i'm not sure how many people have tried this out, but you get you're first 2 weeks free,and they have almost all the games live that you can watch over the internet. Its good for people like me that can't get the shootout. its 10 bucks a month, so not to bad. Just making sure people know about it
Yahoo sucks big donkey balls. They forse you to use ActiveX for reasons that are quite unclear to me, and they're pretty fascist when it comes to browsers that they support. I have all the software I need to view an f'ing video stream (Windows media or otherwise), and Yahoo just won't let me do it - even though I'D LIKE TO PAY THEM MONEY FOR IT. I could understand if it was free or something, but if I'm paying for their stupid service, I better get to use whatever goddam browser and operating system I want.
They "forse" you to use activex, because they're just trying to keep your super cool mozilla browser down thats all.
i'm going to claim stupidity here cause i don't really know to much about computers, but i know that i'm using windows media player right now to watch the metrostars v. crew game.
The one thing that sort of bugs me is that MLS won't get all the "credit" for buying this subscription. Of course, they'll have stats for which content is downloaded, but I'd rather just buy the MLS content since the other stuff isn't very useful.
i know you can pay 12 bucks and get more stuff, but yeah,i guess the 9 goes for more than MLS, but it still makes me happy, i would have just bought the shootout, but don't have a dish or satellite. so this will have to do.
wasdykec -- I want to get the service for when I'm away at college but I want to be able to watch the game later in the week....i.e. If the metrostars game plays tonight can I get it online for the next few days without paying any more??? Thanks for your help
if you pay the 9.95 or whatever you get the service, you don't pay any more, and they archive all the games withing a few hours of them being played, you'll see what the score is, butif you want you can pretty much watch almost every game from the season. They are all archived. For some reason they don't show every game though, not sure if it has something to do with the t.v. contracts, but usually there are 4 games a week.
The ESPN2 Feeds and HDNet Feeds are not part of this package. Everything else seems to be, although I'm not sure about ENG yet, since we've avoided having one of those so far. Basically, if it's on a Fox Regional channel, it's on Yahoo. If it's on FSW, you get the Fox Regional channel commentary. There's a lot of doubling up with the FSW and HDNet games, so you don't miss many of those (if any FSW games). Still, 3-4 games a week, that's 12+ games a month, for ten bucks. Not bad, especially since you get access to all the old games too.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I had a typo on "force". And I'm not even using Mozilla. Not that it would matter, my point still stands. If I'm paying for their service, I should get a direct link to the video stream - end of story. Yahoo is being incredibly stupid. In a day and age where there are many adequate solutions for delivering video content, they choose the one that locks out potential users. Why limit your user base? If you run a business, don't you want people to give you money? Sounds like they've been taking business lessons from MLS
It's not about that. It's about giving me the content that I paid for, and that I have perfectly capable software for viewing. This is akin to the MPAA suing me because I choose to view their DVD contents with software not approved by them. It's the same principle - if I pay for content, I should have the choice as to how I view it. Think about that: if I pay for content, why should I have to jump through unnecessary hoops that only serve to lock out specific users? Like I said, I have the software capable of viewing all video streams, but Yahoo's labyrinthe of browser checks don't even let me get far enough to view their content - which I want to pay for. It's very simple - Yahoo can choose to create a solution that 100% of web users can view, or they can create something that only 85-90% of web users can view. They have chosen the latter for reasons that are entirely unclear to me. They are supremely inflexible, and it's not in their best interests to be that way. Ultimately, you have to ask the question: If I have the software capable of viewing all content that they deliver, why am I being descrimated against based on the brand of software I use? Content providers forcing users on one platform with one browser smells like racketeering to me, not to mention a violation of the law - Microsoft was, after all, convicted of unfairly using a monopoly position, and that ruling was not overturned.
So basically this all part of some sort of big ol' UFO conspiracy spawned by the anarchists. ya. thought so. Look, they have a reason for doing what they did. It may simply be a poor choice. That happens. More likely it has to do with the resources (knowledge, time, money) they have available and keeping some sort of control over the content. And if it's a poor choice, so what. If you're using a windows machine, using Active X isn't exactly the least or only concern.
Yahoo identified the system and software requirements up front. You bought the product knowing what you needed, and are complaining because you don't have it. That's like buying MacQuake, then bitching because it won't run on a windows PC.
I'm complaining because Yahoo is stupid about the whole thing. They don't have to lock out viewers, and yet they choose to. Their actions should be illegal, because they are handing customers to a company that was ruled to have improperly taken advantage of a monopoly position. Lots of internet companies say that you need IE and Windows in their requirements, and it turns out not to be true. As I've said until I'm blue in the face, I have all software necessary to view Yahoo video streams, but they don't even let me get to that point. I will continue to slam them for being idiots, because well, they are. If I pay for content *and* I have the necessary software to view that content, then why am I being locked out? They just used some off the shelf content delivery software and were too lazy to take the 5 minutes required to unscrew the browser lockout schemes. I'm a web developer, and I could have devised a secure content delivery system for them that wouldn't lock out any users. If I can do that single-handedly, shouldn't Yahoo, a fairly large company, be able to do that as well?
(thanks for editing your post) If I pay for content, it should be up to me how I can view it, assuming I have software capable of viewing the streams. It's the same reason that I defend those that create DVD viewing software that cracks the DVD encryption. I see what you're saying, but ActiveX is not video streaming software, and thus should not be a piece of the requirements. It would actually be easier for Yahoo if they had not devised an ActiveX scheme.
Porkrind: I have a general idea of what you're saying, but I can't help but think you have some other axe to grind and there are some things you're not saying. Meanwhile, what is the quality of the broadcast video and sound?
Sound is mono. For the soccer games, sound quality is very good. For the hockey material, sound quality is kind of bubbly (compression artifacts). Video quality is OK. I fullscreen it and run the video to my television, and it looks good, lowish on detail, but no color bleeding like a lot of broadcast TV. Most forms of video compression are going to have trouble at that sort of bitrate with high motion images (like pans on a soccer field). You aren't going to see every blade of grass. You won't be able to read player names unless you get a closeup. But you will see the game. The video from Columbus last week was a little bit jerky at times (video stuttered a bit), but that's the only game where I saw that.
Ok, I'll lay down my axe after this. But here's the core of my beef: Content delivered over the internet has quickly become a significant piece of America's infrastructure, just like roads, oil, and many other pieces of the economic puzzle. He who controls the delivery medium, can effectively control the medium itself. If one company controls all aspects of the medium, then they can control what you read, see, hear, and by extension, think. It's not whether one company has actually done so, it's the fact that one company is in the position to do so now. America was founded on certain principles, such as the freedom of dissent from your government (to an extent) and the freedom of information. A core principle of a democracy is that everyone has access to information. The problem now is that government's interaction with its constituents, the act of gathering news and information about our world, banking, and other everyday features of our lives are governed by our ability to send and receive information over the Internet. The fact that one single entity can dominate all that and more should scare all of us. Yahoo, by choosing to deliver content through a medium that is dominated by a single company and inaccessible to those that will not buy from that company, is saying "screw you" to citizens of this country and the ideals upon which it was founded. The act of delivering content over the internet in such a way as to be inaccessible to everyone is the equivalent of publishing a newspaper that can only be read with a certain type of goggles. Of course, no newspaper would be that stupid, because in the news trade there's such a thing as viable competition. Of course, in the Internet content business, there's really only one game in town, and that is MicroSoft. The fact that AOL-Time Warner caved in to MS this past week should tell you just how powerful MS is. Content was made to be read, heard, viewed, etc. How one company came to be in position to dictate how and when we can hear or see things is beyond me, but it should send chills down your spine. What Yahoo is doing here is, frankly, un-American, and they should cease and desist immediately. I have no doubt that Yahoo only chose the easiest option for them and had no nefarious plots in mind, but it's still idiotic. If you don't think that Internet content delivery will play an even bigger role in the future, then you have completely failed to grasp why I'm wasting my time writing this. There, off my soapbox and end rant.
My video card. It's an ATI Radeon 8500 LE. It's got s-video out in addition to the standard VGA and digital. They're running pretty cheap these days. You can get one for about sixty-five bucks at Newegg.com.
Sorry-- I don't have any idea about the whole debate here-- I just wanted to say: I love it. I can't watch any other games over here other than the ESPN games on a three day tape delay. On Yahoo, I can watch them anytime I want. The quality is good enough to watch the game and sometimes to be able to tell who's making that outside run at the top of the screen.