microscopes Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 I gotcha. Well like they said, with all the tv's now having the built in apps it would probably be linked in off of something they have. Same with the Roku. In my opinion, that's a horrible idea. Although I and many others have new TV's that have that technology, many don't. There are still millions of people with 10 year old TV's that don't have applications to stream. There only option would be to purchase hardware to screen share their laptop at a much lower resolution on their television. I hope the NFL see's better of this. I don't mind selling the Ticket to others, but keep it on at least one national television platform, such as DirecTV or Time Warner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 In my opinion, that's a horrible idea. Although I and many others have new TV's that have that technology, many don't. There are still millions of people with 10 year old TV's that don't have applications to stream. There only option would be to purchase hardware to screen share their laptop at a much lower resolution on their television. I hope the NFL see's better of this. I don't mind selling the Ticket to others, but keep it on at least one national television platform, such as DirecTV or Time Warner. What's the difference between connecting a DirecTV converter box to a TV or an Internet dongle to the TV to watch the games in HD? There are far more Internet enabled homes in the US than DTV homes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Best Player Available Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 WOW, CNBC breaks a story? Couldn't open it based on the fact it's CNBC. Why doesn't google buy that dump? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeG Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 I agree, that would SUCK! I don't have a smart TV and don't want to watch ONLY on my laptop or computer... I watch a secondary game on my laptop during my primary game on normal TV but if the computer or "streaming" was the only way to watch the NFL sunday ticket, I would HATE IT. Also, not to mention it would totally revamp the way sports bars are set up (wired)... most would need smart tvs or some sort of "cable box" system available to them and that could be bad. I hope it just goes to every carrier, like the NHL Center Ice and MLB does... streaming anything over the internet doesn't seem EVER to be as crystal clear as regular tv or as fast (live)... we all would be at different points in the game seconds behind or ahead of eachother... that's annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
microscopes Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 What's the difference between connecting a DirecTV converter box to a TV or an Internet dongle to the TV to watch the games in HD? There are far more Internet enabled homes in the US than DTV homes. 1) On older TV's, there is only 1 or 2 connections. The DirecTV box is permanently plugged in (meaning people don't generally plug in and unplug after every use). Therefore, for those people, they would have to plug their Desktop into their TV every time. Maybe not a big deal to you, but it would be to many. Especially elderly people who don't know how to accomplish this, and wouldn't want to pull their TV out from against the wall every week and do this. 2) Have you used YouTube recently? Buffering is a serious issue. Somehow I doubt they would magically solve this by the time the NFL games, with MASSIVE bandwidth, starts to play. I agree, that would SUCK! I don't have a smart TV and don't want to watch ONLY on my laptop or computer... I watch a secondary game on my laptop during my primary game on normal TV but if the computer or "streaming" was the only way to watch the NFL sunday ticket, I would HATE IT. Also, not to mention it would totally revamp the way sports bars are set up (wired)... most would need smart tvs or some sort of "cable box" system available to them and that could be bad. I hope it just goes to every carrier, like the NHL Center Ice and MLB does... streaming anything over the internet doesn't seem EVER to be as crystal clear as regular tv or as fast (live)... we all would be at different points in the game seconds behind or ahead of eachother... that's annoying. Perfect example of someone who don't have a newer TV and this move would create an annoyance for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Yup. They'd be stupid to limit only to Chromecast. If they do it, it will be on a secure Youtube channel by subscription only. Then, they'll work out the licensing rights to TV players (Chromecast, Roku, AppleTV) to stream to regular TVs. I highly doubt they'd limit it to one device. Google's revenues are largely based on advertising, that means getting your products on as many pieces of hardware as possible. That's why every device known to man has a YouTube app these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 1) On older TV's, there is only 1 or 2 connections. The DirecTV box is permanently plugged in (meaning people don't generally plug in and unplug after every use). Therefore, for those people, they would have to plug their Desktop into their TV every time. Maybe not a big deal to you, but it would be to many. Especially elderly people who don't know how to accomplish this, and wouldn't want to pull their TV out from against the wall every week and do this. Internet streaming devices like Chromecast, AppleTV, Roku, Tivo etc. are also permanently plugged into TVs. The only adaptor that may be needed would be if an old TV only has an RF input. But I'm guessing somebody splurging cash for a Sunday Ticket & DTV subscription probably has a TV that can handle 20th century inputs. 2) Have you used YouTube recently? Buffering is a serious issue. Somehow I doubt they would magically solve this by the time the NFL games, with MASSIVE bandwidth, starts to play. Perfect example of someone who don't have a newer TV and this move would create an annoyance for them. Youtube isn't meant to be watched on a big screen TV, yet. Netflix HD OTOH is relatively flawless for me, and has far more subscribers than Sunday Ticket. Plus, managing bandwidth for Sunday Ticket is much easier, since you have a high degree of certainty when the fans will be watching the games. I highly doubt they'd limit it to one device. Google's revenues are largely based on advertising, that means getting your products on as many pieces of hardware as possible. That's why every device known to man has a YouTube app these days. That's why I said it would be stupid for them to limit it to Chromecast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
microscopes Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Internet streaming devices like Chromecast, AppleTV, Roku, Tivo etc. are also permanently plugged into TVs. The only adaptor that may be needed would be if an old TV only has an RF input. But I'm guessing somebody splurging cash for a Sunday Ticket & DTV subscription probably has a TV that can handle 20th century inputs. So now fans don't only have to pay for the Ticket, they have to pay for an external device to be plugged into their TV. And if their TV only has one input like many older TV's do, they have to constantly unplug one and plug in the other. This is all very silly. Youtube isn't meant to be watched on a big screen TV, yet. Netflix HD OTOH is relatively flawless for me, and has far more subscribers than Sunday Ticket. Plus, managing bandwidth for Sunday Ticket is much easier, since you have a high degree of certainty when the fans will be watching the games. Netflix has more subscribers. However, many of them are mail only subscribers. Some of them are mail and online but only use mail. And some are online and don't even use their service (like myself). Nearly everyone who has the NFL Sunday Ticket is watching it at the same time every week. That's a huge server load and bandwidth load at the same exact time that everyone is trying to watch. And with Netflix, there are a lot of people watching all different things. With the NFL, there are millions watching the same 8 programs at the same exact time. Totally different animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchmurraydowntown Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 I plugged my computer into the TV outside via HDMi for the pre-season stuff, it worked perfect & looked / sounded great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PS 56 Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 I would love to stream games. Bottom line is Cable and satellite is expensive for what you get. You are forced to buy stations you don't even watch. With streaming you will pay for what you want to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 I plugged my computer into the TV outside via HDMi for the pre-season stuff, it worked perfect & looked / sounded great. I'm planning on doing this myself, for when the season starts. Need to find a long enough HDMI cord though. Any knowledge on max length before signal loss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 So now fans don't only have to pay for the Ticket, they have to pay for an external device to be plugged into their TV. And if their TV only has one input like many older TV's do, they have to constantly unplug one and plug in the other. This is all very silly. An auto-sensing HDMI switch is rather inexpensive if the number of devices exceeds the available ports on an HDTV. Come on man, it's 2013! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 I would love to stream games. Bottom line is Cable and satellite is expensive for what you get. You are forced to buy stations you don't even watch. With streaming you will pay for what you want to watch. Cable companies are recognizing this, and increasing the price of internet connections along with implementing data caps with overage charges. They'll get your money one way or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 So now fans don't only have to pay for the Ticket, they have to pay for an external device to be plugged into their TV. And if their TV only has one input like many older TV's do, they have to constantly unplug one and plug in the other. This is all very silly. Again, the number of Sunday Ticket subscribers who only have TVs with an RF connection is likely very, very small. If Google gets it, it would open up Sunday Ticket to much more than the 2 million subscribers it currently has through DTV. BTW, how are those people with single TV hookups manage a connecting DTV and DVD players? Netflix has more subscribers. However, many of them are mail only subscribers. Some of them are mail and online but only use mail. And some are online and don't even use their service (like myself). Nearly everyone who has the NFL Sunday Ticket is watching it at the same time every week. That's a huge server load and bandwidth load at the same exact time that everyone is trying to watch. And with Netflix, there are a lot of people watching all different things. With the NFL, there are millions watching the same 8 programs at the same exact time. Totally different animals. There are more online Netflix customers than there are mail customers. It will be relatively easy to manage the Sunday Ticket server load, especially for the largest owner of servers in the world to provision the exact same 8 hours of video to the same 2-3 million people on 17 Sundays per year. I'm planning on doing this myself, for when the season starts. Need to find a long enough HDMI cord though. Any knowledge on max length before signal loss? I heard you can easily go up to 40'-50' with no problem. If you're talking over 100', you'd need an adapter/extender that goes over ethernet cable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 I heard you can easily go up to 40'-50' with no problem. If you're talking over 100', you'd need an adapter/extender that goes over ethernet cable Oh, Jesus, that's more than long enough. I only live in a one bedroom apartment hah. Ok, cool. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 I'm planning on doing this myself, for when the season starts. Need to find a long enough HDMI cord though. Any knowledge on max length before signal loss? Here's a good source of info: http://www.hdmi.org/learningcenter/faq.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djp14150 Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 If the NFL was smart they would actually just allow distribution through all service providers similar to the other sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 If the NFL was smart they would actually just allow distribution through all service providers similar to the other sports. If they were smart, they'd distribute themselves as pay per view, online (directly from them) or through cable providers (and gradually phase that out as everyone's tv comes via Internet over the next five years). Offer economy of scale packages with per game packages, per team packages, per division packages, per conference packages or per league packages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 So now fans don't only have to pay for the Ticket, they have to pay for an external device to be plugged into their TV. And if their TV only has one input like many older TV's do, they have to constantly unplug one and plug in the other. This is all very silly. That's not at all like having to pay for an external device like a box and a satellite dish, which some urban customers aren't even allowed to have installed. Not to mention that a one-time purchase of a $35 USB dongle, or Apple TV, or whatever you like can more readily accommodate a rapidly shifting media landscape than can lock-in with a proprietary box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 That's not at all like having to pay for an external device like a box and a satellite dish, which some urban customers aren't even allowed to have installed. Not to mention that a one-time purchase of a $35 USB dongle, or Apple TV, or whatever you like can more readily accommodate a rapidly shifting media landscape than can lock-in with a proprietary box. Yeah, considering an HD box is a per month charge and DVR is an additional charge on top of that, I'm not entirely sure which decade microscopes is living in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts