple TV’s (an iPhone is also a Siri remote). Sports bars are free to drop DirecTV and get local cable+internet. 

BTW, spectrum has an Apple TV app and you can use the Apple TV instead of a cable box. Others TV providers do too (my local teleco has fiber to the house, with TV service and an TiVo based app). Put a QR code on the TV, you can walk up to the TV with the iPad, scan the QR code to identify the TV and choose content. No calling manager to fumble with enumerable DirecTV remotes.

At $200 a tv, no recurring receiver fee, and a central control system that casuals can easily learn, replacing the cable box with an Apple TV makes sense. Heck, an android system would be even cheaper.

And, if Apple doesn’t need DirecTV for distribution, why would ESPN+?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## gio12

I do't think the SNT will be at the same current price. Could there be tiers?
Do you have a AppleTV or TV with Apple+?
Subscribe to AppleTV+

Maybe a single team at $50 if you have AppleTV + and $75 no
Full Sunday Ticket $100 -$150 max
Maybe RedZone for $10 a month


----------



## TheRatPatrol

wmb said:


> Does NBC distribute the EPL games provided only Peacock through DirecTV? Where I go to watch Arsenal, I believe they are streamed. The reason I ask is the bar has an iPad they use to control what games are on which TV.


There is an iPad app that bars can use to control which games are on which Directv receivers.








‎DIRECTV FOR BUSINESS Remote


‎The DIRECTV For BUSINESS℠ Remote App gives you control of all your DIRECTV® Receivers! •	Quickly identify receivers with custom names •	See what’s playing on all your TVs from one screen •	View all current and upcoming sports schedules •	Ability to group receivers in order to change multiple TVs…



apps.apple.com


----------



## Steveknj

harsh said:


> That depends on the viewing model. Under Steveknj's viewing model, a single establishment could represent dozens (or even hundreds) of independent streams.


How many streams can one node handle? Don't people frequent restaurants and stream stuff now? I don't see an issue. I think you are looking for issues that just aren't there, because you don't like the idea streaming being the sole source of ST and it's a change from what happens now. Imagine today, a large apartment building where 50% of people are streaming something. I'm sure that happens all the time in places like Brooklyn. They handle that quite well. Now imagine a cluster of buildings in a small area of a large city, where there are literally thousands of people potentially streaming. How would a bar or restaurant be any different than a situation like that? Again, the tech exists to handle it and even if it didn't, Apple (or whoever) would have at least a year to build it out. You act like nobody has ever done huge clustors of streams before. THis isn't 2005 or any time pre-iPhone. The infrastructure exists now.


----------



## harsh

wmb said:


> The reason I ask is the bar has an iPad they use to control what games are on which TV.


This sounds more like a distribution system than necessarily streaming or satellite.

I think it is likely that distribution systems will likely be preferred if streaming is the distribution method as it will reduce the bandwidth requirements to the absolute minimum. It may prove more economical than DIRECTV's Genie model with SHEF for larger venues since streamers (or possibly even apps) may be used rather than clients.


----------



## James Long

wmb said:


> Does NBC distribute the EPL games provided only Peacock through DirecTV? Where I go to watch Arsenal, I believe they are streamed.


EPL from Peacock is streamed via the Amazon Fire TV Stick: Quick Start Guide
5 mbps per stream.



wmb said:


> The reason I ask is the bar has an iPad they use to control what games are on which TV.


The iPad could easily be controlling the bar's video distribution system.



wmb said:


> No calling manager to fumble with enumerable DirecTV remotes.


Top end systems don't need remotes at each TV ... the tuners and TVs are all controlled by the video distribution system.



wmb said:


> And, if Apple doesn’t need DirecTV for distribution, why would ESPN+?


ESPN+ is available via DIRECTV. Apparently they saw the need to get into bars and businesses served by DIRECTV.


----------



## wmb

TheRatPatrol said:


> There is an iPad app that bars can use to control which games are on which Directv receivers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‎DIRECTV FOR BUSINESS Remote
> 
> 
> ‎The DIRECTV For BUSINESS℠ Remote App gives you control of all your DIRECTV® Receivers! •	Quickly identify receivers with custom names •	See what’s playing on all your TVs from one screen •	View all current and upcoming sports schedules •	Ability to group receivers in order to change multiple TVs…
> 
> 
> 
> apps.apple.com


Pre-Covid, everywhere I frequented, including BWW, had a collection of DirecTV remotes and someone walked around shooting it at the receiver behind the TV. The BWW may have needed to go to the receiver closet to set the channel and the pick which TV’s that receiver fed (hence the reason they had to call the manager).

The tech may be there, but my anecdotal experience is that it hasn’t been widely adopted. Granted, 2 years is a long time and things may have changed.

The current Arsenal bar opened in the past year and has new equipment. I suspect they are fairly state of the art compared to others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JoeTheDragon

wmb said:


> Pre-Covid, everywhere I frequented, including BWW, had a collection of DirecTV remotes and someone walked around shooting it at the receiver behind the TV. The BWW may have needed to go to the receiver closet to set the channel and the pick which TV’s that receiver fed (hence the reason they had to call the manager).
> 
> The tech may be there, but my anecdotal experience is that it hasn’t been widely adopted. Granted, 2 years is a long time and things may have changed.
> 
> The current Arsenal bar opened in the past year and has new equipment. I suspect they are fairly state of the art compared to others.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


an system like this?


https://www.technicolor.com/sites/default/files/medialib/document/MCSDocLib/Mediatune-3-0-COM3000-Integrators-Manual.pdf










Technicolor MediaTune 3000 for Bars and Restaurants - Its All About Satellites | TV Systems, Internet, Wi-Fi


The Technicolor MediaTune COM3000 for Bars & Restaurants When Introduced in 2009, the COM1000 was a Game Changer for Sports Bars and Restaurants The Com1000 changed TV for the hotel and lodging industry when it was introduced. A small footprint server, just 4U of rack space, that could...



itsallaboutsatellites.com












MediaTune Com1000 for Bars & Restaurants - Its All About Satellites


The Technicolor MediaTune Com1000 for Bars & Restaurants | A Video Distribution Game Changer for DIRECTV for Bars and Restaurants.



itsallaboutsatellites.com












New Technicolor MediaTune Com2000 for Bars & Restaurants - Its All About Satellites | TV Systems, Internet, Wi-Fi


The New MediaTune Com2000 for Bars and Restaurants from Technicolor - Transforming How Channels are Changed for Sports Bars & Restaurants with Multiple TVs



itsallaboutsatellites.com


----------



## Mike Lang

Some of us who've been comped NFLST year after year after year from Directv might find it difficult to pony up too much after the switch.


----------



## harsh

Mike Lang said:


> Some of us who've been comped NFLST year after year after year from Directv might find it difficult to pony up too much after the switch.


At the rates that most DIRECTV subscribers are paying, "comped" may be a bit of a stretch. Maybe "subsidized".


----------



## wmb

harsh said:


> At the rates that most DIRECTV subscribers are paying, "comped" may be a bit of a stretch. Maybe "subsidized".


Subsidized isn’t right either. The bare cost of just an annual DirecTV Sunday Ticket subscription is more than the difference between the annual cost of a mid-level DirecTV subscription (including fees) and the annual cost of comparable streamer (YouTube TV, Sling, Fubo…).

Heck, ESPN+ for a year is cheaper than MLS Direct Kick was through DirecTV, and ESPN+ includes the higher priced NHL Center Ice for free.

With DirecTV, you pay more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh

wmb said:


> Subsidized isn’t right either.


Perhaps not but anyone who pays attention knows that the NFLST paying subscribers aren't coming any where close to covering the costs of the offering (even if AT&T has promised to make up some of the difference).


----------



## James Long

If the price with NFL ST is the same (or lower) than the price without NFL ST "comped" works fine.
Mike is more familiar with what he is paying than non-subscribers.


----------



## Steveknj

JoeTheDragon said:


> an system like this?
> 
> 
> https://www.technicolor.com/sites/default/files/medialib/document/MCSDocLib/Mediatune-3-0-COM3000-Integrators-Manual.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technicolor MediaTune 3000 for Bars and Restaurants - Its All About Satellites | TV Systems, Internet, Wi-Fi
> 
> 
> The Technicolor MediaTune COM3000 for Bars & Restaurants When Introduced in 2009, the COM1000 was a Game Changer for Sports Bars and Restaurants The Com1000 changed TV for the hotel and lodging industry when it was introduced. A small footprint server, just 4U of rack space, that could...
> 
> 
> 
> itsallaboutsatellites.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MediaTune Com1000 for Bars & Restaurants - Its All About Satellites
> 
> 
> The Technicolor MediaTune Com1000 for Bars & Restaurants | A Video Distribution Game Changer for DIRECTV for Bars and Restaurants.
> 
> 
> 
> itsallaboutsatellites.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Technicolor MediaTune Com2000 for Bars & Restaurants - Its All About Satellites | TV Systems, Internet, Wi-Fi
> 
> 
> The New MediaTune Com2000 for Bars and Restaurants from Technicolor - Transforming How Channels are Changed for Sports Bars & Restaurants with Multiple TVs
> 
> 
> 
> itsallaboutsatellites.com


Another thing I've thought about for those with concerns over bandwidth and distribution issues. When I traveled pre covid, I stayed at various Marriots that offered the ability to stream Netflix (and I think there were a couple of others) via their TV system. You simply accessed the button on your hotel remote, or went to it on the onscreen menu, signed in with YOUR account and you had the ability to stream. Again, the potential was there for every guest in the hotel, in some cases hundreds of rooms, to stream concurrently, using the hotel's internet. Not to mention the "Free WiFI" model in hotels has been around for years. In business oriented hotels especially people do video conferencing or other high bandwidth activities quite frequently. So the ability to give access to "Free WiFi" is nothing new. There's no reason why a restaurant cannot adopt similar technology and offer ST in a similar fashion. I think some of you are looking for reasons why it WON'T work rather than seeking out reasons why it can.


----------



## harsh

Steveknj said:


> I think some of you are looking for reasons why it WON'T work rather than seeking out reasons why it can.


It isn't our responsibility to figure out how a poorly thought out scheme might work. We can pretty much pin down what must be involved and go from there.

Suggesting that any resource can be made truly "unlimited" is to buy into the joke that is "unlimited wireless".


----------



## b4pjoe

Steveknj said:


> So the ability to give access to "Free WiFi" is nothing new. There's no reason why a restaurant cannot adopt similar technology and offer ST in a similar fashion.


In your scenario they are not offering ST. They are merely offering free internet that people can use for whatever they please. Same with the hotel and Netflix. They are only offering free internet for you to use your account to access a service. I think you are greatly overestimating the appeal you think people have to pay for Sunday Ticket and then go to a bar to watch it on their 5" screen. I still see young people that love their big screen TV and also flock to movie theaters to watch movies on the big screen.


----------



## wmb

Steveknj said:


> You simply accessed the button on your hotel remote, or went to it on the onscreen menu, signed in with YOUR account and you had the ability to stream.


You are logging into their TV with your Netflix account… I’m not sure I like that. How do you make sure your account isn’t logged out when you check out?

I stay at a Hilton in DC, and it has a system where you can cast your phone to the in-room TV. You get on the hotel WiFi, go to a web site, enter your room number and cast to the TV. 

I’d much rather not have to enter a username and password into an account using a hotel or other public device.

Oh, as for bandwidth, nowadays with ubiquitous 4 and 5G, along with unlimited Mobil internet, I rarely join my phone to WiFi. I need a reason to (like casting to a TV), or be enclosed in a concrete bunker or a Faraday cage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long

Steveknj said:


> In business oriented hotels especially people do video conferencing or other high bandwidth activities quite frequently. So the ability to give access to "Free WiFi" is nothing new. There's no reason why a restaurant cannot adopt similar technology and offer ST in a similar fashion.


Bring your game to our restaurant? Are you seriously suggesting that any restaurant or bar would market "bring your own streaming"? Especially something as specific as Sunday Ticket? "Bring your device (and subscription) and watch Sunday Ticket - we'll provide the Wi-Fi (but not the streams)."

"Offering" Sunday Ticket? I don't think so.



Steveknj said:


> I think some of you are looking for reasons why it WON'T work rather than seeking out reasons why it can.


Technologically any place with decent Internet could let people stream their own content on their own devices for their own consumption. I just don't see the viability of marketing "bring your own game" to a public venue - regardless of the sport. Even if the bar offered free Wi-Fi and a charging outlet. Over three hours watching on whatever device one can carry? That "always on their phone" generation may watch short cuts where the game is cut down to the (average) 18 minutes that the ball is in play each game. I don't see people streaming full games in a restaurant or bar.

Meanwhile the locally broadcast games are on the big screens - possibly NFL Network Red Zone as well. That would be "fun" ... have Red Zone show a potential touch down live while one is waiting for the streaming delay. It is bad enough watching streaming when someone with a closer to live feed (cable/satellite/TV) tweets or texts the results of something not yet seen.

"Bring your streamed game to our place." Ridiculous!


----------



## Steveknj

JoeTheDragon said:


> an system like this?
> 
> 
> https://www.technicolor.com/sites/default/files/medialib/document/MCSDocLib/Mediatune-3-0-COM3000-Integrators-Manual.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technicolor MediaTune 3000 for Bars and Restaurants - Its All About Satellites | TV Systems, Internet, Wi-Fi
> 
> 
> The Technicolor MediaTune COM3000 for Bars & Restaurants When Introduced in 2009, the COM1000 was a Game Changer for Sports Bars and Restaurants The Com1000 changed TV for the hotel and lodging industry when it was introduced. A small footprint server, just 4U of rack space, that could...
> 
> 
> 
> itsallaboutsatellites.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MediaTune Com1000 for Bars & Restaurants - Its All About Satellites
> 
> 
> The Technicolor MediaTune Com1000 for Bars & Restaurants | A Video Distribution Game Changer for DIRECTV for Bars and Restaurants.
> 
> 
> 
> itsallaboutsatellites.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Technicolor MediaTune Com2000 for Bars & Restaurants - Its All About Satellites | TV Systems, Internet, Wi-Fi
> 
> 
> The New MediaTune Com2000 for Bars and Restaurants from Technicolor - Transforming How Channels are Changed for Sports Bars & Restaurants with Multiple TVs
> 
> 
> 
> itsallaboutsatellites.com


Another thing I've thought about for those with concerns over bandwidth and distribution issues. When I traveled pre covid, I stayed at various Marriots that offered the ability to stream Netflix (and I think there were a couple of others) via their TV system. You simply accessed the button on your hotel remote, or went to it on the onscreen menu, signed in with YOUR account and you had the ability to stream. Again, the potential was there for every guest in the hotel, in some cases hundreds of rooms, to stream concurrently, using the hotel's internet. Not to mention the "Free WiFI" model in hotels has been around for years. In business oriented hotels especially people do video conferencing or other high bandwidth activities quite frequently. So the ability to give access to "Free WiFi" is nothing new. There's no reason why a restaurant cannot adopt similar technology and offer ST in a similar fashion. I think some of you are looking for reasons why it WON'T work rather than seeking out reasons why it can. 


b4pjoe said:


> In your scenario they are not offering ST. They are merely offering free internet that people can use for whatever they please. Same with the hotel and Netflix. They are only offering free internet for you to use your account to access a service. I think you are greatly overestimating the appeal you think people have to pay for Sunday Ticket and then go to a bar to watch it on their 5" screen. I still see young people that love their big screen TV and also flock to movie theaters to watch movies on the big screen.


And I think you are underestimating the ability for people to use their own accounts at their own convenience and not have to be tied down to how a place of business presents the games. But of course it will come down to price. If it's still $300 a season, yes, I see the appeal to going to a bar and not have to shell out that type of scratch. If it's not much more than a regular ATV+ subscription, then the appeal of having your own account is there as you are not at the mercy of what the bar owner wants to show or where you sit or whatever the situation might be. But again, we just don't know. People here don't think it will work, because the only right way to do it is the way DirecTV has done it, forgetting that it's all been done already, maybe not exactly the same way, but it's possible. And if they need to work at it, to make it work, they will. You all seem to think that Apple is totally blind to what needs to happen and are just going in without a plan. That's just silly.


----------



## Steveknj

wmb said:


> You are logging into their TV with your Netflix account… I’m not sure I like that. How do you make sure your account isn’t logged out when you check out?
> 
> I stay at a Hilton in DC, and it has a system where you can cast your phone to the in-room TV. You get on the hotel WiFi, go to a web site, enter your room number and cast to the TV.
> 
> I’d much rather not have to enter a username and password into an account using a hotel or other public device.
> 
> Oh, as for bandwidth, nowadays with ubiquitous 4 and 5G, along with unlimited Mobil internet, I rarely join my phone to WiFi. I need a reason to (like casting to a TV), or be enclosed in a concrete bunker or a Faraday cage.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It's your responsibility to log out of the account when you check out. It's been a few years since I've used it but I seem to remember that there's some mechnism that when you check out, it logs you out, but I'm not certain. I get your concern about forgetting to log out and being at the mercy of the next person to use your credentials. I thought about that too. And yes that's a real concern. My point is, it's being done and it's certainly a way to access ST outside of your home, if you wanted to. The technology is certainly available, and on a massive scale. 

And yes, with 4g and even 5g available, maybe the need to log into a bar's WiFi might not even be needed (though it would probably be more robust than even a 5g signal which is dependent on location.)


----------



## b4pjoe

Steveknj said:


> And I think you are underestimating the ability for people to use their own accounts at their own convenience and not have to be tied down to how a place of business presents the games. But of course it will come down to price. If it's still $300 a season, yes, I see the appeal to going to a bar and not have to shell out that type of scratch. If it's not much more than a regular ATV+ subscription, then the appeal of having your own account is there as you are not at the mercy of what the bar owner wants to show or where you sit or whatever the situation might be. But again, we just don't know. People here don't think it will work, because the only right way to do it is the way DirecTV has done it, forgetting that it's all been done already, maybe not exactly the same way, but it's possible. And if they need to work at it, to make it work, they will. You all seem to think that Apple is totally blind to what needs to happen and are just going in without a plan. That's just silly.


I am not disputing the technology. I am disputing your claim that people are going to want to go to a bar and watch a football game on their 5" screen with their own Sunday Ticket account whether the bar provides internet or not. If Apple has no commercial access for bars/restaurants they are going to be preventing a lot of money from falling into their pockets. I would think, maybe wrongly as I haven't ever saw the numbers for commercial, that the commercial Sunday Ticket is a money maker for DirecTV based on how much it costs while residential is the big money loser even at $400 per season.


----------



## b4pjoe

Steveknj said:


> It's your responsibility to log out of the account when you check out. It's been a few years since I've used it but I seem to remember that there's some mechnism that when you check out, it logs you out, but I'm not certain. I get your concern about forgetting to log out and being at the mercy of the next person to use your credentials. I thought about that too. And yes that's a real concern. My point is, it's being done and it's certainly a way to access ST outside of your home, if you wanted to. The technology is certainly available, and on a massive scale.
> 
> And yes, with 4g and even 5g available, maybe the need to log into a bar's WiFi might not even be needed (though it would probably be more robust than even a 5g signal which is dependent on location.)


Netflix is going start charging extra for logging in outside of the home. Netflix is finally going after password sharing. Here’s how it’s likely to work


----------



## harsh

b4pjoe said:


> Netflix is going start charging extra for logging in outside of the home.


They've been rattling this saber for years and it still hasn't happened. I think they may be concerned that it will cause more departures than new accounts given that account holders can't spread the cost across their extended families.


----------



## James Long

Steveknj said:


> It's been a few years since I've used it but I seem to remember that there's some mechnism that when you check out, it logs you out, but I'm not certain.


I cannot speak for every TV in every hotel in the country, but one local business in my area has Android driven set top boxes with access to all the major streaming platforms plus web browsing. The devices are wiped twice between customers ... immediately on check out and immediately on check in. The apps remain but all the private settings are cleared. The remote controls the STB not the TV directly (HDMI-CEC control for volume and power) so it would be difficult to use any apps built in to the TV.

It did surprise me the first time I walked into a hotel room and found the TV on with a "Welcome James" message on the screen. I am accustomed to "power on channels" with hotel information but a personalized welcome screen is a nice touch.


----------



## James Long

b4pjoe said:


> Netflix is going start charging extra for logging in outside of the home. Netflix is finally going after password sharing. Here’s how it’s likely to work


That might work. A couple dollar fee that will allow customers to share their accounts and focusing on the accounts with the most users.


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> They've been rattling this saber for years and it still hasn't happened. I think they may be concerned that it will cause more departures than new accounts given that account holders can't spread the cost across their extended families.


Hasn't *yet* happened in the US. But Netflix has, in fact, already rolled out an account sharing fee in three Latin American test markets: Costa Rica, Chile and Peru. Obviously, account sharing isn't something they're concerned about only in three small LatAm countries. They're trying it out in relatively unimportant markets first before shaking things up in bigger, more impactful markets. (See link posted above by b4pjoe.)

And Netflix indicated on their last quarterly call (when they announced a surprising, small Q1 global sub dip and anticipated a huge 2M drop for Q2) that they're contemplating some way to address account sharing here in the US (or even globally). Don't kid yourself. It's coming here.


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> And Netflix indicated on their last quarterly call (when they announced a surprising, small Q1 global sub dip and anticipated a huge 2M drop for Q2) that they're contemplating some way to address account sharing here in the US (or even globally). Don't kid yourself. It's coming here.


My point was that this wasn't the first time that Netflix had broached the subject and it probably isn't the last time they talk/warn about it before it actually happens in the US market.


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> My point was that this wasn't the first time that Netflix had broached the subject and it probably isn't the last time they talk/warn about it before it actually happens in the US market.


Agreed. They'll make some noise about it at least once more, to get American consumers conditioned to what's coming, before they finally do drop the bomb on us. If it hasn't arrived here within the next 12 months, I'll be quite surprised. And I expect an ad-supported Netflix plan to become available in the US by the end of 2023, if not sooner.


----------



## James Long

I expect the account sharing fee within a year .. not sure about the ads. Normally services offer an ad tier to keep the price low and charge more for (mostly) ad free. Netflix users can keep their price low by buying less streams. Unless Netflix wants a one (SD) stream for $5 price point. Two HD streams for $10 with ads?

Not expecting Sunday Ticket via Netflix.


----------



## Steveknj

b4pjoe said:


> I am not disputing the technology. I am disputing your claim that people are going to want to go to a bar and watch a football game on their 5" screen with their own Sunday Ticket account whether the bar provides internet or not. If Apple has no commercial access for bars/restaurants they are going to be preventing a lot of money from falling into their pockets. I would think, maybe wrongly as I haven't ever saw the numbers for commercial, that the commercial Sunday Ticket is a money maker for DirecTV based on how much it costs while residential is the big money loser even at $400 per season.


Maybe you're right and they won't want to go to a bar to watch. And, well that's just too bad. Times change. If I'm Apple, I'm not in the business to placate bar and restaurant owners. I'm in the business to to make money and get as many subscribers as possible. It's up to bar owners and restaurant owners to figure out a way to give customers another reason to come to the establishment. Just like any time tech changes, there's winners and losers. I'm not an Apple fan, but I also don't think it's Apple's responsibility to make sure these establishments have Sunday Ticket either. Apple needs to do what's best for Apple.


----------



## b4pjoe

Steveknj said:


> Maybe you're right and they won't want to go to a bar to watch. And, well that's just too bad. Times change. If I'm Apple, I'm not in the business to placate bar and restaurant owners. I'm in the business to to make money and get as many subscribers as possible. It's up to bar owners and restaurant owners to figure out a way to give customers another reason to come to the establishment. Just like any time tech changes, there's winners and losers. I'm not an Apple fan, but I also don't think it's Apple's responsibility to make sure these establishments have Sunday Ticket either. Apple needs to do what's best for Apple.


It is in Apple's best interests to offer a commercial package. If not they will be throwing money away...which Apple never does.


----------



## harsh

b4pjoe said:


> It is in Apple's best interests to offer a commercial package. If not they will be throwing money away...which Apple never does.


Apple doesn't have a particularly stellar record in dealing with commercial entities.


----------



## b4pjoe

harsh said:


> Apple doesn't have a particularly stellar record in dealing with commercial entities.


It is not rocket science.


----------



## James Long

b4pjoe said:


> It is in Apple's best interests to offer a commercial package. If not they will be throwing money away...which Apple never does.


I am sure Apple will do the math and determine whether or not a commercial offering could be profitable. DIRECTV is losing money on their distribution. While Apple streaming opens up the base for potential subscribers far beyond people willing to pay for DIRECTV any commercial offering needs to be profitable on its own. Expecting residential streaming income to cover commercial losses is not good math.

DIRECTV can rationalize their losses since every subscriber also pays for a high price satellite package. Apple could not rationalize a loss.


----------



## b4pjoe

Is there proof that DirecTV wasn't making a profit on the commercial side while taking a bath on the residential side. Unless they sold very few commercial packages I would think, based on the prices they charged for commercial, that they might have made money on the commercial side but lost all of that and more on the residential side. As far as I know those numbers have been made public though.


----------



## James Long

It is hard to say. Even the claimed financial loss on the service is a matter of bookkeeping. Overall DIRECTV was a profitable service (at last report) making about $20 per subscriber per month in profit. Strict bookkeeping may have placed what they collected in subscriptions for Sunday Ticket below the $1.5 billion they were paying ... but having Sunday Ticket led to more people paying for the satellite service that not only covered the line item loss but turned a decent profit. Apple TV + doesn't make $20 per subscriber per month in profit.


----------



## harsh

b4pjoe said:


> It is not rocket science.


That hasn't seemed to help.


----------



## harsh

b4pjoe said:


> Is there proof that DirecTV wasn't making a profit on the commercial side while taking a bath on the residential side.


DIRECTV's numbers have been obscured for several years now. What we know as fact is that the joint venture put into writing that AT&T would be responsible for some or all of the losses. That such a clause exists suggests that there was little hope of making a profit.

If you compare the per-head prices, the residential version likely offers a much higher profit margin to DIRECTV. $650 spread over up to 100 patrons is a much better value than $300 for what you can fit in front of your TV screen.

The cost of operating NFLST isn't much impacted by the cost of turning subscription flags on and off.


----------



## b4pjoe

James Long said:


> It is hard to say. Even the claimed financial loss on the service is a matter of bookkeeping. Overall DIRECTV was a profitable service (at last report) making about $20 per subscriber per month in profit. Strict bookkeeping may have placed what they collected in subscriptions for Sunday Ticket below the $1.5 billion they were paying ... but having Sunday Ticket led to more people paying for the satellite service that not only covered the line item loss but turned a decent profit. Apple TV + doesn't make $20 per subscriber per month in profit.


It is kind of weird that AT&T would be giving it away to so many subscribers and yet claim massive losses. It seems like they might want it to lose money. They have gave it me for free several times without me even asking for it so it can’t be because people were threatening to leave if they didn’t give it away. It will be interesting to see if they give it away to so many people this year as they did last year.

And right…Apple is most likely losing money on Apple TV+ without ST. ST would definitely boost their subscription numbers but not enough to cover the price of ST. That is why I don’t believe they are going to be throwing in ST just for the $4.99 fee.

And if Apple does not have a commercial option they are just leaving money on the table. It is just money sitting there for the taking.


----------



## b4pjoe

harsh said:


> Apple doesn't have a particularly stellar record in dealing with commercial entities.


So what have they down when “dealing with commercial entities”?


----------



## AngryManMLS

James Long said:


> That might work. A couple dollar fee that will allow customers to share their accounts and focusing on the accounts with the most users.


Except most comments I've seen on this has basically been people seeing this as a cash grab. Plus people already feel like they are paying "too much" for Netflix just to pay more to share their account. In their minds they are already paying for the service so they are entitled to share it with their family member/friend/etc as they see fit. I get it. And to be fair it's also a dangerous slope that if Netflix gets away with this then what will stop all the others from charging extra for account sharing?


----------



## James Long

b4pjoe said:


> It is kind of weird that AT&T would be giving it away to so many subscribers and yet claim massive losses.


They are not claiming massive losses. Last year there was a comment that they lost "tens of millions" of dollars on their $1.5 billion investment but overall most of the claims of huge losses come from outside observers. And (as noted) overall DIRECTV performed well so any recent losses were more than covered by money given by NFL ST subscribers for their other programming. Hopefully the $1.5 billion in lower expenses won't be matched by more than $1.5 billion in lost revenue after NFL ST leaves next year.



b4pjoe said:


> And if Apple does not have a commercial option they are just leaving money on the table. It is just money sitting there for the taking.


Only if commercial service is profitable.

A viable commercial service requires businesses willing to invest in paying for the subscriptions. The first year those businesses will also need to pay to upgrade their systems to whatever Apple provides (if commercial service is offered). Delivered via DIRECTV satellite like ESPN+ would be the least expensive for existing commercial subscribers and would be the most likely path to maintaining those subscribers. Requiring new equipment and modifications to their distribution systems may convince businesses to leave. I believe a lot of places will be focusing on the locally aired games and NFL Red Zone more than "every game" if Apple makes it too difficult or expensive to display the games.

I expect Apple will do well in the residential market.


----------



## James Long

AngryManMLS said:


> And to be fair it's also a dangerous slope that if Netflix gets away with this then what will stop all the others from charging extra for account sharing?


Yeah, it is really bad when stores hire people to watch the doors to scare off shoplifters. If security gets too tight those stores may scare off legitimate customers who don't want to be assumed guilty every time they enter the store. My father stopped shopping at the local hardware store when their "helpful" staff refused to let him browse alone. Don't need an escort and the big box hardware down the street doesn't have that level of interference.

Netflix is in a strange position since they encouraged account sharing a few years ago (friends and family beyond the household). They were more worried about raising their viewer count than staying profitable. With the downturn in paid subscribers and looming debt they need to make sure people are paying for the service. And so do the competing services.


----------



## b4pjoe

James Long said:


> They are not claiming massive losses. Last year there was a comment that they lost "tens of millions" of dollars on their $1.5 billion investment but overall most of the claims of huge losses come from outside observers. And (as noted) overall DIRECTV performed well so any recent losses were more than covered by money given by NFL ST subscribers for their other programming. Hopefully the $1.5 billion in lower expenses won't be matched by more than $1.5 billion in lost revenue after NFL ST leaves next year.


Tens of millions isn't massive? Either way...why give it away to so many subscribers if you are losing tens of millions? It is probably just the way corporate America cooks their books. They wanted hundreds of millions in profit but they only got 90 million in profit so they lost tens of millions.


----------



## Steveknj

b4pjoe said:


> It is kind of weird that AT&T would be giving it away to so many subscribers and yet claim massive losses. It seems like they might want it to lose money. They have gave it me for free several times without me even asking for it so it can’t be because people were threatening to leave if they didn’t give it away. It will be interesting to see if they give it away to so many people this year as they did last year.
> 
> And right…Apple is most likely losing money on Apple TV+ without ST. ST would definitely boost their subscription numbers but not enough to cover the price of ST. That is why I don’t believe they are going to be throwing in ST just for the $4.99 fee.
> 
> And if Apple does not have a commercial option they are just leaving money on the table. It is just money sitting there for the taking.


Apple's motivation on "services" has always been to use services as a way to sell devices, at least that was how it was under Jobs and early on under Cook. iTunes for example was a method to feed the iPod supply chain (and later, iPads and iPhones). Their profits were much higher on devices and indeed they sold millions of iPods and iPhones to folks who previously had nothing to do with Apple products.

I've heard that this MIGHT be changing. But assuming that is their motivation for ST, I can see ST as a loss leader if it means people buy more ATVs (which are probably highly profitable). Thinking about this some more, perhaps it's ONLY going to be available on ATVs and it COULD be a stand alone app, and not part of ATV+ (or if it's part of ATV+, it's an add on that's only available on the ATV). In that way, they sell LOTS of ATVs. It's hard to fathom (and we've seen that DirecTV has had had this issue for years) anyone making a profit on ST unless they charge a LOT of money for it.

The interesting part of how what the NFL is doing, is that there are fewer games available now on ST than there was in the past. A few Monday double headers, Thursday games, a few extra Saturday games later in the season and talk of more streaming games going forward. it amazes me that the NFL can continue to ask higher and higher rates while offering less and less product. As long as people are willing to pony up, they can continue to do it.


----------



## Steveknj

AngryManMLS said:


> Except most comments I've seen on this has basically been people seeing this as a cash grab. Plus people already feel like they are paying "too much" for Netflix just to pay more to share their account. In their minds they are already paying for the service so they are entitled to share it with their family member/friend/etc as they see fit. I get it. And to be fair it's also a dangerous slope that if Netflix gets away with this then what will stop all the others from charging extra for account sharing?


I don't think it's really an issue sharing within your house or even allowing a couple of external streams when traveling. The problem is, that people have taken advantage of the situation and share it with LOTS of friends and cousins and whoever. It's like Napster back in the say. If you buy music, does that entitle you to put it up on a server somewhere and share with anyone you know? 

The "problem" with Netflix blaming their loss of subscribers on this, is that they are not recognizing what is happening in their own industry, and industry that THEY essentially started, and that is there is a LOT of competition out there, some of which are much cheaper than they are (and don't charge extra for higher quality content). So they are blaming this on sharing when the real reason is that they are expensive and people are looking at other cheaper alternatives. I think they might have been more spot on by offering an ad supported tier, but if that add supported tier is still more expensive than other ad supported tiers, that's not going to help either. They need to figure this out or they will continue to bleed subscribers. There's only so many hours in a day and so much people can spend before it gets to be just like cable or satellite. Netflix used to be THE streaming service, but now is just one of many.


----------



## harsh

b4pjoe said:


> So what have they down when “dealing with commercial entities”?


Apple tried for years to offer servers, printers and networking products to businesses. It has never really been much of success in terms of functionality or ROI.


----------



## Steveknj

harsh said:


> Apple tried for years to offer servers, printers and networking products to businesses. It has never really been much of success in terms of functionality or ROI.


They are well established in certain industries, but overall their enterprise offerings are much smaller than companies like Microsoft.


----------



## b4pjoe

harsh said:


> Apple tried for years to offer servers, printers and networking products to businesses. It has never really been much of success in terms of functionality or ROI.


I worked in the graphic arts trade for a long time and we had Mac servers and printers in the past and they worked fine. The reason they got out of the server game was that Apple has always priced their products at a premium price and when OS X came along and supported standard networking protocols such as SMB and Apple deprecated their own Appletalk and AFP protocols they didn't try to compete with cheap PC servers running Microsoft Windows Server. Before that if you had mac workstations it made sense to have Mac servers and printers. For the past 20 - 25 years we still had Mac workstations but all servers were Windows servers because it was cheaper and developers that wrote server software didn't want to have to support both Windows and Mac servers so they quit making it for Mac servers.


----------



## b4pjoe

Steveknj said:


> Apple's motivation on "services" has always been to use services as a way to sell devices, at least that was how it was under Jobs and early on under Cook. iTunes for example was a method to feed the iPod supply chain (and later, iPads and iPhones). Their profits were much higher on devices and indeed they sold millions of iPods and iPhones to folks who previously had nothing to do with Apple products.
> 
> I've heard that this MIGHT be changing. But assuming that is their motivation for ST, I can see ST as a loss leader if it means people buy more ATVs (which are probably highly profitable). Thinking about this some more, perhaps it's ONLY going to be available on ATVs and it COULD be a stand alone app, and not part of ATV+ (or if it's part of ATV+, it's an add on that's only available on the ATV). In that way, they sell LOTS of ATVs. It's hard to fathom (and we've seen that DirecTV has had had this issue for years) anyone making a profit on ST unless they charge a LOT of money for it.
> 
> The interesting part of how what the NFL is doing, is that there are fewer games available now on ST than there was in the past. A few Monday double headers, Thursday games, a few extra Saturday games later in the season and talk of more streaming games going forward. it amazes me that the NFL can continue to ask higher and higher rates while offering less and less product. As long as people are willing to pony up, they can continue to do it.


Maybe they should only make it available on iPhones (over $1,000). They would make a lot more money on iPhone sales then they will on ATV sales (under $200).


----------



## Steveknj

b4pjoe said:


> Maybe they should only make it available on iPhones (over $1,000). They would make a lot more money on iPhone sales then they will on ATV sales (under $200).


Maybe they will!!

Realistically, they will see what works best for them. I know you are probably being sarcastic, but they sold MILLIONS of iPods because people were "married" to iTunes a source of music. In the early days of smartphones, the "app store" was developed as a way to serve iPhones. This is how they've done business. Without those services, you could buy anything and watch. The reason I say it's changing is they seem much more willing to put services on other devices as well as their own. ATV+ is on most streaming platforms (though not on my Google TV), like Roku. Maybe that's a necessity, much like they were pretty much forced into developing iTunes for Windows because it cut out half their potential user base. But maybe for something like ST, they will require an Apple TV (and with that a tidy profit). I have no idea what they make per unit on ATV, but I bet it's pretty good profit margin and people need a reason spend $200 on a device that can give them essentially the same content that a $30 Firestick or Roku could give them (yes, I know there are definitely more advanced video and audio available on ATV). Maybe ST gives users that incentive, and increase Apple's market share significantly in streaming hardware.


----------



## James Long

b4pjoe said:


> Tens of millions isn't massive?


Nope. DIRECTV made well over $2 billion in profit each year overall. Consider Sunday Ticket a "loss leader" that brought in more billions than it cost because subscribers also bought other content.


----------



## glrush

We likely will never know, but it will be interesting to see the impact on subscriber numbers if DirecTV does lose Sunday Ticket. I would assume that is baked into their business case for why it is better for their business to drop it.


----------



## b4pjoe

I never tried on Sunday Ticket to watch a game that was on Sunday afternoon on Sunday Ticket later in the week. Was that possible (like a recording)? I asked because I've been wondering about the NFL games that may be on Apple TV+ in 2023 and the games that are now on Apple TV+ (Friday night baseball), Peacock (Sunday morning basball) and Amazon Prime (Thursday night football this cominng season). There is no way to record those streaming games so if you miss them live you can never go back and watch them later?


----------



## glrush

Less Than a Quarter of DirecTV Subscribers Pay for NFL Sunday Ticket - Kagan | Next TV


----------



## James Long

glrush said:


> Less Than a Quarter of DirecTV Subscribers Pay for NFL Sunday Ticket - Kagan | Next TV


Per the article (based on a survey of subscribers):
23% pay for Sunday Ticket
16% subscribe but don't pay
7% don't know if they get Sunday Ticket or not
Per the article (no specific source given):
DIRECTV had 14.6 million subscribers at the end of 2021 (satellite and streaming)
"Doing the basic math, if 23% of AT&T's base (around 3.35 million customers) pay $300, DirecTV is just about breaking even each season on its Sunday Ticket licensing."

(The article is using a $1 billion per year payment for Sunday Ticket while other sources state DIRECTV is paying $1.5 billion per year. 14.6 million subscribers would be a 3 million subscriber drop from the end of 2020.)

Noting that streaming subscribers cannot get Sunday Ticket, having 39% (or more) of DIRECTV's subscribers receiving Sunday Ticket is fairly good. The "don't pay" would include first year subscribers (and I assume some of those "don't know" are first year subscribers who got free Sunday Ticket but never watched).

With the NFL wanting more money and DIRECTV losing subscribers the math isn't good for DIRECTV to pay for an exclusive. The only hope for DIRECTV subscribers is if NFL Sunday Ticket is offered on a non-exclusive basis ... or they can subscribe to whomever gets the content.


----------



## Mike Lang

James Long said:


> 7% don't know if they get Sunday Ticket or not


One day I hope to be this oblivious.


----------



## B. Shoe

b4pjoe said:


> I never tried on Sunday Ticket to watch a game that was on Sunday afternoon on Sunday Ticket later in the week. Was that possible (like a recording)? I asked because I've been wondering about the NFL games that may be on Apple TV+ in 2023 and the games that are now on Apple TV+ (Friday night baseball), Peacock (Sunday morning basball) and Amazon Prime (Thursday night football this cominng season). There is no way to record those streaming games so if you miss them live you can never go back and watch them later?


On the Sunday Ticket streaming app, Short Cuts and full broadcasts are available a few hours later. Full game replays are also available on the Game Pass subscription (You can go back to select games as far back as 2008, I think.) Whether those services are made available under a new provider remains unanswered. But this is what's available in the current streaming product.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Nope. DIRECTV made well over $2 billion in profit each year overall. Consider Sunday Ticket a "loss leader" that brought in more billions than it cost because subscribers also bought other content.


As long as the ARPU remains above, $120 give or take, there's lots of money to spread around. That's where the AppleTV+ bundle theory breaks down where the ARPU before NFLST is $4.99.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> Netflix is in a strange position since they encouraged account sharing a few years ago (friends and family beyond the household). They were more worried about raising their viewer count than staying profitable. With the downturn in paid subscribers and looming debt they need to make sure people are paying for the service. And so do the competing services.


What would make sense and seem the fairest to me is for the SVODs to do more or less what the vMVPDs have done and tie most of your viewing to your home network. Maybe your subscription lets you watch on, say, 5 screens of any type simultaneously on your home network, plus an additional 2 screens off-network (i.e. via cellular or a different wifi network), but those 2 additional screens would be limited to computers and mobile devices (i.e. no smart TVs or TV-connected devices like Roku, Apple TV, Xbox, etc.). This would basically make the service appealing only to a single household/family. For those instances when a household member is traveling, or for a kid away at college, viewing on a mobile/laptop would be available. If you need more than 2 off-network screens at the same time, you could pay a little extra for more.

I think something like this is where it will eventually have to end up as the MVPD cash cow dries up and DTC SVODs shoulder more of the profit-making burden for these companies.


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> What would make sense and seem the fairest to me is for the SVODs to do more or less what the vMVPDs have done and tie most of your viewing to your home network. Maybe your subscription lets you watch on, say, 5 screens of any type simultaneously on your home network, plus an additional 2 screens off-network (i.e. via cellular or a different wifi network), but those 2 additional screens would be limited to computers and mobile devices (i.e. no smart TVs or TV-connected devices like Roku, Apple TV, Xbox, etc.). This would basically make the service appealing only to a single household/family. For those instances when a household member is traveling, or for a kid away at college, viewing on a mobile/laptop would be available. If you need more than 2 off-network screens at the same time, you could pay a little extra for more.
> 
> I think something like this is where it will eventually have to end up as the MVPD cash cow dries up and DTC SVODs shoulder more of the profit-making burden for these companies.


The other way they can do it is to tie it to a device for outside the house streaming. So perhaps you can tie it to only 2 cell phones at a time or a cell phone and a streaming device. I'm sure people who want to will figure out ways to get around that, but the casual user who wants to let their family and friends use their account won't bother.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> The other way they can do it is to tie it to a device for outside the house streaming. So perhaps you can tie it to only 2 cell phones at a time or a cell phone and a streaming device. I'm sure people who want to will figure out ways to get around that, but the casual user who wants to let their family and friends use their account won't bother.


Yeah, that'd work too. Although assuming you're not supposed to share your account with another household, I'm not sure what the rationale would be for allowing one of your out-of-home devices be a TV-connected device. OK, yes, it is nice if you travel a lot to be able to connect your Roku to the TV in the hotel/AirB&B so that all your content is there with you on the big screen, as opposed to watching on your laptop/tablet/phone or settling for whatever they have on their TV.

But this also seems like an edge-case. And I'm sure those streaming services would like to sell subscriptions to those hotels so that those establishments can offer that content via their in-room TVs to all guests (the same way every hotel and motel in the USA would advertise "free HBO" or "free Showtime" starting back in the 70s or 80s).


----------



## SamC

The trend in hotels that I have seen is that hotels are cutting the number of channels they offer way down, some just going with OTA only, and the TV is pre-loaded with all the major streaming apps and you log in from your own account. 

I (pre c****) spend a lot of time in Central America and that is very common. The local OTA channels and you use streaming for everything else. Which, considering I really cannot speak Spanish well enough to follow the dialogue, is great.


----------



## B. Shoe

SamC said:


> The trend in hotels that I have seen is that hotels are cutting the number of channels they offer way down, some just going with OTA only, and the TV is pre-loaded with all the major streaming apps and you log in from your own account.
> 
> I (pre c****) spend a lot of time in Central America and that is very common. The local OTA channels and you use streaming for everything else. Which, considering I really cannot speak Spanish well enough to follow the dialogue, is great.


Would agree that this is becoming the norm, also. We've been traveling a decent amount over the past 12 months, and the number of channels available on hotel TV system is definitely not the full slate.


----------



## harsh

B. Shoe said:


> We've been traveling a decent amount over the past 12 months, and the number of channels available on hotel TV system is definitely not the full slate.


Given the lack of new and interesting content on so many of the traditional cable channels, hotels are suffering the same choices that we are and are increasingly choosing not to waste their money.


----------



## AZ.

b4pjoe said:


> It is in Apple's best interests to offer a commercial package. If not they will be throwing money away...which Apple never does.


They also hold on to, way to much cash...Id say they are run strangely over most companies that large!


----------



## mjwagner

B. Shoe said:


> Would agree that this is becoming the norm, also. We've been traveling a decent amount over the past 12 months, and the number of channels available on hotel TV system is definitely not the full slate.


It’s been a long time since I even bothered with what the hotel offered. We have a FireTV Stick 4k that we use just for travel. We connect it to the hotel tv and either use the hotel WiFi or if we can’t or they charge a fee we just connect to our phone hotspot. Same when we go on family vacations and rent houses. It’s convenient having all the same content just like we are at home.


----------



## NashGuy

mjwagner said:


> It’s been a long time since I even bothered with what the hotel offered. We have a FireTV Stick 4k that we use just for travel. We connect it to the hotel tv and either use the hotel WiFi or if we can’t or they charge a fee we just connect to our phone hotspot. Same when we go on family vacations and rent houses. It’s convenient having all the same content just like we are at home.


I agree, it is convenient for consumers who do that. I'm just proposing that that kind of out-of-home TV usage may not always be included at no additional charge for OTT services as they look to crack down on sharing between households.


----------



## NashGuy

NashGuy said:


> Agreed. They'll make some noise about it at least once more, to get American consumers conditioned to what's coming, before they finally do drop the bomb on us. If it hasn't arrived here within the next 12 months, I'll be quite surprised. And I expect an ad-supported Netflix plan to become available in the US by the end of 2023, if not sooner.


Just as a follow-up on my own post, the latest word out of Netflix this week is that both the password-sharing crackdown _and_ a new cheaper ad-supported plan will be introduced in the US in 4Q 22, i.e. about 6 months from now.


----------



## mjwagner

NashGuy said:


> I agree, it is convenient for consumers who do that. I'm just proposing that that kind of out-of-home TV usage may not always be included at no additional charge for OTT services as they look to crack down on sharing between households.


It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Luckily for us when we travel their is no one at home using any services. If they do change things though it will be a consideration for us to drop the service if they prevent us from using it when traveling.


----------



## James Long

The target for Netflix is not the causal out of home user but the serial account sharer. They are looking for people sharing with 15 different locations across the country. The estimated $2 fee per such share is reasonable (instead of defining a home IP and requiring a separate full price account for more than a couple devices outside of the registered home). I'm not sure what kind of user experience subscribers get sharing a four stream account with 15 users but apparently that is happening as that is the example given by Netflix. Their new restriction may catch some families who sent a kid away to college or children of divorce who use one parent's account at another parent's house. But Netflix is targeting completely separate households sharing an account.


----------



## wmb

mjwagner said:


> It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Luckily for us when we travel their is no one at home using any services. If they do change things though it will be a consideration for us to drop the service if they prevent us from using it when traveling.


This, of course, is the risk of a crackdown. Cracking down on people sharing the account with a parent, child, sibling, etc may result in collateral damage of losing more subscribers than revenue gained.


----------



## James Long

And the risk of not cracking down is continuing loss of revenue. Netflix needs paid accounts to pay the debt for their library of content. They may lose subscribers that are gaming the system and oversharing ... but they are gaining subscribers that were not paying.

If you are sharing your account with 10 friends and cancel because you don't like the new policy all it takes is one of those friends to get their own account for Netflix to break even and two full price accounts for Netflix to win. The proposed $2 per share fee is a partial victory for Netflix that I believe a lot of people will accept rather than buy additional full price accounts.


----------



## MCHuf

James Long said:


> The target for Netflix is not the causal out of home user but the serial account sharer. They are looking for people sharing with 15 different locations across the country. The estimated $2 fee per such share is reasonable (instead of defining a home IP and requiring a separate full price account for more than a couple devices outside of the registered home). I'm not sure what kind of user experience subscribers get sharing a four stream account with 15 users but apparently that is happening as that is the example given by Netflix. Their new restriction may catch some families who sent a kid away to college or children of divorce who use one parent's account at another parent's house. But Netflix is targeting completely separate households sharing an account.


That may be true. But are there really that many "serial account sharers"? Netflix saying that there are 100 million freeloaders is really hyperbole. This reminds me of a few years back when everyone was claiming that eliminating piracy would basically double their income. That was BS then and the amount that Netflix claims are freeloaders is bs now. These major sharers aren't the main problem for Netflix. As a matter of fact, Netflix didn't really name the major problem their service has. And that is lack of quality programming and cancelling their few quality programs too soon. If they can't admit this, then the drop in subscribers won't end anytime soon.


----------



## mjwagner

James Long said:


> The target for Netflix is not the causal out of home user but the serial account sharer. They are looking for people sharing with 15 different locations across the country. The estimated $2 fee per such share is reasonable (instead of defining a home IP and requiring a separate full price account for more than a couple devices outside of the registered home). I'm not sure what kind of user experience subscribers get sharing a four stream account with 15 users but apparently that is happening as that is the example given by Netflix. Their new restriction may catch some families who sent a kid away to college or children of divorce who use one parent's account at another parent's house. But Netflix is targeting completely separate households sharing an account.


I agree that is their target. The problem might be how they implement the restrictions. The devil will be in the details and what issues, if any, it causes for those folks not specifically in the target population.


----------



## NashGuy

Somewhat relevant to the original topic of this thread, i.e. Sunday Ticket streaming via Apple, is today's post by The TV Answer Guy, where he takes a question from a sports bar owner about streaming the upcoming season of Thursday Night Football on Amazon Prime Video.









Thursday Night Football: Will You Need Amazon Prime? - The TV Answer Man!


TV Answer Man, I am a bar owner in Kansas City and I see the first Thursday Night Football game this year is the Chargers and Chiefs. I know the game is on Amazon so how am I going to show it in my bar? Do you have to have Amazon to watch it? Streaming […]




tvanswerman.com





From the sound of this guy, I suspect there will be a lot of unhappy sports bar owners if Amazon doesn't provide them an alternate way to buy access to their games. Not that Amazon would necessarily care, mind you...


----------



## harsh

I'm not sure there was a response to the question buried in Swanni's reply.

If the establishments aren't already using distribution systems, they need to get with the program.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

NashGuy said:


> Somewhat relevant to the original topic of this thread, i.e. Sunday Ticket streaming via Apple, is today's post by The TV Answer Guy, where he takes a question from a sports bar owner about streaming the upcoming season of Thursday Night Football on Amazon Prime Video.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thursday Night Football: Will You Need Amazon Prime? - The TV Answer Man!
> 
> 
> TV Answer Man, I am a bar owner in Kansas City and I see the first Thursday Night Football game this year is the Chargers and Chiefs. I know the game is on Amazon so how am I going to show it in my bar? Do you have to have Amazon to watch it? Streaming […]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tvanswerman.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the sound of this guy, I suspect there will be a lot of unhappy sports bar owners if Amazon doesn't provide them an alternate way to buy access to their games. Not that Amazon would necessarily care, mind you...


and it sounds like that sports bar is thinking about useing an home account for that.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> I'm not sure there was a response to the question buried in Swanni's reply.


To that specific person's question it took a few paragraphs of skimming to find the answer:

"But there is some good news here. In the markets where the teams are located, one local channel will carry the game. That means you won’t have to stream Amazon in Kansas City and San Diego. You will be able to see the game on a local network affiliate via an antenna or pay TV service."

For out of market bars trying to show the Thursday Night game, streaming (whether licensed for public viewing or not) seems to be the only option. Does Amazon care? Will Amazon or the NFL try to enforce residential viewing only rules? I believe the NFL will enforce residential only if Sunday Ticket is not officially available to commercial establishments.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> For out of market bars trying to show the Thursday Night game, streaming (whether licensed for public viewing or not) seems to be the only option. Does Amazon care? Will Amazon or the NFL try to enforce residential viewing only rules? I believe the NFL will enforce residential only if Sunday Ticket is not officially available to commercial establishments.


Yup. But as I said last year, let's see what happens this fall with out-of-market TNF games in sports bars. That should be a good indicator of what may happen with NFLST next year. (Well, at least, if we see Amazon make alternate arrangements for sports bars to show TNF, e.g. via DirecTV, then I'd say that will set a precedent for what happens later with NFLST.)


----------



## James Long

It would be easier for Amazon to make an arrangement for one game per week than for several overlapping Sunday games but is the Thursday night game that important? I believe the decision could go either way for both offerings.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> To that specific person's question it took a few paragraphs of skimming to find the answer:


Alas that doesn't answer the more general question about what establishment operators are going to have to do in general.


----------



## B. Shoe

James Long said:


> It would be easier for Amazon to make an arrangement for one game per week than for several overlapping Sunday games but is the Thursday night game that important? I believe the decision could go either way for both offerings.


Yes, the Thursday night game is that important.


----------



## wmb

This might have some relevance here, since about 1/3 of MLS owners are also NFL owners. It also goes to Apple going big on sports. Supposedly $2.5 billion for 10 years.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1536740439272849411

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SamC

I do not understand this deal at all. The $$ just do not make sense. This is the whole rights deal, yes, but this is a league that is getting 0.3 or so on broadcast TV and a third of that on "cable" channels. I do not have access to what the teams get on local TV and RSNs, but I cannot imagine its much. The number of subscribers to the "Direct Kick" out of market package is a handful.


----------



## NashGuy

wmb said:


> This might have some relevance here, since about 1/3 of MLS owners are also NFL owners. It also goes to Apple going big on sports. Supposedly $2.5 billion for 10 years.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1536740439272849411


So this news about a new MLS-specific direct-to-consumer streaming service, offered by Apple, is a great illustration of the thesis I've repeatedly laid out about the future of sports broadcasting. To recap, I think we're going to see the vast majority of popular sports' regular season games be sold through services dedicated to a particular sport/league/team. This may be done directly by the owner of the league/team or, as in this case, through a powerful third party such as Apple to help improve the service's distribution/reach. This kind of service is intended to reach serious fans of that particular sport/league/team.

However, a sprinkling of the sport's regular season games, as well as most of its playoff/championship games, will instead be included on a major general entertainment streaming service -- this is the level/type of sports content that can appeal to casual fans, many of whom will want to subscribe to that service anyhow.

And this appears to be exactly what will happen here. To see most MLS matches, you'll need to specifically pay for the forthcoming Apple-branded MLS service, which will be offered inside the Apple TV app. (My guess is that it will simply be another of the so-called a la carte "Apple TV Channels," which currently include the likes of Showtime, Cinemax, AMC+, PBS Living, BritBox, etc.) But select MLS matches will be offered as part of the main Apple TV+ service, which of course mainly features a variety of Apple Original series like Ted Lasso and Severance as well as various original feature films, documentaries, kids' shows, plus other select live sports like Friday Night MLB.


----------



## wmb

SamC said:


> I do not understand this deal at all. The $$ just do not make sense. This is the whole rights deal, yes, but this is a league that is getting 0.3 or so on broadcast TV and a third of that on "cable" channels. I do not have access to what the teams get on local TV and RSNs, but I cannot imagine its much. The number of subscribers to the "Direct Kick" out of market package is a handful.


It’s looking like Apple is getting streaming right for everything… in market, out of market and international.

The league appears to still be able to sell linear broadcast rights, and expects to have ESPN and Univision broadcast national games. Local rights for teams is a mixed bag… some OTA, some RSN, some none, but most teams make little off local rights. 

I’d be surprised if there are any Direct Kick customers today… ESPN+ includes out of market MLS. I guess the 7 or so remaining DirecTV customers that are MLS fans maybe subscribe to it. MLS fans tend to be younger than the other leagues, so more likely to stream?!?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NashGuy

NashGuy said:


> And this appears to be exactly what will happen here. To see most MLS matches, you'll need to specifically pay for the forthcoming Apple-branded MLS service, which will be offered inside the Apple TV app. (My guess is that it will simply be another of the so-called a la carte "Apple TV Channels," which currently include the likes of Showtime, Cinemax, AMC+, PBS Living, BritBox, etc.) But select MLS matches will be offered as part of the main Apple TV+ service, which of course mainly features a variety of Apple Original series like Ted Lasso and Severance as well as various original feature films, documentaries, kids' shows, plus other select live sports like Friday Night MLB.


From the latest I'm reading, it sounds like a subscription to Apple's MLS service will _not_ require a subscription to Apple TV+, the same as is true of existing Apple TV Channels. But it also sounds like that service will include access to _all_ MLS matches, including whichever ones Apple decides to also stream as part of Apple TV+. This is a surprisingly pro-consumer move, IMO. I'd have expected any specific match to be featured only on one service or the other. Or perhaps for the MLS service to be an add-on requiring Apple TV+, making the distinction unimportant to those buying the MLS service.

Makes me wonder if my prediction is correct that NFL Sunday Ticket, should Apple be the distributor, will necessarily include an Apple TV+ subscription. I still tend to think so, given that it can be bought on its own for just $50/yr and I expect NFLST to cost significantly more than that. Wonder how much the MLS service might cost though?


----------



## NashGuy

wmb said:


> It’s looking like Apple is getting streaming right for everything… in market, out of market and international.
> 
> The league appears to still be able to sell linear broadcast rights, and expects to have ESPN and Univision broadcast national games. Local rights for teams is a mixed bag… some OTA, some RSN, some none, but most teams make little off local rights.


Yes, OTT/DTC sports rights are a separate thing versus traditional TV (broadcast/cable) rights. In some cases, they're sold together, although in this new case with MLS, they're being sold separately. The recent new decade-long deal the NFL struck with various distributors -- Paramount/CBS, NBCUniversal, Disney/ESPN, Fox, Amazon -- include both. In the case of Amazon, it appears that they won't exercise the traditional rights, just the OTT/DTC rights.

The opposite appears to be the case with Fox, at least so far. They don't own a subscription OTT/DTC service, just a free ad-supported one (Tubi). And they don't want to undercut the value of their Fox broadcast network, which fetches lots of retrans money from MVPD subscriptions, by live streaming their local Sunday afternoon NFL games for free on Tubi. But I wonder how long Fox will resist monetizing those streaming rights. So far, I think their thinking is that they want to keep those games exclusive to their broadcast network to prop up those cable retrans fees charged by Fox affiliates (only some of which are directly owned by Fox). But the reality is that more and more Americans cut the cord every year and most of those folks, if they care to bother with an OTA antenna, could watch Fox's Sunday NFL games live for the low monthly cost of $0.00. So I don't think that Fox's logic really holds. They would increase, not decrease, their overall profits if they met an increasing number of consumers where they are and allowed them to pay to live stream their NFL games.

I guess it's _possible_ that Fox could launch a little NFL-only subscription tier to Tubi. Maybe you'd have to buy the entire season, with the price dropping gradually as the season progresses? But it would be simpler, and probably more lucrative for Fox, and therefore just more plausible all the way around, if Fox just sold the OTT/DTC rights to their local NFL games to a deep-pocketed third party. Like Apple. Or Amazon. Or, who knows, maybe Disney/ESPN+.


----------



## glrush

Meanwhile, Apple has been subpoenaed in the anti-trust lawsuit involving DirecTV and the NFL even though they do not currently even own the rights to any NFL games. 

Maybe someone who is knowledgeable in the law can explain why this subpoena is even valid and why it shouldn't be tossed by the judge.

Apple fights NFL Sunday Ticket plaintiffs over antitrust subpoena | Reuters


----------



## harsh

Someone is barking up the wrong tree in trying to pry out NDA-covered negotiation details.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

glrush said:


> Meanwhile, Apple has been subpoenaed in the anti-trust lawsuit involving DirecTV and the NFL even though they do not currently even own the rights to any NFL games.
> 
> Maybe someone who is knowledgeable in the law can explain why this subpoena is even valid and why it shouldn't be tossed by the judge.


Now will any teams want to get into the MIX (Say X team wants to be able to sell there own games out of market on there own?)
Teams want the NFL to have an ONE team choice like how the MLB , NBA , NHL has for there out of market packages?



NashGuy said:


> So this news about a new MLS-specific direct-to-consumer streaming service, offered by Apple, is a great illustration of the thesis I've repeatedly laid out about the future of sports broadcasting. To recap, I think we're going to see the vast majority of popular sports' regular season games be sold through services dedicated to a particular sport/league/team. This may be done directly by the owner of the league/team or, as in this case, through a powerful third party such as Apple to help improve the service's distribution/reach. This kind of service is intended to reach serious fans of that particular sport/league/team.


Now how much can the league take away from the team's with out running in to anti-trust issues or Sherman Act issues ?






American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## NashGuy

JoeTheDragon said:


> Now how much can the league take away from the team's with out running in to anti-trust issues or Sherman Act issues ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


The Supreme Court found in that decision that individual NFL teams are separate economic actors. But clearly the league can and does negotiate broadcast deals on behalf of all NFL teams, apparently with the legal consent of all the league's individual teams.

I don't know how other leagues are legally structured. Well, I do know that individual MLB teams are very much independent actors -- teams are individually owned and can make individual decisions with regard to TV streaming rights unless they cede those rights to the league. With the much newer Major League Soccer, IDK. What we do know is that the MLS was able to pull off a historic, sweeping deal with Apple for a new DTC service that will include both in-market _and_ out-of-market games with no blackouts. Really great for MLS fans. (Meanwhile, MLS will continue to sell traditional broadcast TV rights too, completely separate from the Apple deal.)

It's looking like streaming of MLB in-market games is going to be a bit of a messy, piecemeal affair. So far, there are five or so teams that have sold those rights to Sinclair/Bally Sports to be part of their new DTC app launching this summer. It's expected that the Cubs may work with them to have their own separate DTC app, given that they already co-own with them their separate Marquee regional sports net on cable. My guess would be that the Yankee and maybe one or two other popular, rich MLB teams would also launch their own DTC app. And the Boston Red Sox have sold their DTC streaming rights to NESN, who just launched their new app.

As for the rest of the teams in the league, I think most/all of them end up selling their DTC streaming rights to the league itself. Why not? They already have a great app, MLB.tv, that streams out-of-market games for the entire league. It's always made the most sense to me that that same service would eventually sell in-market games too.

I predict that the next thing we see happen is the bankruptcy of Sinclair's Diamond Sports division in a couple years, which will mean that those MLB teams that have signed on with them (Brewers, Tigers, Royals, Marlins, Rays) will end up being released from that deal and will end up just joining the league's service in the MLB.tv app. The economics of the whole RSN model are very unstable right now and I think Sinclair overextended themselves with the purchase of all those former Fox RSNs which now constitute Diamond Sports. And, of course, since they hold both the broadcast _and_ DTC streaming rights to a whole bunch of NBA and NHL teams too, that means that a hypothetical future collapse of Diamond/Bally Sports would mean the NBA and NHL would probably follow MLB's lead in offering their own DTC app. Again, might be one or two of the biggest teams who insist on their own app but the vast majority would participate in the league solution. The NBA already has an app for out-of-market games, so they'd just extend that to handle in-market games too (same as the MLB will do). The NHL sold their out-of-market rights to ESPN+. So, who knows, they might work with them again to create an ESPN-branded NHL in-market games service, either as its own app or as an add-on to ESPN+.

EDIT: To extend the prediction above, perhaps we'd see the MLB and NBA form a JV production company that would buy the assets of a bankrupt Diamond Sports from Sinclair, giving them the instant talent, equipment and contracts necessary to produce and air live games for all the MLB and NBA teams that currently air on Diamond's various RSNs. But each league would sell their own in-market and out-of-market viewing packages, both via DTC streaming as well as on traditional cable TV. Meanwhile, those MLB and NBA teams already affiliated with non-Diamond RSNs might see those relationships continue on for awhile, at least for in-market games on the traditional TV side.


----------



## wmb

NashGuy said:


> With the much newer Major League Soccer, IDK. What we do know is that the MLS was able to pull off a historic, sweeping deal with Apple for a new DTC service that will include both in-market _and_ out-of-market games with no blackouts. Really great for MLS fans. (Meanwhile, MLS will continue to sell traditional broadcast TV rights too, completely separate from the Apple deal.)


From an ownership standpoint, Major League Soccer is a strange beast. The league is a single entity and owns all of the teams. The league has investor/operators who operate the individual teams. The investor/operators perform from office tasks, hire coaching staff, and those types of activities. All players are under contract to the league, not the teams.

The main point of the single entity was to control player costs. There was a memory of spiraling players salaries that killed off the North American Soccer League (NASL) of the 1970s. Owners wanted to prevent that and give the league some ability to grow.

MLS also owned Soccer United Marketing (SUM) that licensed the rights for both MLS and the United States Soccer Federation (USSF)… the US men’s and women’s national teams.

Creation of a Division 1 professional soccer league was a condition of the US getting the 1994 World Cup. It’s really been the past decade that MLS has grown. It was a board vote away from dissolution in the late 1990s/early 2000s. Todays, it’s one of the most competitive top flight leagues in the world, although many think the quality of play is not as good as the top European leagues.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_v._Major_League_Soccer





https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soccer_United_Marketing




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalku


----------



## NashGuy

NashGuy said:


> I guess it's _possible_ that Fox could launch a little NFL-only subscription tier to Tubi. Maybe you'd have to buy the entire season, with the price dropping gradually as the season progresses? But it would be simpler, and probably more lucrative for Fox, and therefore just more plausible all the way around, if Fox just sold the OTT/DTC rights to their local NFL games to a deep-pocketed third party. Like Apple. Or Amazon. Or, who knows, maybe Disney/ESPN+.


Another possibility just occurred to me: perhaps in the next few years we'll see Fox sell a Tubi Sports Premium subscription tier inside the otherwise free Tubi app that will be home to _all_ of the live sports that Fox carries across their various channels: Fox, FS1, FS2, and Big 10 Network. Or, at least, all of the live sports for which they have the contractual rights to offer via a DTC OTT service. That certainly includes those Sunday NFL games and I would imagine at least some, probably most, of the other sports they air across those four networks. Last year Tubi launched a "Sports on Tubi" section in the free app but it's just low-value stuff like highlights, replays, talk, etc. Why not offer a paid upgrade tier to Sports on Tubi? And, while we're at it, why not also offer in-app sports betting?

I do think the long-term playbook for the Fox broadcast network is that at least the most recent 5 episodes of all of its non-sports content will eventually stream on-demand for free in Tubi, just as has been the case with The CW for years. I even think that eventually Tubi will offer a live stream of the Fox network, except for sports. They're not going to give away that expensive live sports content. Yet as cable subscriptions continue to collapse, they'll need a way to sell that content to cord-cutters. So the hypothetical "Tubi Sports Premium" add-on, which might sell for $5/mo, would essentially give Fox a way to bring all their sports content direct to consumers apart from the traditional cable channel bundle. Meanwhile, they would package a live stream of their Fox News and Fox Business cable channels inside the existing Fox Nation DTC app. So that would be the way that they sell that content apart from the cable bundle.

A few years ago, back when Fox still included the 20th Century Fox studios/brand, the overall "Fox" brand was broader than it is today. Increasingly, consumers now understand "Fox" to be shorthand for "Fox News." Which in an increasingly politically polarized country is NOT good for the Fox broadcast network and the Fox Sports cable nets, which try to have pretty much nothing to do with divisive politics and instead appeal to as broad a group of viewers as they can. So it honestly wouldn't shock me if the Fox Corp. made the business decision to change the name of the Fox broadcast network at some point to Tubi TV. And likewise change the names of the sports nets, FS1 and FS2, to Tubi Sports 1 and Tubi Sports 2. It sounds a bit crazy, I know, but the Tubi app is a big growth area for them and represents a fresh new brand that doesn't carry the divisive political baggage that the old Fox brand now does.


----------



## glrush

Disney, Apple and Amazon keep waiting as NFL considers Sunday Ticket offers (cnbc.com)


----------



## TheRatPatrol

glrush said:


> Disney, Apple and Amazon keep waiting as NFL considers Sunday Ticket offers (cnbc.com)





> When the NFL signed contracts with CBS and Fox, the deals included language that mandates Sunday Ticket have a premium price so as not to pull too many eyeballs away from the local market Sunday afternoon games acquired by the broadcast networks, three of the people said.
> 
> That means any owner of Sunday Ticket rights won’t be able to significantly lower the price on the out-of-market package, which typically costs about $300 per year. It also prevents an existing streaming service, such as ESPN+, to simply add in Sunday Ticket at little or no extra cost to boost subscribers.


This is what I was worried about. Although you don’t need an additional D* subscription in order to get it, I wonder how many people are going to subscribe to it if it’s still at a premium price?


----------



## harsh

If someone is a fan, how likely are they to substitute the local faire?


----------



## wmb

harsh said:


> If someone is a fan, how likely are they to substitute the local faire?


Isn’t this the problem, though? There is some indication based on DirecTV’s experience. As a premium product, that was about 2 million people. The product was available the past few years through streaming for people without line of sight for satellites.

Relatively speaking, a DirecTV subscription was a relatively low cost of entry to be able to get Sunday Ticket… it was not much different than a comparable cable subscription, even with the fees. Let’s face it, cable has similar fees.

It’s clearly a question of how many fans of out-of-market teams or want to pay to watch about 10 to 12 Sunday afternoon game that aren’t already doing so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh

wmb said:


> Relatively speaking, a DirecTV subscription was a relatively low cost of entry to be able to get Sunday Ticket… it was not much different than a comparable cable subscription, even with the fees. Let’s face it, cable has similar fees.


There's nothing relatively low cost about what DIRECTV DBS satellite customers pay for service. Paying $1,200+ per year to have access to Sunday Ticket is a high bar.

The alternatives aren't just cable or DISH subscriptions. They are OTT services as well as targeted streaming services.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> Paying $1,200+ per year to have access to Sunday Ticket is a high bar.


Are you assuming that people are paying $75 more for DIRECTV without ST than any other provider?


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Are you assuming that people are paying $75 more for DIRECTV without ST than any other provider?


I'm assuming only that most people who are interested and can afford NFLST don't qualify for the non-DIRECTV version so the likelihood is high that a qualifying DIRECTV DBS subscription is required. The average cost of that will likely be well in excess of $1,200 per year when you include either the second year or the $240 ETF. For the few that do qualify, I doubt they'll tip the average substantially.

It doesn't make a bit of difference what other providers one may subscribe to this season (2022-23).

What happens going forward is a mystery. It seems certain to me that there won't be thousands of DIRECTV DBS subscribers being gifted NFLST in the 2023-24 season as appears to be the case for the coming season.

It is certainly possible that the DIRECTV DBS ARPU has plummeted but I doubt it.


----------



## James Long

The point is that ST is a $300 annual purchase, $400 if one wants max. Lumping in the cost of DIRECTV service to claim that the cost of ST is $1200 is deceitful. One gets other benefits for that $75 per month charge. And now you want to lump in the ETF for the second year? Why not add in the cost of electricity for the entire home for the full year? Why not add in the cost of other utilities? While one is exaggerating the cost of viewing ST one might as well add in their rent or mortgage payments and property taxes. And why stop there? Add in the cost of food and beverages. Take the entire household budget and claim that it is the cost of having Sunday Ticket.

The other costs that would have been paid whether or not the subscriber has Sunday Ticket should not be included in one's estimate of how much it costs to have Sunday Ticket. While this year and for the past several years a DIRECTV subscription has been required for most subscribers to get Sunday Ticket that subscription has stand alone value and replaces other MVPD subscriptions. That $75/mo you are adding would still be paid to DIRECTV or another service if one didn't subscribe to ST.

Honest debate is good but it begins with being honest when presenting information. ST does not cost $1200 per year.


----------



## MCHuf

James Long said:


> The point is that ST is a $300 annual purchase, $400 if one wants max. Lumping in the cost of DIRECTV service to claim that the cost of ST is $1200 is deceitful. One gets other benefits for that $75 per month charge. And now you want to lump in the ETF for the second year? Why not add in the cost of electricity for the entire home for the full year? Why not add in the cost of other utilities? While one is exaggerating the cost of viewing ST one might as well add in their rent or mortgage payments and property taxes. And why stop there? Add in the cost of food and beverages. Take the entire household budget and claim that it is the cost of having Sunday Ticket.
> 
> The other costs that would have been paid whether or not the subscriber has Sunday Ticket should not be included in one's estimate of how much it costs to have Sunday Ticket. While this year and for the past several years a DIRECTV subscription has been required for most subscribers to get Sunday Ticket that subscription has stand alone value and replaces other MVPD subscriptions. That $75/mo you are adding would still be paid to DIRECTV or another service if one didn't subscribe to ST.
> 
> Honest debate is good but it begins with being honest when presenting information. ST does not cost $1200 per year.


You have to count the Direct TV subscription though. Not everyone who wants Sunday Ticket has or even wants a pay tv package. And many who do want a pay tv service can get a lower tier cable tv plus internet service package for the same price or lower than Direct TV by itself. And then there is just internet with a streaming pay tv service which is whole lot cheaper. So a Direct TV subscription is currently the cost of entry to get Sunday Ticket. Having an Apple TV+ subscription would be a much better entry point to sub to Sunday Ticket.


----------



## AZ.

MCHuf said:


> You have to count the Direct TV subscription though. Not everyone who wants Sunday Ticket has or even wants a pay tv package. And many who do want a pay tv service can get a lower tier cable tv plus internet service package for the same price or lower than Direct TV by itself. And then there is just internet with a streaming pay tv service which is whole lot cheaper. So a Direct TV subscription is currently the cost of entry to get Sunday Ticket. Having an Apple TV+ subscription would be a much better entry point to sub to Sunday Ticket.


And that is why they will charge more...


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Honest debate is good but it begins with being honest when presenting information. ST does not cost $1200 per year.


Yet to get it this season will require an average $1,200 investment (regardless of what you get out of it) and that's a high bar.


----------



## b4pjoe

It is not like you are writing DirecTV a $1,200 check just to be able to buy NFL ST. You are actually getting a very good service for that $1,200. Yes a premium service at a premium price. The majority of DirecTV subscribers pay for that premium service and don't buy NFL ST. I imagine you could count on one hand the number of people that only buy DirecTV and not use it just so they can also buy NFL ST.


----------



## B. Shoe

While you guys are trying to figure out what something "actually" costs, here's some an article from Front Row Sports that includes a tidbit of information that I wasn't aware about. Maybe you were, but it's news to me:



> Contractual agreements with Fox and CBS prevent the eventual owner of Sunday Ticket from reducing the price too much below the current $300 annual cost.


Based on the article's information, it sounds like NFLST will still be somewhere near, or above, that $300 base package price.


----------



## b4pjoe

I think it is a safe bet it will be more than that if Apple pays what is rumored. LOL at people that thought their $4.99 per month for Apple TV+ would give them NFL ST.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

b4pjoe said:


> I think it is a safe bet it will be more than that if Apple pays what is rumored. LOL at people that thought their $4.99 per month for Apple TV+ would give them NFL ST.


Or with their $129 yearly Amazon Prime subscription.


----------



## wmb

b4pjoe said:


> I think it is a safe bet it will be more than that if Apple pays what is rumored. LOL at people that thought their $4.99 per month for Apple TV+ would give them NFL ST.


Apple already said they were charging for the MLS package next year. However, it’ll be free for season ticket holders.

I’m guessing that Apple may offer promotions like a discounted or free season with purchase of an iPhone, or other hardware. If that’s the case, people could upgrade a phone in their family every year to keep the promotion. People used to upgrade with that frequency anyway.

The other issue is application of the cost of a DirecTV subscription to get Sunday ticket… my approach would be difference between the cost of a DirecTV package and comparable package from another provider… my suspicion is the majority of ST subscribers would be pay TV subscribers regardless. The fair comparison is between what someone would pay total for the service with and without ST. More of a marginal cost for ST approach. DirecTV is more expensive than cable, but not $100 a month more. It may be $10-20 a month more, but I doubt it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long

B. Shoe said:


> While you guys are trying to figure out what something "actually" costs, here's some an article from Front Row Sports that includes a tidbit of information that I wasn't aware about. Maybe you were, but it's news to me:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contractual agreements with Fox and CBS prevent the eventual owner of Sunday Ticket from reducing the price too much below the current $300 annual cost.
> 
> 
> 
> Based on the article's information, it sounds like NFLST will still be somewhere near, or above, that $300 base package price.
Click to expand...

Assuming their unnamed insiders are correct and there is some sort of collusion to set a minimum rate.  The concept has been mentioned before and that makes me wonder if unnamed sources are hearsay from the Internet.

In any case, I doubt that more than an insignificant number of subscribers would not continue to subscribe to DIRECTV or some other MVPD to watch other content once Sunday Ticket leaves DIRECTV. And even if one assumes that a person exists who never watches anything else on DIRECTV except Sunday Ticket and they maintain a subscription that costs $900 per year and never watch any other content we are certainly speaking of a unique case. (And that person should pause their account during the non-NFL months and subscribe to the minimum DIRECTV service - which would add up to less than $900.) The bar that must be cleared is to pay DIRECTV instead of another MVPD.

And if there is a "must charge $300 per month" rule how does DIRECTV get away with giving away ST for free? It has been a new customer offer for many years and free Sunday Ticket has also been given to existing customers. It seems that the facts present conflict with the claim made.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> (And that person should pause their account during the non-NFL months and subscribe to the minimum DIRECTV service - which would add up to less than $900.)


Pausing the account isn't the answer for those under a programming commitment:

 Any commitment you may be under extends by the duration of the pause
 The promotional discount clock doesn't stop when you pause so if you're on for six months and suspend for six months, your discounts are exhausted when you come back.
I think #2 may be new as I recall that the promotional discounts used to be removed upon an account suspension. I think the $7/month suspension fee may be new as well.


----------



## compnurd

James Long said:


> Assuming their unnamed insiders are correct and there is some sort of collusion to set a minimum rate.  The concept has been mentioned before and that makes me wonder if unnamed sources are hearsay from the Internet.
> 
> In any case, I doubt that more than an insignificant number of subscribers would not continue to subscribe to DIRECTV or some other MVPD to watch other content once Sunday Ticket leaves DIRECTV. And even if one assumes that a person exists who never watches anything else on DIRECTV except Sunday Ticket and they maintain a subscription that costs $900 per year and never watch any other content we are certainly speaking of a unique case. (And that person should pause their account during the non-NFL months and subscribe to the minimum DIRECTV service - which would add up to less than $900.) The bar that must be cleared is to pay DIRECTV instead of another MVPD.
> 
> And if there is a "must charge $300 per month" rule how does DIRECTV get away with giving away ST for free? It has been a new customer offer for many years and free Sunday Ticket has also been given to existing customers. It seems that the facts present conflict with the claim made.


I think the one article was clear the 300 dollar rule came from a stipulation from there new broadcast contracts


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> [*] Any commitment you may be under extends by the duration of the pause.


So your two year commitment becomes a four season commitment. One gives up $240 in discounts with a six month pause but end up saving the rest of the cost of a subscription package ... and DIRECTV isn't stingy with the discounts!

So year one ... Sign up for Choice with free NFL ST and $40 per month discount. Pause after six months. Six months later restore service and if DIRECTV doesn't offer free NFL ST drop down to the lowest possible package. Repeat the process. Instead of doing the math to see how much one can pay without allegedly watching ANY other content than NFL ST do the math to see how little one could pay. 

This year (since there are not four seasons left on DIRECTV) sign up with a "Free NFL ST" deal for $70 per month - make sure you cancel any of the free HBO or other promos before they add to the bill. Then pay the $360 ETF six months from now. Total cost $780 ... not $1200. Unless you're claiming that DIRECTV will charge $70 per month in fees.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> So your two year commitment becomes a four season commitment.


The hitch with this reasoning is that there's little reason to believe that DIRECTV will be necessary (or even desirable) for NFLST beyond the coming season. I'm pretty confident that DIRECTV won't be giving away NFLST come next year (as opposed to giving it away to many this year).


----------



## James Long

Sure ... Now read the rest of the post instead of cherry picking.

The claim that people are paying $1200 just for NFL ST is obnoxiously false.


----------



## NashGuy

If the NFL doesn't fetch the crazy billions they're hoping to land from deep-pocketed tech gods for the next NFLST contract, could they drop a nuclear bomb on the American TV landscape and offer NFLST via their own DTC NFL+ app? Might they even drop the local blackout rule and include _local games_ as MLS just did in their historic deal with Apple?









Would The NFL Bring Sunday Ticket In-House? And How Much Could That Harm Linear TV? — TVREV


An interesting note around NFL Sunday Ticket negotiations… what if the service heads to NFL+? And how much harm could that do to the rest of the TV ecosystem?




www.tvrev.com





I'm not looking for such an outcome to happen. But if it did, boy, that would fast forward us at least a couple years on our current trajectory toward the inevitable demise of the linear channel pay TV bundle system.


----------



## James Long

In support of that suggestion I am reminded that in market streamed games were allowed via Verizon's service. But as streaming grows it has a greater impact on broadcast and cable TV. I assume that the broadcasters who just renewed their agreements have seen the current marketplace and would see such streaming as a threat. Blocking in market streaming of games would be higher on their list now than it was 20 years ago.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> In support of that suggestion I am reminded that in market streamed games were allowed via Verizon's service. But as streaming grows it has a greater impact on broadcast and cable TV. I assume that the broadcasters who just renewed their agreements have seen the current marketplace and would see such streaming as a threat. Blocking in market streaming of games would be higher on their list now than it was 20 years ago.


Oh, if the NFL included _in market_ streaming of games in NFLST, I have to think there would be a big fat lawsuit filed against them by Paramount/CBS and Fox. The NFL's lawyers have to know this. Maybe there's some clever out that they left themselves in the new contracts they signed with those two broadcasters? (But then we have to assume that Paramount and Fox have good lawyers too.) More likely, should this scenario happen, the NFL would just pony up some amount to pay off Paramount and Fox to share in-market streaming rights for their local games, so that the games can be sold and streamed on their own NFLST/NFL+ as well as CBS/Paramount+ and Fox/Tubi. But _out-of-market_ games would be exclusive to NFLST/NFL+. (And then there's the separate issue of those existing contracts for the national Sunday, Monday and Thursday night games; I can't imagine that any of those would end up becoming available on an exclusive or shared basis inside NFLST/NFL+ this decade as opposed to remaining exclusive to NBCU, Disney and Amazon, respectively. But the further we peer into the future, the more difficult it is to make predictions about how any of this might shake out, so who knows.)


----------



## James Long

The good news is we only have a few more months to look. The final DIRECTV exclusive season starts soon. I expect an answer before the end of the season.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> The good news is we only have a few more months to look. The final DIRECTV exclusive season starts soon. I expect an answer before the end of the season.


Yep. I expect DirecTV will once again this summer/fall do at least limited advertising for the service tied to the free, exclusive NFLST offer. It's quite possible that that will be the last marketing campaign ever done for a DirecTV-branded residential satellite TV service. We'll see...


----------



## glrush

Could NFL Sunday Ticket Do for Apple TV Plus What It Did for DirecTV? | Multichannel News (nexttv.com)


----------



## harsh

It doesn't seem reasonable to view NFLST as a loss leader for Apple as it was with DIRECTV.

Not having auditioned AppleTV+, I have to wonder if their "trick play" implementation is up to the task.


----------



## James Long

glrush said:


> Could NFL Sunday Ticket Do for Apple TV Plus What It Did for DirecTV? | Multichannel News (nexttv.com)


From the article ---
At Kagan, the media research unit of S&P Global Market Intelligence, research director Deana Myers believes the subscriber tally for Sunday Ticket is “well below” 2 million, and while she sees the package having some benefit to streamers, don’t count on it being too dramatic. 

“I think getting Sunday Ticket would likely put Apple TV Plus on the map, but not to the degree that it did for DirecTV,” Myers wrote in an email message. “Sunday Ticket’s value for DirecTV was that it drew a lot of really high-end subscribers who would sign up for the top packages. In the old, successful pay TV world that worked, but it loses a lot of money today for them. Apple could gain subs, they have the cash for such a deal, they have been buying a lot of sports rights and it could help them with their main goal of selling more devices.”


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> It doesn't seem reasonable to view NFLST as a loss leader for Apple as it was with DIRECTV.
> 
> Not having auditioned AppleTV+, I have to wonder if their "trick play" implementation is up to the task.


No slow-mo in the Apple TV app (or in streaming apps generally). But otherwise, trick play in live streaming apps can be pretty great. Peacock has it down pat. I haven't watched enough live MLB on Apple TV+ to recall how well they handle it yet...


----------



## NashGuy

Looks like Disney is rethinking plans to bring the entirety of ESPN direct-to-consumers via a standalone streaming service.



https://thestreamable.com/news/disney-has-reportedly-abandoned-plans-for-standalone-espn-streaming-service-what-does-this-mean-for-future-of-sports-streaming



Doesn't surprise me. For one, everyone is still (wrongly, IMO) freaking out a bit over Netflix's recent stumble seeing a net loss in global subs. But second -- and this very much is a real problem for Disney -- there's the question of how they could package and price all that ESPN content in a way that it could ever come close to bringing in as much profit as it has historically enjoyed by being part of the traditional cable bundle, where every cable TV sub in the nation pays for ESPN whether they want it or not. Once you break it out and make it optional, obviously a whole lot of Americans will choose not to pay for it.

But, sooner or later, direct-to-consumer streaming WILL fully replace and kill off the old commingled cable bundle system. It's just a question of how long it takes. I suspect that the best hand Disney has to play may be to either sell/spin off ESPN completely.

Second option would be to incorporate their most popular sport rights (e.g. NFL/Monday Night Football, College Football Championship, PGA Championship, Wimbledon, US Open, plus some or all of their national regular season MLB, NBA and NHL games) into a super-sized Disney+ which would at that point have swallowed Hulu to become Disney's full-on replacement for their core basic cable bundle with a variety of popular content aimed at young kids to adults.

But that would still leave a lot of their current sports rights outside of Disney+, mainly college sports. So they would offer one or more NCAA sports standalone DTC apps focused on SEC, ACC, Big 12, etc. football and whatever other college sports they hold the rights to. And then whatever other sports they have that don't go into either of those (e.g. a lot of the stuff currently in ESPN+) becomes a DTC "hodge-podge" standalone DTC sports app (probably still called ESPN+). And obviously, any of those separate sports services could be added to Disney+ at a discount with all that content integrated into that one app if the consumer chooses.

If Disney goes this route, they will need to think carefully about which sports contracts they bid on going forward and perhaps even whether they might sell off some of their current rights to try to slim down their portfolio. Maybe they decide they want to put all their national MLB games in Disney+ but try to sell their rights for national NBA and NHL games back to those leagues or to other companies (e.g. Apple, Amazon, Netflix, etc.). I'd also point out that they might retain traditional broadcast rights for a particular sport so that it can still air on their traditional ESPN and ABC linear channels while not holding the streaming rights for it.

The bottom line, I suspect, is that ESPN's most profitable "glory days" are behind them. It's going to take awhile for that fact to sink in for Disney leadership and shareholders. The same, I'd say, is true (for somewhat different reasons) of CNN. And it's not coincidental that ESPN and CNN are the two original core pillars of the cable channel bundle which is now unraveling.


----------



## harsh

Deanna Myers said:


> Apple could gain subs, they have the cash for such a deal, they have been buying a lot of sports rights and it could help them with their main goal of selling more devices.”


I'm not convinced that selling AppleTVs is the main goal of Apple's sports efforts. If, as used to be the case, they didn't offer apps for third party devices and TVs, this reasoning may hold but given that they do offer apps on most platforms, I don't see this as a tool for selling Apple hardware. I think Apple wants to be a contender in the sport streaming marketplace -- a market that they may be ill-prepared to serve.


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> Looks like Disney is rethinking plans to bring the entirety of ESPN direct-to-consumers via a standalone streaming service.


I think Disney is all too aware that sports can be a very seasonal thing and streaming is very sensitive to such things. They need something that is going to keep subscribers on the teat year-round.


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> I think Disney is all too aware that sports can be a very seasonal thing and streaming is very sensitive to such things. They need something that is going to keep subscribers on the teat year-round.


That's the problem with all content on streaming services, though. There's zero friction to drop and add any streaming service on a monthly basis. The only viable solutions, I think, are to have a variety of compelling content (including select popular sports) year-round, and spread it out week-by-week rather than doing Netflix-style full-season dumps that can be binged in a weekend. And second, offer discounts for subscribers who pre-pay the provider directly for a full year of service. Can't leave at that point, plus they're not having to give a cut of the fee to an app store middle-man biller like Apple, Google, etc.


----------



## wmb

NashGuy said:


> The bottom line, I suspect, is that ESPN's most profitable "glory days" are behind them. It's going to take awhile for that fact to sink in for Disney leadership and shareholders. The same, I'd say, is true (for somewhat different reasons) of CNN. And it's not coincidental that ESPN and CNN are the two original core pillars of the cable channel bundle which is now unraveling.


Sports are still immensely popular, and people will pay to watch them. I wouldn’t worry too much about ESPN.



harsh said:


> I think Disney is all too aware that sports can be a very seasonal thing and streaming is very sensitive to such things. They need something that is going to keep subscribers on the teat year-round.


Seasonality is a feature, not a bug. People who grow up playing sports are well aware of seasonality… football in the fall, basketball in winter, and on to baseball for the spring/summer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## b4pjoe

wmb said:


> Sports are still immensely popular, and people will pay to watch them. I wouldn’t worry too much about ESPN.


Yes but will they pay the full price now that charging people that don't watch sports is going away?


----------



## harsh

wmb said:


> Seasonality is a feature, not a bug. People who grow up playing sports are well aware of seasonality… football in the fall, basketball in winter, and on to baseball for the spring/summer.


That's great for the consumer but the content providers need a steady income and streaming is just too easy to drop.


----------



## James Long

b4pjoe said:


> wmb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sports are still immensely popular, and people will pay to watch them. I wouldn’t worry too much about ESPN.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but will they pay the full price now that charging people that don't watch sports is going away?
Click to expand...

Consumers are going to get sticker shock when ESPN unbundles from the MVPDs. ESPN gets a lot of income from non-viewers who are forced to buy ESPN as part of their basic package. Once only the people who want ESPN have to pay for the channels ESPN will need to figure out how to collect enough revenue to break even or cut costs to match their income. ESPN will stay in a MVPD bundle as long as possible.



harsh said:


> That's great for the consumer but the content providers need a steady income and streaming is just too easy to drop.


They simply need to get enough sports so there is something on their channel in every season. The other streamers probably should do the same. Fight the binge by not dumping entire seasons of a show at the same time and expiring off content. Encourage subscribers to stay by not having months that could be skipped and made up later (with the streamer losing income for months not subscribed).

Apple (or another provider) could use regular priced Sunday Ticket to get viewers comfortable with streaming. Since there is no $2000+ commitment to signing up for streaming I do not expect ST to be given away for free like DIRECTV did.


----------



## MCHuf

James Long said:


> Consumers are going to get sticker shock when ESPN unbundles from the MVPDs. ESPN gets a lot of income from non-viewers who are forced to buy ESPN as part of their basic package. Once only the people who want ESPN have to pay for the channels ESPN will need to figure out how to collect enough revenue to break even or cut costs to match their income. ESPN will stay in a MVPD bundle as long as possible.


Or ESPN (and others) could do something unheard of, and that would be to bid lower for content. If the true cost of a service is so high that they can't attract enough customers, then they have to cut costs somewhere. I don't think that Sinclair can get enough subscribers to their stand alone RSNs to make money. And I don't see ESPN or Fox Sports being able to charge that kind of money and be successful either. The ever rising payouts for sports (or all entertainment) will have to plateau if people balk at the prices. That's why people are leaving cable in the first place.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

NashGuy said:


> Looks like Disney is rethinking plans to bring the entirety of ESPN direct-to-consumers via a standalone streaming service.
> 
> https://thestreamable.com/news/disn...does-this-mean-for-future-of-sports-streaming


That link doesn’t work for me.


----------



## b4pjoe

Try this one: Disney Has Reportedly Abandoned Plans to Spinoff ESPN; What Does This Mean for Future of Sports Streaming?


----------



## wmb

James Long said:


> Consumers are going to get sticker shock when ESPN unbundles from the MVPDs. ESPN gets a lot of income from non-viewers who are forced to buy ESPN as part of their basic package. Once only the people who want ESPN have to pay for the channels ESPN will need to figure out how to collect enough revenue to break even or cut costs to match their income. ESPN will stay in a MVPD bundle as long as possible.


This is an old trope. It really isn’t true.

ESPN in the bundle is important to Disney, but it’s more important to the MVPD. Over 1/3 of MVPD subscribers watch ESPN at least once a week. It is also the most watched channel in prime time for 18-49 year olds, and second most watched cable channel overall. What happens to cable if they drop ESPN?

ESPN isn’t the problem with the bundle, and ESPN will do fine if MVPDs decide to drop them. For ESPN, they probably need a fee of $20 per month to match revenue lost from cable to total DTC model. A significant number (maybe 1/3?) of MVPD subscribers could drop the MVPD subscription, get ESPN DTC and save a lot of money.

The problem with the bundle is the 80+ channels that cost $0.10 to $0.50 per month that get watched by well less than 5% of the subscriber base. Most customers won’t miss these channels, yet they are still around. The cost of those channels that I never watch is more than twice the cost of ESPN.

Those are also the channels that wouldn’t survive outside the bundle. I doubt a stand alone Hallmark channel (around top 10) could survive in a DTC model. Imagine how IFC, Logo, or BET would fare?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh

wmb said:


> Over 1/3 of MVPD subscribers watch ESPN at least once a week. It is also the most watched channel in prime time for 18-49 year olds, and second most watched cable channel overall.


While there may be statistics that show this, I'm not buying it. The first problem is that the sample set is those who subscribe to MVPDs which is less reflective of the reality of modern TV viewing with every passing month. If 67% of those who "subscribe" aren't watching, that supports the idea that people probably wouldn't otherwise subscribe.


----------



## compnurd

NFL will select new Sunday Ticket partner by fall, Commissioner Roger Goodell says


The NFL plans to choose a winning bidder for Sunday Ticket by the fall, Commissioner Roger Goodell said Friday.




www.cnbc.com





Highlights.. New Company will be a Streaming Provider. Directv did not bid as we knew


----------



## wmb

harsh said:


> While there may be statistics that show this, I'm not buying it. The first problem is that the sample set is those who subscribe to MVPDs which is less reflective of the reality of modern TV viewing with every passing month. If 67% of those who "subscribe" aren't watching, that supports the idea that people probably wouldn't otherwise subscribe.


The big statistic is that people watch fewer than 20 of the 65/85/100/130/140+ channels in their cable package. This is the underlying problem. People don’t see the value of these packages. They use very little of them.

Right now, there are over 20 million ESPN+ subscribers. That’s just under 1/3 the current pay TV subscriber count. 

It’s hard to drop cable if you watch ESPN on a regular basis. All of the games on ESPN require authentication to watch in the ESPN app.

ESPN is one of the reasons people are keeping MVPD subscriptions, for now. What other network on an MVPD can the same be said of?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JoeTheDragon

compnurd said:


> NFL will select new Sunday Ticket partner by fall, Commissioner Roger Goodell says
> 
> 
> The NFL plans to choose a winning bidder for Sunday Ticket by the fall, Commissioner Roger Goodell said Friday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Highlights.. New Company will be a Streaming Provider. Directv did not bid as we knew


now will it be on directv and cable like the other sports?
now will it be on directv for commercial only with some like Joe Hand Promotions
what about non commercial homes for people who can't get good internet?

Will people have to get an Canadian sat dish in the USA to get it?


----------



## compnurd

JoeTheDragon said:


> now will it be on directv and cable like the other sports?
> now will it be on directv for commercial only with some like Joe Hand Promotions
> what about non commercial homes for people who can't get good internet?
> 
> Will people have to get an Canadian sat dish in the USA to get it?


What? It said none of that 

It won’t be on Directv or any cable provider as of this moment unless Apple/Disney or Amazon contracts it with them

It’s going to be on either Apple TV+. Amazon Prime Video or part of ESPN+


----------



## JoeTheDragon

compnurd said:


> ESPN+


if so they it may be 100% on directv for commercial only with Joe Hand Promotions


----------



## compnurd

JoeTheDragon said:


> if so they it may be 100% on directv for commercial only with Joe Hand Promotions


Again That will require a separate agreement.. ESPN could want 2 billion from Directv and they tell them to take a hike As the terms stand today it wont be on Directv period.. Commercial or Residential


----------



## glrush

I reached out to the author of the CNBC article on Twitter, and he told me that while DirecTV is NOT in negotiations with NFL regarding Sunday Ticket, DirecTV, it plans to reach out to the winner to "discuss ideas". 

Here is the question I asked and his answer on Twitter:

Question: "Is the potential for @DirecTV to continue to carry NFL Sunday Ticket and give the proceeds to the winning bidder (as mentioned in your article a couple weeks ago) still alive or is @DirecTV totally out after this season?"

Answer: "Unchanged. DTV isn’t negotiating with the league. It plans to discuss ideas with the winner, whenever one is named.


----------



## harsh

wmb said:


> ESPN is one of the reasons people are keeping MVPD subscriptions, for now. What other network on an MVPD can the same be said of?


In what way does this make ESPN's approach a good thing for the consumer?


----------



## harsh

compnurd said:


> Again That will require a separate agreement.. ESPN could want 2 billion from Directv and they tell them to take a hike


This is key. What DIRECTV hopes to do doesn't amount to a hill of beans. What they're offered, if anything, is entirely up to the winner.

I don't think there's any reason to assume that DIRECTV will get a better deal than anyone else.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose

You don’t need an AppleTV device to view Apple TV+


----------



## JoeTheDragon

When does the deal end with others like cable bahamas and other Caribbean cable systems?


----------



## compnurd

JoeTheDragon said:


> When does the deal end with others like cable bahamas and other Caribbean cable systems?


The deal ends period after this season for everyone


----------



## James Long

wmb said:


> What happens to cable if they drop ESPN?


You might as well say "what happens to cable when ESPN leaves". That is what is being suggested here ... ESPN walking away from offering their primary channels exclusively via MVPD contracts and selling direct to consumer. That breaks the partnership arrangement that ESPN has had since they launched the network. Do you believe that ESPN will be able to force MVPDs to pay the high prices of carriage AND lessen the value of their product by selling it separately?

I believe MVPDs faced with competing with a DTC offering will drop the rates they are willing to pay and let their customers subscribe direct to the ESPN channels if they are not offered a reasonable rate. I believe the only ones willing to pay will be the MVPDs who serve customers a DTC offering would not effectively serve. Or MVPDs willing to pass on higher prices to their subscribers until the last subscriber leaves for less expensive options.


----------



## James Long

compnurd said:


> ESPN could want 2 billion from Directv and they tell them to take a hike


Are you suggesting that ESPN+ on DIRECTV for Business is a flat rate where DIRECTV pays ESPN the same amount regardless of the number of business they serve?

If DIRECTV for Business is able to continue delivery of NFL ST I expect they will be paid a portion of the the subscription fee collected by whomever has the rights. A small portion - enough to cover their costs and little more. The negotiation will be how much of the subscription fee DIRECTV is paid for delivery.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

NFL Sunday Ticket Is “Moving To A Streaming Service” From DirecTV, Commissioner Roger Goodell Confirms; Deal Expected By This Fall


NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell confirmed longtime speculation that the league’s Sunday Ticket rights will be going to a streaming service after nearly 30 years on DirecTV. “I clearly believe …




deadline.com


----------



## NashGuy

wmb said:


> This is an old trope. It really isn’t true.
> 
> ESPN in the bundle is important to Disney, but it’s more important to the MVPD. Over 1/3 of MVPD subscribers watch ESPN at least once a week. It is also the most watched channel in prime time for 18-49 year olds, and second most watched cable channel overall. What happens to cable if they drop ESPN?
> 
> ESPN isn’t the problem with the bundle, and ESPN will do fine if MVPDs decide to drop them. For ESPN, they probably need a fee of $20 per month to match revenue lost from cable to total DTC model. A significant number (maybe 1/3?) of MVPD subscribers could drop the MVPD subscription, get ESPN DTC and save a lot of money.


Piecing together info from various sources, I estimate that all of the ESPN channels together account for about $13/mo out of the average cable TV bill. Let's imagine that suddenly cable TV disappears and now the only way to buy ESPN is through a direct-to-consumer standalone app. If only about 1/3 of cable TV customers care enough about ESPN to pay for it, then we can expect that those folks will be the only ones who might buy this standalone ESPN streaming service. But that means that ESPN will have lost 2/3 of their paying customers versus what they were getting when ESPN was a non-optional part of everyone's cable bundle! So to get the same amount of total revenue, the cost of this ESPN standalone service would need to be 3 x $13. Now how many of those former cable TV subscribers do you think love ESPN so much that they'll *pay $39 per month* for it?! So maybe instead of ESPN getting back 1/3 of their former subs, they get back only 1/4. But that means they'll need to charge 4 x $13, so $52 per month! Which, in turn, causes even more former ESPN fans to call it quits and walk away. See how this works?

This is why I say that ESPN's salad days are in the rearview mirror. I can't see any way that they'll ever be as profitable as they used to be as more and more US consumers ditch the cable bundle.

The cost to carry sports, especially big popular ones, is super-expensive. But even in the new direct-to-consumer (DTC) streaming era, companies can still get non-sports fans to subsidize the cost of a _limited_ amount of sports that they don't watch. I mean, obviously, Netflix carries all kinds of programming, most of which any one particular household never watches. This is how the economics of content bundling -- whether in the traditional cable bundle or the new DTC app paradigm -- works. You offer a buffet of varied content to appeal to a broad group of customers, but no one eats everything on the buffet.

But if a big general entertainment DTC service like Netflix, HBO Max, Disney+, Prime Video, Apple TV+, Paramount+ or Peacock is going to put live sports content into their service, they're going to want it to either be relatively cheap (e.g. foreign soccer, in order to pick up incremental subs who are big fans of that sport) or they're going to want it to be popular enough to pull in not just hard-core fans but also casual sports viewers (e.g. any NFL game, playoffs/championships for other major pro and college sports -- World Series, March Madness, Stanley Cup, College Football Playoffs -- plus Wimbledon, The Masters, Daytona 500, etc.). Because if they're spending big bucks on a game, they want it to appeal to as many of their customers as possible. If the cost of my streaming service bumps up a buck and they tell me it's to cover sports, _but I actually watch those sports_, well, I'm much less likely to balk at the price hike.

But what happens to all the other stuff, all those other expensive individual sporting events that don't appeal to a large enough number of viewers to allow them to be stuffed into a general entertainment DTC service? All those regular season MLB, NBA, NHL, and college sports games? Because those big DTC services aren't going to want to add all that stuff, making the same mistake that the cable bundle did, i.e. stuff way too much expensive sports content into the bundle and force it on all subs, whether they watch it or not, thereby driving up the price of the bundle so much that the non-sports-fans just cancel. Netflix, HBO Max, Disney+, Prime Video, etc. all have to be thinking about that. Because if they load up on too much sports and then pass those costs on to customers, well, some of those customers will shift to a cheaper competitor with less sports. It's very easy to drop Disney+ and replace it with HBO Max, or vice versa.

The only solution I see is for all that other sports content to get bundled into focused services that appeal to the hard-core fans of those sports. And they'll pay dearly to be able to watch all those games! How much, of course, remains to be seen. I think what we'll eventually see is that major sports leagues will have to settle for less total TV revenue, which will of course mean reduced costs (i.e. less ridiculous salaries for athletes) or reduced profits. I suspect it'll be some combination of all the above. But these economic adjustments will take years to work out, which gives all parties time to adjust to the new realities they face. Which is that cable TV was a bubble inflated by another bubble inside it -- televised sports -- which was inflated by another bubble inside it -- greedy athletes, team owners and leagues.


----------



## Sixto

More: Apple Reportedly 'Most Likely Winner' of NFL Sunday Ticket Rights, Considering Bid for UEFA Champions League Package


----------



## NashGuy

Sixto said:


> More: Apple Reportedly 'Most Likely Winner' of NFL Sunday Ticket Rights, Considering Bid for UEFA Champions League Package


Between Apple and Amazon, I've always thought Apple was the likelier winning bidder since Amazon is already shelling out $1 billion per year for Thursday Night Football. Because Amazon already has a key piece of the NFL, they'd get less incremental value from buying NFLST than would Apple, who has zero NFL content yet.

That said, I don't totally discount the idea that both Apple and Amazon balk at the price and walk away from the table, leaving the NFL to sell NFLST itself. Although I don't think that scenario is at all probable. Because I think Apple will be willing to pay at least _a little_ more for NFLST than what the NFL could actually earn off it via direct-to-consumer sales, i.e. Apple is willing to lose at least _a little_ money on it to burnish their brand and draw more subs to Apple TV+.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

NashGuy said:


> Between Apple and Amazon, I've always thought Apple was the likelier winning bidder since Amazon is already shelling out $1 billion per year for Thursday Night Football. Because Amazon already has a key piece of the NFL, they'd get less incremental value from buying NFLST than would Apple, who has zero NFL content yet.
> 
> That said, I don't totally discount the idea that both Apple and Amazon balk at the price and walk away from the table, leaving the NFL to sell NFLST itself. Although I don't think that scenario is at all probable. Because I think Apple will be willing to pay at least _a little_ more for NFLST than what the NFL could actually earn off it via direct-to-consumer sales, i.e. Apple is willing to lose at least _a little_ money on it to burnish their brand and draw more subs to Apple TV+.


Let's say the cost is very high and need to sell it like the other sports steaming + on cable / sat tv?
the nfl can have direct-to-consumer sales and let directv / dish / cable (indemand) sell it


----------



## B. Shoe

In the meanwhile, the 2022 slate has been updated on the big, bad NFL Sunday Ticket streaming app:


----------



## NashGuy

JoeTheDragon said:


> Let's say the cost is very high and need to sell it like the other sports steaming + on cable / sat tv?
> the nfl can have direct-to-consumer sales and let directv / dish / cable (indemand) sell it


Yes, that's possible. In fact, should the NFL end up selling it directly to consumers (via their own NFL app), I see no reason why they wouldn't also seek non-exclusive distribution partners (cable and satellite operators and maybe streaming partners too) who would be resellers and billers and just take a cut of the take, much the same way that the MLB's and NBA's out-of-market packages already work.

But, as I say, I tend to think it's more likely that Apple or Amazon (probably Apple) will give the NFL more for NFLST than it's actually worth on its own, i.e. they'll be willing to lose money on it to further some larger business goal they have. That's the way it always worked with DirecTV, _n'est-ce pas_?


----------



## James Long

I doubt that whomever gets NFL ST will be able to resell it via other systems, with the possible exception of distribution to businesses (eg: ESPN+ for business sold via DIRECTV). I don't believe the NFL wants to take the risk on selling NFLST via every platform (they want billions whether or not the end service is viable). Having a partner who could resell would take the risk off of the NFL.


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> Because Amazon already has a key piece of the NFL, they'd get less incremental value from buying NFLST than would Apple, who has zero NFL content yet.


Looking at it from Amazon's viewpoint, I'd imagine that the attraction to OOM Sunday games is at least as big of a draw as a Thursday exclusive.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> I doubt that whomever gets NFL ST will be able to resell it via other systems, with the possible exception of distribution to businesses (eg: ESPN+ for business sold via DIRECTV). I don't believe the NFL wants to take the risk on selling NFLST via every platform (they want billions whether or not the end service is viable). Having a partner who could resell would take the risk off of the NFL.


If you're responding to my immediately preceding post, I wasn't talking about a winning bidder then redistributing the service via third parties. I was talking about the possibility of the NFL themselves selling it both DTC themselves (similar to MLB.tv) and also selling it non-exclusively through multiple resellers (similar to MLB Extra Innings).

So yes, I agree with what you're saying. The most likely scenario is that the NFL finds a "greater fool," i.e. a deep-pocketed business who will buy exclusive rights to NFLST for more than the service could ever bring in as a standalone business operated like the MLB and NBA run their out-of-market packages. But who's the greater fool, Apple or Amazon?


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> Looking at it from Amazon's viewpoint, I'd imagine that the attraction to OOM Sunday games is at least as big of a draw as a Thursday exclusive.


I don't know about that. But either way, Amazon is already spending $1 billion per year over the next several years for TNF. So how much more does being the exclusive seller of NFLST do for Prime? Seems like diminishing returns to me.


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> Seems like diminishing returns to me.


What seems like diminishing returns to you may well look like cornering the available market to Amazon.


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> I was talking about the possibility of the NFL themselves selling it both DTC themselves (similar to MLB.tv) and also selling it non-exclusively through multiple resellers (similar to MLB Extra Innings).


This would be a 180 degree shift from what they've done in the past and are suggesting that they're going to do going forward. The NFL is looking for a subcontractors to handle everything, not bring bits and pieces of it in-house. Network TV handles the LIL and the winner will handle the OOM Sunday games. The NFL just waits patiently for their wire transfers.


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> This would be a 180 degree shift from what they've done in the past and are suggesting that they're going to do going forward. The NFL is looking for a subcontractors to handle everything, not bring bits and pieces of it in-house. Network TV handles the LIL and the winner will handle the OOM Sunday games. The NFL just waits patiently for their wire transfers.


Ah, OK, now tell me about the NFL's planned NFL+ service which they're saying they'll launch next month as their own direct-to-consumer streaming service.

That said, yes, the NFL _has_ always preferred to sell NFLST to an exclusive third party (DirecTV) as long as they're willing to pay them a crazy high amount for it which the NFL figures is more than they could get by selling it any other way. And so, yes, they'll do that again with Apple or Amazon if either of them will go for it. And I suspect Apple will. But if no one will, then the NFL will do it themselves, as the MLB and NBA do with their OOM packages. And as the NFL appears set to do with their odds-and-ends NFL+ package.


----------



## wmb

NashGuy said:


> Ah, OK, now tell me about the NFL's planned NFL+ service which they're saying they'll launch next month as their own direct-to-consumer streaming service.


The timing for this service is interesting in light of their desire for streaming for Sunday Ticket. Why wouldn’t the use the Sunday Ticket streamer be their tech partner for NFL+.

I could see the NFL wanting control over the content on NFL+, but by starting the tech side before announcing Sunday Ticket winner locks the technology in, and you run compatibility risks between the two platforms.

I’d expect Sunday Ticket subscribers to be a subset of NFL+ subscribers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> Ah, OK, now tell me about the NFL's planned NFL+ service which they're saying they'll launch next month as their own direct-to-consumer streaming service.


I'd guess this package is going to be stillborn. There's already too much analysis available through other media.


----------



## James Long

Wow. Condemned before any details are given. Barely even mentioned the name!


----------



## NashGuy

wmb said:


> The timing for this service is interesting in light of their desire for streaming for Sunday Ticket. Why wouldn’t the use the Sunday Ticket streamer be their tech partner for NFL+.
> 
> I could see the NFL wanting control over the content on NFL+, but by starting the tech side before announcing Sunday Ticket winner locks the technology in, and you run compatibility risks between the two platforms.
> 
> I’d expect Sunday Ticket subscribers to be a subset of NFL+ subscribers.


I think what's going on is this:

The NFL wants Apple to up their bid for NFLST even further (MOAR $$$!) and, if it's high enough, the NFL is saying that they'll throw in that stake in NFL Media that they're reportedly trying to tie to the NFLST deal. And the NFL Media content slated to go in this proposed $5/mo NFL+ service would instead go to Apple too. 

To increase negotiating pressure on Apple, and to be prepared in case Apple doesn't offer them enough, the NFL has prepared this NFL+ service for a supposed August launch and leaked a few details about it to the press. But I think they're hoping that they won't need to launch it, because Apple will give them so much money that they'll get that content too, in addition to NFLST. If that happens, I tend to think Apple won't launch some kind of little $5/mo NFL add-on but will rather include some or all of that content in their main Apple TV+ service and/or with NFLST. Perhaps they'll offer free live mobile streaming of local Sunday NFL games exclusively on iPhone.


----------



## glrush

PFT references a New York Times article (behind a paywall) but it could simply be the NFL trying to drive up their price for NFST

Report: Google has made a bid for Sunday Ticket - ProFootballTalk (nbcsports.com)


----------



## NashGuy

Wow, a lot going on right now. It increasingly looks to me like the NFLST negotiations aren't going quite like the NFL had hoped. Because, first off, the NFL has in fact launched their own NFL+ service featuring content that might have gone to the NFLST winning bidder if they'd bid high enough to include a stake in NFL Media.









NFL Expands Media Footprint, Launches League-Branded Streaming Service


The NFL has launched a league-branded subscription streaming outlet featuring live mobile rights once controlled by Verizon. NFL+, as the new service is known, is available in two versions. The bas…




deadline.com





Here's a link to the NFL+ service's new splash page:


https://www.nfl.com/plus/learn-more?icampaign=npl-edi-ctp-NFL+_NFL_Centerpiece_Launch_Promo



And then on top of that, we have news that Google has supposedly entered the NFLST bidding war as another deep-pocketed tech company who might give the NFL the big bucks they want. Which suggests that neither Apple or Amazon are willing to pay what the NFL is hoping for.

I'm beginning to think that the author of this little piece from last week may have a point:








Are NFL's Sunday Ticket talks not going well? - ProFootballTalk


As we wait for the NFL to decide on a new partner for Sunday Ticket, the folks at Sports Business Journal have floated an intriguing possibility.Are the talks not going well?John Ourand suggested it, and Ben Fischer mentioned it at the top of his most recent SBJ Football newsletter.“They...




profootballtalk.nbcsports.com


----------



## B. Shoe

NashGuy said:


> Here's a link to the NFL+ service's new splash page:
> 
> 
> https://www.nfl.com/plus/learn-more?icampaign=npl-edi-ctp-NFL+_NFL_Centerpiece_Launch_Promo


As a standalone product, and a self-proclaimed NFL preseason nerd, I like this. Before the NFL GamePass days, there was a product called NFL Preseason Live, which cost $25 for the four week preseason. It allowed access to out of market preseason games (and this was before nearly half of the preseason games were live on broadcast, as they are now.)

It's $5/month, and I can cancel out when I want. For the bloggers out there that thrive on the coaches film for their hot takes, $80/season for the "premium" version isn't much. As you mentioned, it might be throwing a wrench in the NFLST negotiation gears, but strictly looking at the NFL+ product offered, I like it.


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> Which suggests that neither Apple or Amazon are willing to pay what the NFL is hoping for.


Alternatively, it suggests that Google wasn't interested in participating in all of the nonsense discussions thus far. This may be similar to eBay "sniping".


----------



## B. Shoe

glrush said:


> PFT references a New York Times article (behind a paywall) but it could simply be the NFL trying to drive up their price for NFST
> 
> Report: Google has made a bid for Sunday Ticket - ProFootballTalk (nbcsports.com)


Added thoughts on this, as I'll make assumptions that Google running Sunday Ticket would operate it through their YouTube TV platform: There have been other threads/discussions about having to subscribe to DIRECTV to be able to subscribe to Sunday Ticket, and the roundabout cost of the D* monthly fees. Even as a YTTV subscriber, I'd rather it end up in a platform like Apple TV+, or ESPN+, where although a subscription to the service would be required, the monthly fees are much less than in comparison to a full-fledged provider service like YTTV or D*.


----------



## harsh

B. Shoe said:


> Even as a YTTV subscriber, I'd rather it end up in a platform like Apple TV+, or ESPN+, where although a subscription to the service would be required, the monthly fees are much less than in comparison to a full-fledged provider service like YTTV or D*.


I'm not convinced that a conventional subscription to a (v)MPVD will be required anymore. DIRECTV pretty effectively proved that isn't viable anymore. You may get a bundling break but I'm betting that NFLST will be available as a standalone product with its own apps.


----------



## b4pjoe

B. Shoe said:


> Added thoughts on this, as I'll make assumptions that Google running Sunday Ticket would operate it through their YouTube TV platform


According to two different articles it is Youtube it would be through. Not Youtube TV.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

B. Shoe said:


> Added thoughts on this, as I'll make assumptions that Google running Sunday Ticket would operate it through their YouTube TV platform: There have been other threads/discussions about having to subscribe to DIRECTV to be able to subscribe to Sunday Ticket, and the roundabout cost of the D* monthly fees. Even as a YTTV subscriber, I'd rather it end up in a platform like Apple TV+, or ESPN+, where although a subscription to the service would be required, the monthly fees are much less than in comparison to a full-fledged provider service like YTTV or D*.


then YTTV will need to add back the missing local RSN's and other sports channels. Kind of looks bad to force sports fans into an big TV package that does not even have your local RSN's


----------



## harsh

JoeTheDragon said:


> then YTTV will need to add back the missing local RSN's and other sports channels.


Not that it matters, but YTTV wouldn't have to add back anything. They're more than capable of streaming the games without having access to the broadcast/satcast channels. Their offering isn't limited to what they "uplink" as it is with DIRECTV.


----------



## B. Shoe

b4pjoe said:


> According to two different articles it is Youtube it would be through. Not Youtube TV.


And this goes to show what happens when you make assumptions.


----------



## NashGuy

As I posted last year, we'd want to see what happens come fall 2022 with how Prime Video's Thursday Night Football might be distributed to sports bars and other commercial establishments. Would they work out a deal with DTV satellite to beam those games to those places? If so, that would be a predictive precedent of how NFLST would be handled a year later when it likewise jumped from satellite to streaming.

And sure enough, it looks like Amazon may be doing a deal with DTV:



https://www.nexttv.com/news/directv-close-to-deal-with-amazon-for-thursday-night-football-restaurant-and-bar-rights


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> And sure enough, it looks like Amazon may be doing a deal with DTV:


It should be made abundantly clear that this deal is for TNF, not NFL ST. Not everyone reads the link text or visits the linked site.

For the venues, where there is a will, there is a way to overcome lag (i.e. an HDMI distribution system).


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> It should be made abundantly clear that this deal is for TNF, not NFL ST. Not everyone reads the link text or visits the linked site.
> 
> For the venues, where there is a will, there is a way to overcome lag (i.e. an HDMI distribution system).


I think that fact was abundantly clear to anyone with sixth-grade-level reading skills who read my post above.


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> I think that fact was abundantly clear to anyone with sixth-grade-level reading skills who read my post above.


Only if you visit the link or read the link text. Otherwise, you've created a new paragraph proclaiming that Amazon has done a deal with DIRECTV in an NFLST thread. This is important because the e-mail notifications don't give much context.


----------

