The streaming technology Amazon uses for their NFL broadcasts was developed at Elemental Technologies in Portland. Pretty much any live streaming event you've seen in the last decade has come from that merry band. A lot of late nights were spent getting it right. It's REALLY cool to see it all finally come together.
The streaming technology Amazon uses for their NFL broadcasts was developed at Elemental Technologies in Portland. Pretty much any live streaming event you've seen in the last decade has come from that merry band. A lot of late nights were spent getting it right. It's REALLY cool to see it all finally come together.
I forget the exact number, but something like 2/3 of households making over $75k annually subscribe to Amazon Prime. That's exactly the audience advertisers want to be in front of. The question is whether people will actually be able to find the content. It's one thing to flip channels and come across a game. It's ALSO nice to be able to flip away at commercials. You're kinda captive if you're watching a game on Amazon Prime. I wonder if Amazon either develops their own version of (insert your preferred OTT provider here) or acquires one. That's probably the next move for them.
In the meantime, if the Pac-12 goes with Amazon over ESPN, not only are they giving up the exposure ESPN gives them, but it also sticks them right back in another walled garden. Like trying to find something on Channel 329. It's there, but do you want to have to hunt that hard? If competing for national titles is the Pac-12's goal, they HAVE to be on ESPN. If they want to be the AFL or ABA, then maybe Prime is the move.
It's app is easy to download, no different than the Sling, ESPN or other app, it works well on a ROKU TV or on a phone.
Also, it is capable of major viewship, including something like 25 million for a recent show.
Frankly, given the way streaming now works, sources like Prime are often easier to access than tracking down football games on ESPN (through Sling) or on ESPN's own App.
I don't channel surf while watching the Ducks, but Roku has its own simple to use remote. Two clicks-no, but easy to move between Prime, Sling and so forth.
In other words, it's not an issue for me.
Also, to the extent I want to watch a couple of things at once, I usually have the Ipad going at the same time, as I can just jump from App to App with a couple of swipes.
Here is the real issue, as I see it.
If the "solution" is ESPN, it is doubtful the Pac 10 will survive. It is apparently not enough money.
If it is Prime, trying to buy its way into this arena and own the Pac 10, it is likely going to be enough to survive.
So-our choice, convenience with channel surfing for a couple of years, until Oregon, UW, Cal and Stanford bolt for the Big 10, or the league as we know it.
Streaming is definitely more cumbersome-moving from App to App (if watching on a Roku TV) and then selecting your show.
If you are on one source-for example Sling, and want to jump around from one show to another, it is very simple - just a couple of clicks can take you back and forth.
Exactly...If you want exposure and eye balls seeing your program to sell it to the nation it HAS to be ESPN. if you are trying to sell your self with the thought live streaming "some day" with be 'THE' place to go and you want to beat everyone else there...then go with Amazon. For Example, My best friend called me on Thursday trying to find the Chargers vs. Chiefs game...I told him it was being live streamed on Amazon prime...He was EXTREMELY pissed as he waited all week to watch it and could not justify spending more money to watch it. I told him the NFL doesn't give a crap about "us" any more...they already have your old tired eyes...they are worried about the new generation of instant gratification millennials watching or not watching. I'm all about hooking up with ESPN...They've been doing it for years and have it down to a science and have the platform to promote it like no other...(think "the SEC on ESPN" which we've seen ad-nauseum for decades now).
Grant's Dad, as George Allen used to say, the future is now.
Virtually everyone under 35 is adept at streaming and are only vaguely familiar with cable, if at all.
I haven't had a cable box in years.
I actually switched, first to Sling, just to get the Pac 12 Network and then added other streaming choices (Hulu, ESPN, Disney bundle, Prime, Netflix, Peacock and Apple shows provide a lot of options.
Actually might be closer to 50 and under that are adept at streaming. I am 49 and cut the cord about 8 years ago. I will never go back to cable or satellite again. I save tons of money and only watch what I want, rather than what is served to me.
The smart play here is the diverse portfolio with as many games on ESPN as we can get a fair price from them for and then a bunch on Amazon who will likely pay a much more fair price.
The streaming technology Amazon uses for their NFL broadcasts was developed at Elemental Technologies in Portland. Pretty much any live streaming event you've seen in the last decade has come from that merry band. A lot of late nights were spent getting it right. It's REALLY cool to see it all finally come together.
I forget the exact number, but something like 2/3 of households making over $75k annually subscribe to Amazon Prime. That's exactly the audience advertisers want to be in front of. The question is whether people will actually be able to find the content. It's one thing to flip channels and come across a game. It's ALSO nice to be able to flip away at commercials. You're kinda captive if you're watching a game on Amazon Prime. I wonder if Amazon either develops their own version of (insert your preferred OTT provider here) or acquires one. That's probably the next move for them.
In the meantime, if the Pac-12 goes with Amazon over ESPN, not only are they giving up the exposure ESPN gives them, but it also sticks them right back in another walled garden. Like trying to find something on Channel 329. It's there, but do you want to have to hunt that hard? If competing for national titles is the Pac-12's goal, they HAVE to be on ESPN. If they want to be the AFL or ABA, then maybe Prime is the move.
I am all for Amazon.
It's app is easy to download, no different than the Sling, ESPN or other app, it works well on a ROKU TV or on a phone.
Also, it is capable of major viewship, including something like 25 million for a recent show.
Frankly, given the way streaming now works, sources like Prime are often easier to access than tracking down football games on ESPN (through Sling) or on ESPN's own App.
On Xfinity, I can find something new to watch and change the channel in two clicks. I can be back to the game in one. How does that work on your Roku?
I don't channel surf while watching the Ducks, but Roku has its own simple to use remote. Two clicks-no, but easy to move between Prime, Sling and so forth.
In other words, it's not an issue for me.
Also, to the extent I want to watch a couple of things at once, I usually have the Ipad going at the same time, as I can just jump from App to App with a couple of swipes.
Here is the real issue, as I see it.
If the "solution" is ESPN, it is doubtful the Pac 10 will survive. It is apparently not enough money.
If it is Prime, trying to buy its way into this arena and own the Pac 10, it is likely going to be enough to survive.
So-our choice, convenience with channel surfing for a couple of years, until Oregon, UW, Cal and Stanford bolt for the Big 10, or the league as we know it.
On Saturdays I’m constantly flipping around to other games during commercials and halftime, so streaming tends to inhibit this.
Streaming is definitely more cumbersome-moving from App to App (if watching on a Roku TV) and then selecting your show.
If you are on one source-for example Sling, and want to jump around from one show to another, it is very simple - just a couple of clicks can take you back and forth.
Exactly...If you want exposure and eye balls seeing your program to sell it to the nation it HAS to be ESPN. if you are trying to sell your self with the thought live streaming "some day" with be 'THE' place to go and you want to beat everyone else there...then go with Amazon. For Example, My best friend called me on Thursday trying to find the Chargers vs. Chiefs game...I told him it was being live streamed on Amazon prime...He was EXTREMELY pissed as he waited all week to watch it and could not justify spending more money to watch it. I told him the NFL doesn't give a crap about "us" any more...they already have your old tired eyes...they are worried about the new generation of instant gratification millennials watching or not watching. I'm all about hooking up with ESPN...They've been doing it for years and have it down to a science and have the platform to promote it like no other...(think "the SEC on ESPN" which we've seen ad-nauseum for decades now).
Grant's Dad, as George Allen used to say, the future is now.
Virtually everyone under 35 is adept at streaming and are only vaguely familiar with cable, if at all.
I haven't had a cable box in years.
I actually switched, first to Sling, just to get the Pac 12 Network and then added other streaming choices (Hulu, ESPN, Disney bundle, Prime, Netflix, Peacock and Apple shows provide a lot of options.
Actually might be closer to 50 and under that are adept at streaming. I am 49 and cut the cord about 8 years ago. I will never go back to cable or satellite again. I save tons of money and only watch what I want, rather than what is served to me.
The smart play here is the diverse portfolio with as many games on ESPN as we can get a fair price from them for and then a bunch on Amazon who will likely pay a much more fair price.
I think you are right.
I'm 65 and got rid of cable years ago in favor of streaming.
It would be nice, if possible, to have an ESPN/Prime combo.
What if Amazon offers a boatload of money for an exclusive right to the games?