Just curious to gauge the amount of subscribers they have.While this is not a true sampling, it is good to see just how many from a subset of hard core fans have given in.
Not me, although I'm out of market(so it wouldn't make sense in any case.) I think your numbers aren't going to be totally representative. This forum skews older and dumber than average. In the other thread, some idiot is raising his fist at the sky and complaining about HD, which has been the legally mandated broadcast minimum for over a decade. Having said that, I posted some back of the envelope calculations in the other thread that Flo would need 20,000 subscribers annually to break even. I'd be completely shocked if they got 2,000. The number could be closer to 200! So there's got to be something going on somewhere that we don't know about.
I resemble that remark. But I do subscribe -- although as an STH, there probably isn't much reason for me to do t hat.
Have you ventured outside lately? We might be older, I'll give you that You should see the idiots he gets to argue with him Especially since he's never made that actual argument and you're way over here letting it bug you. I officially declare him the winner. Now, can we all just get along and wait for the miracle of something really above-average coming from the Flo deal, since it advertises an enhanced experience and not just being able to watch a game in near-real-time. When such a thing happens or starts to happen regularly I am assuming all the younger smarter people will come in here or the two other not-tV threads and brag about what it is and those of us more skeptical can assess it and maybe change our minds. I guess we'll all learn with the upcoming April 6/13th games whether other options are still available or they've successfully cracked down on all the game-watching that's been going on in their geo-fenced yard without their service. Our next two games are actually being broadcast, one even on real honest non-subscription television
I think that time he was just trolling you - and that's still not the argument you said he made, but I guess it's close enough for a soccer bulletin board To me, sports (or anything live, really) track weirdly while watching them on HD, there's like an unnatural aspect to the movement of the picture - it's hard to describe but sometimes I notice that too much and have to stop watching for a while. I don't hate HD, I just don't think it makes sports all that much better, and sometimes does the opposite. Maybe that's just the cable systems I've watched HD sports on; bars and friends' houses - it's not mine, I have SD service.
I just moved about a month ago. At my new place I now have HD. I lived with SD for 22 years at my old place. I now have access to both SD and HD channels. Frankly my eyes see little if any discernible difference between my HD and SD channels. Certainly not enough difference for me to cry "woah is me, the game is not in HD!" I completely understand the difference in technology but if my eyes cannot tell the difference why should I care. The only real difference is the SD channels do not fill up my screen while the HD channels do. That is it. No trolling here just telling you my eyes can't see a difference.
That's really interesting to me. I don't have the best near-field eyesight in the world -- I can't read the newspaper without reading glasses anymore -- and still, the difference between SD and HD (even at just 720p) looks significant to me. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the apparent magnitudes of differences between SD and various HD formats vary from person to person, since I've already encountered similar sorts of things with sound: some people seem quite sensitive to heavy use of dynamic range compression in audio, while other people seem to not notice any difference when A/B'ing the same song with and without compression. For some reason, my reflex reaction is that visual data is different; but thinking about it, I guess there isn't any reason why it should be.
Like Bootsy, I notice a substantial difference with HD as well, even the 720p variety. I have two Vizio 55" TVs, one is about 4 years old, the other a year and a half -- neither was special when new. Even so, I find SD pictures unwatchable and will avoid them if at all possible. As others have said, YMMV. As for sound, I'm so fcuking old that I can barely hear, let alone notice differences in dynamic range.
I have three different pairs of glasses. One for driving, one for TV, one for reading. Yet I still play soccer without any glasses, lol.
I've got ESPN+. Flo made the fatal mistake of excluding me from their blackout zone. Now if only I could get Fox to exclude me from their blackout zone for non-paying customers, I'd be all set.
If you are somehow watching HD on a SD television, you won't notice a difference. If you have an HD set and can't tell the difference, you really need to have your eyes checked.
I'm in the socio-economic class that allowed me to buy a little $15 VOIP gadget and 1G internet so I could stop paying $150 to FiOS for directTV, and I now have youtubeTV for $35 a month. I bought FLO so I could watch DC United. YoutubeTV doesn't have NewsChannel8, so I missed many of our fine away performances at the end of last season. Wait, there weren't any? I'll pay whatever they want. They know that. I'm hooked on a good DC team.
currently have no cable & hadnt been following the flo controversy too carefully until season was about to start...my conclusion after a bit of research was to test espn+ even tho i live in the blackout zone after a few weeks i'm happy with the espn deal: i get to watch highlights and replays of dcu while having live access to every other team for pennies wish i could watch dc easily at home but i don't plan on subscribing to flo
No plans on subscribing to Flo, and I'm one of those with the multihundredmegabits and the HDs and the streams...but still old. I have trust issues after hit or miss ESPN+ performance.