Kirk Van Houten
Registered User
- May 7, 2019
- 1,542
- 1,666
I think this is because they can't offer a better product than linear TV does.Both Sportsnet+ and TSN Direct have struggled to gain much traction in Canada BallySports+ has flopped despite being a very good deal in Detroit
Espn+ is 20 bucks now, so 30:would be a steal for that additional programming.
TSN isn’t far off neither .I think this is because they can't offer a better product than linear TV does.
In the case of Sportsnet though, the app is just a tremendous piece of shit. If that app was somebody's first experience with streaming apps they'd never try any other app.
Your image says "with ads" so I'm assuming the poster you quoted doesn't have ads?
Why would someone buy ESPN+ standalone with no ads? It's sports, there's going to be breaks for ads either way.Your image says "with ads" so I'm assuming the poster you quoted doesn't have ads?
I smell monopoly.![]()
Streaming bundles: A new era has arrived
The next wave of streaming bundles could entail media companies teaming up instead of competing with each other.finance.yahoo.com
Now Paramount and Peacock (Comcast) chatting.
More fuel for the fire... or bang for the buck?
Tell me how you guys read this one. I know what I want to see in it, and I think my biases are clouding my judgement.
![]()
ESPN digital platforms adding links to several regional sports networks
ESPN will now begin linking to three RSNs, enabling in-market fans to watch games on those networks' streaming platforms.awfulannouncing.com
It's just a link to where the game is. You aren't getting the RSNs as part of ESPN+ or anything.
I’m on Fubo & Max to get Sportsnet Pittsburgh and TNT games. My wishful brain was hoping I could ditch both for the cheaper combo YouTube TV and ESPN+. But a re-read of the article says you have to be signed in to your provider. At the very least it sounds like I won't have to jump from app to app to watch games.
Yay, consumers?https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/16/jud...n-favor-of-fubo-tv-on-antitrust-concerns.html
Blocked by a federal judge.
At a price tag of $42.99 a month, I'd say it's also anti-consumer.https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/16/jud...n-favor-of-fubo-tv-on-antitrust-concerns.html
Blocked by a federal judge.
That was kind of my thoughts. If they think they can charge 43 bucks a month as the baseline then it means they probably aren’t worried about the competition undercutting them. (Because there is none)At a price tag of $42.99 a month, I'd say it's also anti-consumer.