PanthersATL

It could be that CBS doesn't have the streaming infrastructure setup to handle a super bowl-sized audience on the 4K transcoding/distribution backend. It's likely a CBS decision rather than a cable company demand

CBS will be airing the Super Bowl in 4K, but only via dedicated 4K cable channels. It will not be available in 4K anywhere else -- including the CBS app, the Nickelodeon broadcast, or any local channel (either via antenna or otherwise). The Paramount+ streaming service will also not be carrying the game in 4K, but will be in 1080p there.

Warner Brothers's BARBIE seemed to work.

Let's use the whole quote, please. He was not embracing piracy, merely recognizing one aspect that piracy appears to have brought to the table. His main point was that piracy resulted in the people who worked on the show not making as much money as they would have. https://variety.com/2013/tv/news/breaking-bad-creator-vince-gilligan-piracy-boosted-shows-popularity-1200737192/

Even if the creator says it's ok, that doesn't mean the distributor selling the product agrees. The only way that works is times when the content creators post their content on a (legit, free) service -- like when De La Soul posted their entire catalog on their own website for download a while back. They didn't mean "hey, here's all our songs for you to post on pirate websites". It was "here's all our songs so nobody has to go to a pirate website for them"

As mentioned earlier, majority of households only subscribe to Netflix and at most one other service per month. Majority of households are not 6x$30/month

with a $1.5b investment in Epic Games https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/disney-epic-games-deal-new-universe-franchises-fortnite-1235818438/

HBO paid approx $5m per episode for Game of Thrones. Some episodes cost more than that. But all the $ came from HBO (more than 85% of HBO's revenue comes from subscriber fees). Streamers are cutting shows from their lineups that they don't have the IP rights for. MAX cutting MINX this season is one example, as it eliminates an (unnecessary) license fee from their budget.

It probably will. YouTubeTV continues to grow, with the largest number of subscribers for a "cable alternative" (aka "skinny bundle") vs Hulu+Live TV or others. If things keep going the way it has been, expect to see YouTubeTV surpass satellite in terms of subscriber count in a few years. But the differentiator is going to be whether YouTubeTV has anything to offer that's different. They allegedly gained 1m subscriptions last year with Sunday Ticket. But that's not sustainable long-term if there aren't any other exclusives to the platform or differentiator If the new Sports-Only bundle takes off in popularity, we may see YouTubeTV subs dropped by those people who really only wanted sports programming and didn't care about local channels or whatever else YTTV brought to the table that isnt available elsewhere

The NBA has provided this statement:

Christian McCaffery believes in the cable model

not a joke, it's true. Somebody has to pay for the content creation/licensing. if you're paying for a pirate stream (either via money or their own overlayed advertising), then that's money that doesn't go to the content creators. Buying a bootleg t-shirt outside a concert doesn't pay the band performing inside.

Netflix's largest subscribed tier is their lower-cost ad-supported plan. There is an audience willing to trade lower fees for seeing commercials. I do pay attention to commercial spot load, and am equally annoyed. But I also know why they're present. Could a streamer charge a higher CPM, limit spots to a max of 15s apiece/one min max per break, do "this program is sponsored by" lead-ins....? Yes to all of these -- just a matter of time until things balance out. There are content providers today who created their programs without natural commercial breakpoints, believing their content would be seen commercial-free on a streamer. They're not happy with the situation either. If you want a bad commercial experience, you should have watched A Few Good Men on BBC America this weekend. Long spot loads seemingly every 6 minutes -- including smack in the middle of the Jack Nicholson courtroom scene. It was horrible compared to what the streamers are doing

Don't know about "broken", but there was a rush to claim a stake without fully recognizing what the marketplace needs/wants. They're now moving into recovery mode, and will eventually land on something that makes sense for everybody. And that could very will be a merged streaming package. But it won't be cheap.

In this case, It's not so much trying to recreate the cable model as it is providing specific content to a targeted audience. The PR reads that subscribers are not getting the full TBS lineup, just the NBA games. TBD: It may not even be the full ESPN schedule of shows... but only the aired sporting events from Pickleball Slam to NCAA softball to the little league world series to MNF. There's a high chance more streamer collaborations will happen to compete with YouTubeTV (like you said, the cable model). Local channels might be left out of the mix, but local news already have ways of streaming their product anyway

FOX paid streaming service is Hulu. There's still an ESPN standalone product coming. Combining forces for a sports-only add-on is smart. If it takes off, I could see Paramount and Peacock joining up since it's another Revenue stream for them and doesn't take away from their current subscriber base since the games would stream in both places

Disney isn't setting the price by themselves. It's a tri-owned partnership with independent oversight. Pricing is expected to be high, however, as it will be competing with the coming ESPN direct to consumer product and is a niche audience. (You can always bring your own food into a Disney park, but thats not todays topic) Based on the PR, the content will not be exclusive to this service. NFL games will still be shown in local markets through traditional means. And all channels will still be covered via however you're getting them today. If you're already watching NBA on TBS, then this product isn't targeting you. They're aiming for a sports fan who wants to watch these channels but doesn't have a way to do so via their current TV watching setup

Yes, prices have increased, but its in part due to the need to pay for content to put onto the service along with providing the infrastructure The other piece is that streaming services see a lot of monthly churn in subscribers, with users signing in for a month or two to binge-watch, then dropping for a while and switching services. This leads to unpredictable revenue trendlines Netflix is the only streamer making money, and they have the highest month-to-month subscriber percentage (ie less overall churn). Usage shows most streaming households have Netflix and one other streamer active for any given month. It's rare for any household to maintain active subs for peacock, Netflix, Paramount, Hulu at the same time. If consumers subscribed to streaming services the same way they did to cable (via annual renewal contracts) there's a small chance that prices would not have increased as much.

Price hasn’t been announced yet, but I wouldn’t be surprised for it to be at least $30/month minimum. Analysts say a direct to consumer ESPN product would likely be in the $20-30/month range anyway. DTC needs to be priced higher than what ESPN was getting paid by the cable companies to make up for the user shift and added associated costs from one distribution channel to their own

Looks like a convo is happening at

There’s no exclusivity, so the NFL ends up,getting a wider audience (hopefully) utilizing their current contracts. None of the sports being shown are intended to be exclusive to this platform but will still be available via their original partners. its like competing radio stations all being avail on TuneIn, iHeart, their own apps, Audacy… the stations get wider reach for the same product.

They’d rather license it out to others who have the tech infrastructure to handle it. They’ll stick with generating the content, let professionals (whatever that platform ends up being) handle the distribution MLB tried their own platform. It ended up being bought by Disney as the initial core of Disney Streaming and the start of ESPN+ etc https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/09/how-disney-mlb-advanced-media-deal-sets-them-up-for-the-future.html

Commercials or commercials+subscription. Netflix is the only streamer making money, and their most popular plan is the ad tier. someone has to pay the people running the cameras, manning the equipment, reporting and reading the news and weather. Write the funny comedies, etc. money to pay for all that has to come from *somewhere*. If not commercials or high fees, then where?

Truthfully, it’s turning out that way. while streaming has offered massive accessibility and convenience, cable just “worked” and was simple/straightforward

Byron Allen is making a bid. Warner has too much debt already to be a viable suitor, so while it could happen, Warner is not a financially reasonable choice here