The rumored price for all the ESPN channels and all the ESPN+ content is $25/mo. Some have said as much as $35. Recent numbers put ESPN+ at about 25 million subscribers, including those paying for bundles. If just 10 million pay $25/mo, that's $3 billion before any advertising, etc. is added in. I would gladly pay that price each month for the whole thing. Even if it was $35, that plus something like Philo was still be about $20 cheaper than YouTube TV, and I'd be eliminating my current ESPN+ expenditure making it closer to $30 saved per month.
Can I still be surprised that the TV providers haven't attempted a lawsuit when the channel owners go direct-to-consumer? The whole thing kind of started with HBO Now, when Dish Network didn't agree to terms with HBO. They wanted a way to sell their product and get around Dish's blackout. You'd think that there'd be a contract clause in there somewhere with "the TV providers are the exclusive places to get this content." I'm guessing the TV providers would love that clause.
I legitimately was only paying for it 2-3 times per year before moving to T-Mobile and getting it for free. I'll have no problem dropping it again.
I don't think people would go for it and it would probably spell the end of Netflix. They don't have live programming so that puts them in a weaker position/makes their price more static (because people can just pay for 4 months of Netflix per year and see just as much content as if they had it for all 12 months).
Idk man they're playing the same makes as before. They will incorporate live programming They got to.
Yeah, they might want to follow the Hulu model. Anyway, hope the prices stay reasonable because Netflix is still my go-to when I don't know what to watch. And I almost always find something interesting there, usually multiple. Hulu, Disney, Amazon, Apple+ not so much.
ESPN/FOX/WBD planning a mega-app for sports with all of their channels, ESPN+, and ABC/FOX broadcast: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/06/esp...oint-sports-streaming-platform-this-year.html
There have been rumors for the last year or so about ESPN putting all their linear and streaming content into a single app and charging $22-35 (depending on the source) per month. Currently the main ESPN channel costs cable and satellite providers a bit over $7 to carry. Max is expected to charge $10 for their sports tier. No rumors about Fox, but it it's $40 that incorporates all 3 pretty well. Not sure if this would include ESPN+ content or not.
The article mentions ESPN+ as being carried. What the article doesn't mention is the price will go up as it gets more popular. There'll probably be more channels added on, further adding to the cost. We all remember when Hulu was under $40/mo, right?
YouTube TV was $35 at one point. I would actually prefer this combo sport streamer without the OTA networks. I've got a good antenna and get a ton of channels that way, and the picture quality is significantly better OTA vs cable or streaming.
Netflix, Apple, Amazon, and the network/media conglomerates like Disney, WBD, Fox, and maybe CBS Viacom will exist, along with a handful of FAST streamers like Pluto TV and Tubi. I suspect everything else goes away/gets folded into one of the winners.
People are proclaiming love for FAST, but I can't imagine there's a huge demand for reruns of 60s/70s TV shows like there is for live sports or current shows. I guess it's good if you want background noise or mindless TV to fall asleep to, but I can't imagine people are hanging around water coolers talking about last night's episode of Gilligan's Island.
Currently yes. The Tablo DVR is excellent. A lot of areas are going to ATSC 3.0 broadcasts now and that will make it possible for broadcast networks to block DVR unless it has a 3.0 tuner which disables the ability to skip commercials.
If I don't have a specific show or game in mind, then I'm defaulting to FAST channels almost all the time now, especially Pluto TV. Between classic Jeopardy, a bunch of good TV and movie channels, and the near constant additions of new content and better navigation, and it's my number 1 choice by a mile. The really interesting part is the new content being produced for/aired on FAST options. Pluto has CBS Golazo TV which airs a decent chunk of Champions League, NWSL (at least it did), Serie A, Argentine LPF, and Brazilian Serie A content. Tubi has stuff like NBA G League double headers almost every Friday and Saturday, some bleed over from Fox Soccer, and ION TV airing live which has both WNBA and NWSL games live now. Amazon Freevee now has multiple new shows produced just for it, including Bosch: Legacy which is a sequel to their own Amazon Prime Original series Bosch. I wouldn't be too shocked if the FAST services get rolled into the larger options and that those channels are available without any subscription. Currently Philo TV has around 50 FAST channels that anyone can watch and Sling has a bunch that you don't have to have a subscription to watch.
BTW, Nielsen's Gauge report each month lists the most watched streaming services. The latest update is December and YouTube (not YTTV) is number 1 as usual. They've got 11 listed and Tubi, Roku Channel, and Pluto TV all make the list. Streaming made up 35.9% of all viewing with Tubi at 1.4%, Roku Channel at 1.0%, and Pluto TV at 0.7%. YouTube TV, Hulu Live, Fubo, etc. are counted as either broadcast or cable depending on the channel being watched. https://www.nielsen.com/data-center/the-gauge/