And why would I bother with that service? It’s also the branding - I’m not going to cancel my Netflix subscription for Disney/MLB. I would enjoy Netflix much more if it had live streaming of ESPN, plus Disney-owned content.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Disney to Acquire 20th Century Fox (deal closing in)
- Thread starter gkarris
- Start date
-
- Tags
- disney fox movies and tv
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
And why would I bother with that service? It’s also the branding - I’m not going to cancel my Netflix subscription for Disney/MLB. I would enjoy Netflix much more if it had live streaming of ESPN, plus Disney-owned content.
Disney bought the backend service that MLB created. They will rebrand it for what ever they are going to use. Don’t forget Disney owns 30% of Hulu and is after Fox’s 30%.
But netflix may not want to sell, and a hostile takeover could be very expensive. Disney is seeing value with the Fox deal that may not exist in a possible netflix purchase.
Don't forget, while netflix is the standard bearer for streaming services, it has a staggering amount of debt - 20 billion dollars. That may have some serious long term implications down the road.
Netflix is on the hook for $20 billion. Can it keep spending its way to success?
I understand - but does that service scale? I question whether the MLB streaming service is able to scale to Netflix or Hulu level of traffic.
[doublepost=1512737623][/doublepost]
If content providers pull content I wouldn’t be surprised if they go under. I agree it may be expensive but it’s probably still the right move if possible. The issue Disney has if that they’ll be just another streaming service. If people have cable they have Disney products. If they don’t have cable then will they pay $15/month or whatever for Disney streaming vs Hulu and Netflix and whatever other content providers offer streaming.
No question, but food thought - CBS has its own streaming service and that makes less sense then Disney imo, but yet they're flagship show (Star Trek) seems to be popular and its only available via their streaming service.
And it’s probably heavily pirated. If cable TV show providers got their act together they could probably build a competing product, but Hulu and Netflix are very sticky. People don’t typically pay for more than one, either.
Is this true? I think the majority of Netflix or Hulu subscribers probably subscribe to multiple services, but there is a line and we are quickly approaching it. My expectation is that we’ll see a greater diversification of subscription services (CBS, Disney, ESPN, HBO, etc.) until we reach the point where they individually cannot make a profit and start merging again. We’re in some sort of never-ending bundling-unbundling möbius loop.
If they do they’re dumb, largely. Cable isn’t that expensive. Why would you pay more for Netflix + Hulu + HBO or something when you could just get cable or ATT with their HBO deal.
But let’s say they do pay for all of these, where does that leave CBS? Disney? Maybe the future is all of us rotating account cancellation and resubscriptions every month.
I have to think that there are a lot of people like me who pay for cable and multiple streaming services. I have subscriptions to Netflix, Hulu, CBS All Access and Amazon Prime on top of my FIOS TV subscription. The CBS one is the most annoying, since I’m paying for a single show, but there was no way I was going to skip a new Star Trek series. I like to think that I’m at my limit, but who knows?
Yeah maybe you're right. I couldn't imagine paying $14/month for Netflix, $14/month for Hulu, CBS (idk how much that even costs) plus cable.
Effectively what CBS did though was charge you for that one show. It's more profitable that way anyway.
Well, at least it’s not quite that expensive. Netflix is only $9.99 a month (although it goes up to $10.99 next year). Hulu is $7.99 (but I pay $11.99 to get the ad-free version). CBS is $99.99/year for the ad-free version.
Ah - I have the premium Netflix subscription for the multiple devices. But ultimately around $30/month for those three services + how much/month for cable?
Ok now there's Disney streaming, how much is that going to be per month? What if you want HBO? Etc...
Right now it's looking like we're going to end up getting more fractured and more expensive service than now.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAMTech
BAMTech Media (stylized as BAMTECH) is a technology subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company. It was established in 2015 as a spin-off of MLB Advanced Media—the digital media arm of Major League Baseball, focused on providing streaming video technology, particularly for over-the-top content services. It was majority owned by MLB Advanced Media (which is, in turn, a consortium of MLB's principal team owners), with a one-third minority stake held by The Walt Disney Company, and a minority stake held by the National Hockey League. In August 2017, Disney announced its intent to increase its stake to a 75% controlling stake for $1.58 billion, the deal was approved by regulators in September 2017.
The company's major clients include the NHL, HBO(for its HBO Now service), the PGA Tour, Riot Games, WatchESPN, PlayStation Vue, WWE Network[5][6] and TheBlaze.[7]
I assume high as the whole Watch ESPN platform is run on it. As well as WWE and HBO Now.
I bet it's not as much as you're thinking. Amazon Prime Video, Netflix, and Hulu probably account for 60-70%
That’s not live streaming thought. BAMTech is pushing out real-time live video.
What's the bandwidth difference? Do I use more data streaming Stranger Things for x minutes than ESPN for x minutes?
And if I do/don't, that still doesn't address the volume of streaming data - scale of streaming data.
It's not only about the data. It's about the scaling for LIVE delivery which includes setting up dynamic playlists.
Netflix/Hulu etc are VOD based services which is more trivial than live from a streaming perspective. They do not do much with live streaming, so their playlists are mostly static. What this means is they can ingest shows into their system beforehand, create different bitrate variants, and do QA. They will have all of this set up before a user starts watching the show.
BAMTech on the other hand is a live streaming beast. That is what they are known for in the industry. They have done the Superbowl live streaming, HBO's Game of Thrones, WWE Summerslam/Wrestlemanias, etc. What this means is they will stream the show on the fly, create bitrate variants on the fly, update their playlists on the fly, and maybe have a minute to do QA before each segment chunk.
Do they deliver content on the scale of Netflix?
And I’m not persuaded that there’s a significant difference in live streaming vs hosted content from what you’ve described here. Basically what you’ve said is “it’s harder” - which is fine, but I don’t think is a fair arguing point.
The straight answer to your question without diving into technical details is yes. Arguably, they can deliver content past the scale of Netflix because Netflix is a VOD and not LIVE service.
Using the last Superbowl as an example, it had 1.72 million concurrent viewers: https://www.geekwire.com/2017/super...ership-records-despite-fox-sports-go-outages/
Now using Netflix's Stranger Things 2 as an example: http://deadline.com/2017/11/stranger-things-2-ratings-nielsen-netflix-1202200538/. Netflix averaged 15.8 million users for the first episode (according to Nielsen so take this as a grain of salt) spread across 3+ days.
I'm technical, so if you have technical details I'd love to see them.
And keep in mind, that 15.8 million users for the first episode of Stranger Things 2 is just one episode of one show. Hulu even does live streaming of cable shows.
- Status