ESPN has a strong online presence (gated via tradtional media subscriptions).
ESPN is Disney. There have live TV, replays , highlights streaming online already. Adding some non sports content won't be trivial, but they aren't starting from ground zero.
Yeah and by and large, it sucks. Until they fully decouple it from their regular cable business it's just not compelling at all.
What is the point of having a nice online delivery mechanism if you're required to have the cable channel to use it for the good content? I mean I like online and all, but if I already have cable and have to choose between the two, I'm picking cable.
The same argument applies to the HBO product. To me, the entire point of having an online offering is to reach more people. If you're immediately limiting your potential customer base to your existing customer base... How is that supposed to really work?
My point isn't about convenience of product. It's about the existence of infrastructure. Dropping the requirement of having a cable subscription is not a technical one.
As far as the actual product goes, I have cable. I still watch ESPN on my Apple TV because the replay functionality is really nice. I don't need to pay for a DVR (or HD) to watch the teams I want to. That's pretty cool.
Streaming on ESPN is mediocre. My streams are poor quality, buffer, pixelate, etc while this never happens on Netflix where I regularly achieve "Super HD."
I don't understand why people think Disney will start their own streaming service when they never started their own cable TV company. Large public companies want to get a high return with as little capital invested as possible, which means they will always prefer licensing their IP rather than owning metal.
ESPN is Disney. There have live TV, replays , highlights streaming online already. Adding some non sports content won't be trivial, but they aren't starting from ground zero.