- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: BitTorrent Live - A potential ESPN killer?
Posted on 1/8/13 at 4:40 pm to WikiTiger
Posted on 1/8/13 at 4:40 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
People can watch movies you (re)broadcast and socialize while doing so. Imagine a TD.com Movie Board weekly group viewing of the "100 movies we agree don't suck." How fun would that be?
I think we could put together a hell of a movie channel.
1
Posted on 1/8/13 at 4:42 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
Why do you suppose there is so much resistance?
this actually happens to my job. And I will tell you that in retail, its b.c the people who run these businesses are
a) not all that bright
b) often don't see the value of technology, i.e. its old school managers running the place
c) are running on really tight margin.
I don't deal with media companies but I do a lot with CG, retail, Auto, telco, high tech. The auto guys get it, so do some CG brands, and high tech are starting to get it. But the retailers, its literally like they are stuck in 1982.
quote:
The key to being a successful message board douche, however, is that you have to be able to make people laugh.
People don't get my sense of humor here. But that is ok, I suspect I will get banned pretty soon.
Posted on 1/8/13 at 4:51 pm to buddhavista
A lot of times it is inertia, you are correct. but it could be they don't think can or actually can;t make any money doing it.
Anyone can record a song in their house. Broadcasting a major sporting event on the other hand is extremely expensive. People think it will be cheaper to just pay for what you watch, but it might not be. How much are people willing to pay to watch a game? How would advertising work on these types of things? These are not small details.
Anyone can record a song in their house. Broadcasting a major sporting event on the other hand is extremely expensive. People think it will be cheaper to just pay for what you watch, but it might not be. How much are people willing to pay to watch a game? How would advertising work on these types of things? These are not small details.
Posted on 1/8/13 at 4:54 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
I think we could put together a hell of a movie channel.
And finally I can get you all to watch City Lights.
That's right. Until you watch it, I'm taking over the channel 24/7 City Lights.
Posted on 1/8/13 at 4:54 pm to buddhavista
quote:
I WANT to buy ESPN3, and would gladly pay for a high quality stream. ESPN won't let me.
did it ever occur to you that it might cost them more to sell it to you than you would be willing to pay?
Posted on 1/8/13 at 4:58 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
A lot of times it is inertia,
yes, I agree. And certainly in retail, where the business model has remained constant for decades until the last 10 years....this inertia is a very powerful force.
quote:
but it could be they don't think can or actually can;t make any money doing it.
I think the problem is that these businesses are going to lose money if they don't proactively address this. Social media is an incredible force, that businesses just don't get yet. Its going to crush businesses (and gov't), unless they can effectively deal with it. Even better to harness it.
quote:
People think it will be cheaper to just pay for what you watch, but it might not be. How much are people willing to pay to watch a game?
well in europe, you can stream most of ESPN content for 20Euros a month, which is like $25. I would definitely sign up for that.
Paying per game/week/month/season is not going to be cheaper for me, since I got rid of cable. But I can promise you it would be cheaper than getting cable. Cheapest I can get ESPN HD is $80/month. That is fricking ridiculous and the reason I don't have cable. firstrow, SOP, a hijacked friends' acct and bars are what I do know, spending absolutely nothing.
as for advertising, the advertising could be the real big win. Make you register, and link to facebook or google and suddenly you have very targeted ads which will sell at a premium.
Posted on 1/8/13 at 4:59 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
People can watch movies you (re)broadcast and socialize while doing so
That's all fine and good, but how do the people that make moneys make money then? Do you pay to broadcast this movie on your network? Buy it directly from them? How does that work?
Posted on 1/8/13 at 4:59 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
did it ever occur to you that it might cost them more to sell it to you than you would be willing to pay?
This may be true. But perhaps they could make adjustments to make it more affordable.
Also, however, I think a lot of people dismiss the concept of targeted ads that the internet allows.
They could potentially charge more for ads that are targeted. As it stands now, I am not in the core demographic for football broadcasts because none of the commercials appeal to me.
Posted on 1/8/13 at 5:02 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
but how do the people that make moneys make money then?
This is not about making money. It's about people utilizing a freely available protocol and their bandwidth to broadcast out to the world. It could be original content, or it could be a movie file you have on your computer, or it could be an ESPN3 stream that you have access to that you then (re)broadcast to others.
quote:
Do you pay to broadcast this movie on your network?
No, not at all. BitTorrent live is just a protocol that will allow individuals to broadcast in a decentralized manner.
Posted on 1/8/13 at 5:04 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
did it ever occur to you that it might cost them more to sell it to you than you would be willing to pay?
well that is not the case in europe, where they have it for 20 euros a month.
You have to have a european IP address but its something like watchespn. if you care, I will look it up. This is what I did last year to watch CFB, but the quality turned out to be crap since the bits were crossing the pond twice.
Posted on 1/8/13 at 5:10 pm to buddhavista
quote:
firstrow, SOP, a hijacked friends' acct and bars are what I do know, spending absolutely nothing
I have no idea what most of that stuff is
Here is a point i don't think most of you get, you are on the cutting edge, most of us are not. I really don;t get the hatred of paying for cable, when you will have to pay if the internet and if we start using it for all this stuff it is bound to cost more money.
and i bet if you added up what you spend in the bar to watch, it's probably pretty close to what it costs for cable
Posted on 1/8/13 at 5:14 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
and i bet if you added up what you spend in the bar to watch, it's probably pretty close to what it costs for cable
yea, but at least you get a meal, some beers, and socializing in. that's added value to many people.
Posted on 1/8/13 at 5:14 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
This is not about making money. It's about people utilizing a freely available protocol and their bandwidth to broadcast out to the world
sports leagues and movies are most definately about making money. if they couldn't make money they wouldn't exist.
Why would someone pay $150M to make a movie if they couldn't make money off it. They would not play the Super Bowl if they could not make money.
quote:
No, not at all. BitTorrent live is just a protocol that will allow individuals to broadcast in a decentralized manner.
so you want someone to spend millions of dollars staging a sports event, but think everyone should get to watch it for free?
Posted on 1/8/13 at 5:15 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
yea, but at least you get a meal, some beers, and socializing in. that's added value to many people.
and the bar pays for cable, who pays the networks, who pay the sports leagues for the rights to boardcast the games.
Posted on 1/8/13 at 5:17 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
sports leagues and movies are most definately about making money. if they couldn't make money they wouldn't exist.
Why would someone pay $150M to make a movie if they couldn't make money off it. They would not play the Super Bowl if they could not make money.
I think we are having a disconnect here.
I was just referring to the BitTorrent live protocol, and the ability for individuals to circumvent content restrictions and (re)broadcast whatever they choose over the internet. And I'm asking about the implications for companies like ESPN. How does this effect them going into the future? Will it cause them to finally adapt their business practices?
quote:
so you want someone to spend millions of dollars staging a sports event, but think everyone should get to watch it for free?
No, I'm arguing that they will need to change their practices because of this technology, and that a failure to do so could end up harming them.
Kodak thought digital cameras weren't going to catch on. How did that work out for them?
Posted on 1/8/13 at 5:19 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
and the bar pays for cable, who pays the networks, who pay the sports leagues for the rights to boardcast the games.
No doubt. In that scenario, ESPN is still making money of that customer.
What about in the case of thefirstrow.eu, however?
Posted on 1/8/13 at 5:24 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
This may be true. But perhaps they could make adjustments to make it more affordable.
or it could be there is not enough demand yet. I doubt it would be cheaper for me to pay for a package or for just LSU games. The ones I want to watch are on TV anyway.
quote:
I think a lot of people dismiss the concept of targeted ads that the internet allows.
Not at all, but you would have to be watching alone or on your own devise.
Posted on 1/8/13 at 5:27 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Here is a point i don't think most of you get, you are on the cutting edge, most of us are not.
I realize I am much farther advanced than most people. I started programming when I was 5 years old, and have worked in high tech my entire professional working career.
BUT, you have to address the edge to innovate. People want what the advanced user does, they just don't know about it...yet. A good example is Oxo good grips. They developed those grips for old people with arthritis, since it was hard for them to hold stuff. Turns out everyone likes a nice handle, they just suffered. You can focus group that shite to death and never figure it out.
quote:
and i bet if you added up what you spend in the bar to watch, it's probably pretty close to what it costs for cable
Probably but I am at least getting drunk off of it.
And a full belly, plus they play football bingo at the bar I go to which is a blast. I had cable for a long time, but the only thing I watched was ESPN. And it annoyed the shite out of me, that I was dropping (then $100) a month for 2 channels.
quote:
No, I'm arguing that they will need to change their practices because of this technology, and that a failure to do so could end up harming them.
Kodak thought digital cameras weren't going to catch on. How did that work out for them?
The last 10 years is literally the corpses of businesses that couldn't keep up. blockbuster, circuit city, the record labels, etc. Adapt or die, and this is a big hole for ESPN. Its going to bite them....I bet they have about 2 years before cutting the cord becomes a mainstream phenomena.
Posted on 1/8/13 at 5:29 pm to buddhavista
quote:
I bet they have about 2 years before cutting the cord becomes a mainstream phenomena.
I'll say 5 years, but otherwise agree with you.
On a similar note, I wonder if all these conferences that are expanding right now are looking into the future and realizing that cable is on it's way out. It seems like they are making major decisions based on "cable TV markets" for their conference networks. I just don't see that as a good future move.
Posted on 1/8/13 at 5:30 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
Will it cause them to finally adapt their business practices?
how will they make money off of these technologies?
quote:
Kodak thought digital cameras weren't going to catch on. How did that work out for them?
people have to pay for digital cameras, so the people that make they make money.
Where I think we have a disconnect is how do the people that make the conect make money? That's the most important question.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News