ESPN Soccer Thread

I use Chrome on a Mac.

 

Could be worse, 300 million Americans can't get La Liga on their TVs

 

Sure. But it could be so much better, and I hope someday it is. Better in consistency, reliability, quality, standardization, etc.

 

That said, I have to give a shout out to ESPN+'s streaming quality. I watched today's ARS-TOT match on replay and the resolution was great, with no dropped frames, or low frame rate, or freezes.

I just wish that ESPN would add some no-brainer UI controls like 15-secs back, 30-secs forward.

 

The stream for Leicester/Man City in the Carabao cuts off early. Hasn't been fixed since Tuesday.

 

I totally get targeted criticisms of particular products and platforms. I just don't buy the blanket "streaming landscape" hate. We're talking about hundreds of sites, companies, programs, leagues, events, etc. Much, much larger universe offering exponentially more matches than cable has ever been able to give us. Yes some companies have some work to do, but I'll take a bit of the rough with a lot of smooth, great content.

 

It's funny. I've been streaming sports since 2003. That was the first year I signed up for MLB.tv, and I thought that was the greatest goddamn thing ever invented. I got to watch live baseball on my computer that was pixelated to hell from time to time, and the ball and players looked like blocks, but I never had anything like that before, and it didn't matter that I was watching the Padres play the Dodgers. Baseball! With Vin Scully announcing!! Live from Los Angeles!! On my computer!! Using my parents' cable modem that was probably doing just above 1.5 mbps, I was in heaven. Every year since then, things have gotten so much better. Every year, streaming has improved. The problem is that so many people haven't been here for the times when it was like this to appreciate it. Imagine being 14 years old today watching something on a CRT TV. They would make the same complaints that many here are making about streaming, but that's because everyone has pretty much watched everything in HD for the last 10 years.

Not to go all "old guy", but I remember in 1997 having a girlfriend whose parents just signed up for AOL. I remember stumbling onto NHL.com, and they had a function where you could listen live to any game for free. I remember being in incredible awe because I never listened to a hockey game that wasn't broadcast on a New York or Philly AM station. I could listen to a live hockey game on the computer, and it was in gorgeous mono audio.

I think it's a miracle that I can watch soccer from Italy, in English, at the touch of a button, on an invention that was predicted by the movie "Demolition Man" in 1993 (Tablet), all in unreal quality. I'm not saying that people's complaints about streaming aren't valid (some are), but I think people would have more appreciation for streaming if they hadn't just started doing it in the last 2 or 3 years.

 

21 inches?? You were living in the lap of luxury, my friend! My parents never had a TV bigger than 19 inches until around 1996. And my dad also had a handheld 3" portable TV that he would take with him to the toilet, so he wouldn't miss a play during Eagles games if he had to go #2. We thought that little TV was the greatest thing in the world. We could wash dishes and watch TV at the same time! Now, I have an iPad streaming soccer on my windowsill while I wash dishes, and I fast forward through halftime by dragging a little interactive button. Technology is an amazing damn thing.

 

Right so that's perhaps the difference between us. You seem to be a quantity over quality guy, and I'm quality over quantity.

The other thing that I've thought a lot about our new streaming landscape is how fragmented and inconsistent it is. And by fragmentation I mean that each provider delivers content to you directly and in their own fashion.

Fragmentation also induces the nickle-and-diming trend, which someday soon, when we add up all of the fees we pay to different providers, I'm pretty sure it will rival and probably exceed the amount we've traditionally paid for our cable/satellite content.

And last but not least, it results in very different GUI players with different controls, features, quality & reliability. That's very different from the aggregated cable/dvr model that I think has worked so well. I think this new landscape is ripe for big improvements, such as standardization of GUI players which would have to be voluntarily adopted by providers, if the see this is a good thing for the customer.

Another idea I've had is a possible opportunity for aggregators, who would operate somewhat similarly to the old cable/satellite model. You'd pay one vendor (the aggregator) for all of the varied providers you want, who would negotiate bulk pricing/discounts with content providers. You'd have one login to that aggregator instead of dozens for each content provider. You'd have one GUI interface. Etc. I realize this idea is a stretch, and goes against the current trend, which is a bit more like a Wild West. But this idea would make things easier, and perhaps cheaper, for the end user.

I realize there's no going back to the old way of doing things, but I would like to think that the people in charge with engineering & marketing, would be listening to people like us. It's a blank canvas that they have total control over.

 

The real problem I detect here is people trying to watch on web browsers, which is the buggiest way to consume video, and I have to ask why?

All the streaming services are available on tablets or streaming devices and can be watched on actual TVs in beautiful HD with minimal issues. If you can afford any of these services, you can afford a $30 Roku Express or a Chromecast or a Fire Stick.

 

I like your idea of one stop shop.

 

If you built your own pc there's android emulators out there you can see if they run well on your pc. I used to use bluestacks but that was like 6 years ago.

The best way to go is just upgrade to Windows 10 and download their ESPN app from the windows store. But I know getting a new Operating system is not ideal for some old guys.

 

There are ways to install media center in windows 10 but it may not be compatible with your Cable so I will just say Cable sucks.

 

Looks like Verizon is in a rights dispute with Disney, and Disney owned networks (including all ESPN channels) will go away on December 31 at 5 pm if an agreement isn't reached. Serie A wraps up on Saturday, so it shouldn't be a big deal for soccer fans, but if you like watching ESPN and you have Verizon, it might be going dark on New Year's Eve.

The good news is that this doesn't affect ESPN+, but if you authenticate ESPN through it using Verizon, then that may be blacked out on there. Not sure how that's all going to work.

 

ESPN cable channels would be blocked from streaming on WatchESPN/app, but ESPN+ sign-on is seperate, through ESPN membership. So ESPN+ wouldn't be harmed.

 

I don't know how much I use ESPN channels for games that aren't on ESPN+. The big events ESPN has are the NCAA Football Finals with FCS on January 5 (North Dakota State who has won six of the last seven titles against 2010 champion Eastern Washington) and FBS on January 7. I would expect it to be a big sports story if people with Verizon can't watch, and I think the NCAA will be mad if the FBS Final gets lower ratings because of it. NCAA Basketball conferences and teams that are on ESPN channels a lot could also be mad if a dispute lasts a while. Duke is Number 1 in the AP Poll, and their next four games are on ESPN. What I would like is if sports leagues and NCAA conferences signed deals with TV networks that let the league or conference stream games online for free if the rights are held by a TV channel that was not available on a major provider at the time.