ROOT Sports developing mobile app

[get'em_griz]

Griz fans, start rejoicing!

Looks like ROOT Sports is in the process of developing a mobile app for streaming MLB games. Even though this FAQ is about streaming MLB games, I imagine that they'll also be able to stream Big Sky games too once the app is developed.

http://northwest.rootsports.com/viewer-faqs/

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

Ill believe it when I see it.

 

[MissoulaMarinerFan]

Ill believe it when I see it.

Agreed. Probably would only be available to those who have a cable package with Root. If Root would allow users to subscribe to it without having a cable package that includes it...ala HBO - that would be a different story.

 

[Bertram]

Supposedly their in house app is going to roll out shortly before the NBA regular season kicks off (October)

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

Root will make it available to all those still using bag phones and playing Atari.

 

[alabamagrizzly]

Why would you even want to get my hopes up? The only reason we still have cable is because, by some miracle through the grace of God, an obesure channle down here called Audience, shows the root televised Big Sky games every week. It's the only sports themed programming they show all year but when we finally dump cable this year at the end of the regular season, I will then be resigned to watching Griz games on the gametracker. Ugh.

 

[The_Real_Chief]

Welcome to 2017 Root Sports!

 

[Ursus1]

2017 and they are "developing" an app? Give me a break that technology would take 5 minutes if hired/paid someone who has done it for the other networks

 

[EverettGriz]

It isn't technology that is holding Root back from developing an app. It's the fact that an app would destroy the one and only purpose they show bsc games to begin with. They want and need the small cable companies in Montana, Idaho and (to a lesser extent) Utah and southern Oregon to carry their station so they can maximize their advertising profits on Mariner games. This is the ONLY reason they broadcast BSC games. Unless they limit the app to people who already have a cable station with Root on it, it's unlikely you'll see it. Makes no sense to them otherwise.

 

[Sam A. Blitz]

ROOT does a great job IMO

 

[PhxGriz]

It isn't technology that is holding Root back from developing an app. It's the fact that an app would destroy the one and only purpose they show bsc games to begin with. They want and need the small cable companies in Montana, Idaho and (to a lesser extent) Utah and southern Oregon to carry their station so they can maximize their advertising profits on Mariner games. This is the ONLY reason they broadcast BSC games. Unless they limit the app to people who already have a cable station with Root on it, it's unlikely you'll see it. Makes no sense to them otherwise.

This answers my own internal question of if it was feasible to offer a pay per season online package. Nope. Need that constant viewership.

 

[bgbigdog]

Root will make it available to all those still using bag phones and playing Atari.

Does this mean CDA won't be able to get games on his toaster anymore? That'll be a blow.

 

[Cuervohola]

I'll never go back to pay TV unless I can pay for only the channels I want, which are

Root for M's and Griz
ESPN for Seahawks on Monday
History
Discovery
Food Network

I proposed a "Pick 5" to Directv Now for $15, or a "Pick 10" for $25, but of course they won't go for it... They really think people are going to suddenly fall in love with their (Now) $40 plus per month... Not going to happen.

I quit 5 years ago or so, so lets say 60 months... Assuming 15 million have cut the cord in that time period, if the companies had the $15 option, they would have banked 13.5 Billion.

There is a lot of variables of course, but the companies are leaving a ton of cash on the table no matter how it's looked at.

 

[Stop_HammerTime69]

There is a lot of variables of course, but the companies are leaving a ton of cash on the table no matter how it's looked at.

The problem is that our current model simply doesn't work for cord cutting. It's all based around subscriber fees, typically a few cents per channel per month, (however ESPN is the largest at nearly $4.25 a month) tiny subsections of your cable bill. This worked great for a while, and meant that the large networks got their share, but smaller, more niche networks got decent revenue from people who weren't watching their shows, but also paid for that channel. This was the driving force in the last round of major conference realignment. The main reason the Big Ten added Rutgers is now some 15 million people are paying for subscription to the B1G network without watching it.

Essentially, this is a socialist model. Small networks get enough cash to produce decent high quality content for their smaller audiences, and the major networks can fleece everyone because how your cable package is set up is a mystery.

The networks aren't leaving money on the table. They're scrambling to fix a system that won't work for a picky, economically-recovering society.

 

[Cuervohola]

There is a lot of variables of course, but the companies are leaving a ton of cash on the table no matter how it's looked at.

The problem is that our current model simply doesn't work for cord cutting. It's all based around subscriber fees, typically a few cents per channel per month, (however ESPN is the largest at nearly $4.25 a month) tiny subsections of your cable bill. This worked great for a while, and meant that the large networks got their share, but smaller, more niche networks got decent revenue from people who weren't watching their shows, but also paid for that channel. This was the driving force in the last round of major conference realignment. The main reason the Big Ten added Rutgers is now some 15 million people are paying for subscription to the B1G network without watching it.

Essentially, this is a socialist model. Small networks get enough cash to produce decent high quality content for their smaller audiences, and the major networks can fleece everyone because how your cable package is set up is a mystery.

The networks aren't leaving money on the table. They're scrambling to fix a system that won't work for a picky, economically-recovering society.

You have some good points, but I heard ESPN was more like $6, while every other channel was pennies or at the most $1 and a few cents... Cord cutting has to be why ESPN jettisoned most of their on air staff.

The cable and satellite companies are leaving the money on the table, not the networks. I could be wrong, but I would think the networks want to be in every package, like blank channel 1 is available on all the packages for Directv, but blank channel 2 is only on the middle and premium package...

We will probably never see a breakdown of the contracts between the companies and the networks, but if I'm the owner of blank channel that costs the consumer 25 cents, and I get 10 cents of that, I want every possible household to see my channel, so I might negotiate down to 7 cents, provided that I'm included in every package.

Now, I might own the channel that has synchronized swimming and underwater basket weaving which nobody watches, thus I have zero leverage... When you look at the other side with ESPN, which had ALL the leverage and paid their anchors $$$$$$$$, the "impossible" happened and they collapsed like a bad Jenga dream.

The more "reality" trash that is invented, the more people cut the cord because they can get that garbage with an antenna... The Food Network channel isn't going anywhere, but I can get lots of cooking shows on PBS...

 

[Stop_HammerTime69]

There is a lot of variables of course, but the companies are leaving a ton of cash on the table no matter how it's looked at.

The problem is that our current model simply doesn't work for cord cutting. It's all based around subscriber fees, typically a few cents per channel per month, (however ESPN is the largest at nearly $4.25 a month) tiny subsections of your cable bill. This worked great for a while, and meant that the large networks got their share, but smaller, more niche networks got decent revenue from people who weren't watching their shows, but also paid for that channel. This was the driving force in the last round of major conference realignment. The main reason the Big Ten added Rutgers is now some 15 million people are paying for subscription to the B1G network without watching it.

Essentially, this is a socialist model. Small networks get enough cash to produce decent high quality content for their smaller audiences, and the major networks can fleece everyone because how your cable package is set up is a mystery.

The networks aren't leaving money on the table. They're scrambling to fix a system that won't work for a picky, economically-recovering society.

You have some good points, but I heard ESPN was more like $6, while every other channel was pennies or at the most $1 and a few cents... Cord cutting has to be why ESPN jettisoned most of their on air staff.

The cable and satellite companies are leaving the money on the table, not the networks. I could be wrong, but I would think the networks want to be in every package, like blank channel 1 is available on all the packages for Directv, but blank channel 2 is only on the middle and premium package...

We will probably never see a breakdown of the contracts between the companies and the networks, but if I'm the owner of blank channel that costs the consumer 25 cents, and I get 10 cents of that, I want every possible household to see my channel, so I might negotiate down to 7 cents, provided that I'm included in every package.

Now, I might own the channel that has synchronized swimming and underwater basket weaving which nobody watches, thus I have zero leverage... When you look at the other side with ESPN, which had ALL the leverage and paid their anchors $$$$$$$$, the "impossible" happened and they collapsed like a bad Jenga dream.

The more "reality" trash that is invented, the more people cut the cord because they can get that garbage with an antenna... The Food Network channel isn't going anywhere, but I can get lots of cooking shows on PBS...

It's very much a "chicken-or-the-egg" cycle here. More people are cord-cutting, which reduces the number of subscribers, smaller networks can't produce as much decent content, so they resort to cheap reality TV, which causes more people to cut the cord, and so it continues. Sports are the major thing keeping a lot of people on.

 

[The_Real_Chief]

There is a lot of variables of course, but the companies are leaving a ton of cash on the table no matter how it's looked at.

The problem is that our current model simply doesn't work for cord cutting. It's all based around subscriber fees, typically a few cents per channel per month, (however ESPN is the largest at nearly $4.25 a month) tiny subsections of your cable bill. This worked great for a while, and meant that the large networks got their share, but smaller, more niche networks got decent revenue from people who weren't watching their shows, but also paid for that channel. This was the driving force in the last round of major conference realignment. The main reason the Big Ten added Rutgers is now some 15 million people are paying for subscription to the B1G network without watching it.

Essentially, this is a socialist model. Small networks get enough cash to produce decent high quality content for their smaller audiences, and the major networks can fleece everyone because how your cable package is set up is a mystery.

The networks aren't leaving money on the table. They're scrambling to fix a system that won't work for a picky, economically-recovering society.

You have some good points, but I heard ESPN was more like $6, while every other channel was pennies or at the most $1 and a few cents... Cord cutting has to be why ESPN jettisoned most of their on air staff.

The cable and satellite companies are leaving the money on the table, not the networks. I could be wrong, but I would think the networks want to be in every package, like blank channel 1 is available on all the packages for Directv, but blank channel 2 is only on the middle and premium package...

We will probably never see a breakdown of the contracts between the companies and the networks, but if I'm the owner of blank channel that costs the consumer 25 cents, and I get 10 cents of that, I want every possible household to see my channel, so I might negotiate down to 7 cents, provided that I'm included in every package.

Now, I might own the channel that has synchronized swimming and underwater basket weaving which nobody watches, thus I have zero leverage... When you look at the other side with ESPN, which had ALL the leverage and paid their anchors $$$$$$$$, the "impossible" happened and they collapsed like a bad Jenga dream.

The more "reality" trash that is invented, the more people cut the cord because they can get that garbage with an antenna... The Food Network channel isn't going anywhere, but I can get lots of cooking shows on PBS...

You don't strike me as the food network type. Are you a cutthroat kitchen type?

 

[mtgrizfankb]

There is a lot of variables of course, but the companies are leaving a ton of cash on the table no matter how it's looked at.

The problem is that our current model simply doesn't work for cord cutting. It's all based around subscriber fees, typically a few cents per channel per month, (however ESPN is the largest at nearly $4.25 a month) tiny subsections of your cable bill. This worked great for a while, and meant that the large networks got their share, but smaller, more niche networks got decent revenue from people who weren't watching their shows, but also paid for that channel. This was the driving force in the last round of major conference realignment. The main reason the Big Ten added Rutgers is now some 15 million people are paying for subscription to the B1G network without watching it.

Essentially, this is a socialist model. Small networks get enough cash to produce decent high quality content for their smaller audiences, and the major networks can fleece everyone because how your cable package is set up is a mystery.

The networks aren't leaving money on the table. They're scrambling to fix a system that won't work for a picky, economically-recovering society.

You have some good points, but I heard ESPN was more like $6, while every other channel was pennies or at the most $1 and a few cents... Cord cutting has to be why ESPN jettisoned most of their on air staff.

The cable and satellite companies are leaving the money on the table, not the networks. I could be wrong, but I would think the networks want to be in every package, like blank channel 1 is available on all the packages for Directv, but blank channel 2 is only on the middle and premium package...

We will probably never see a breakdown of the contracts between the companies and the networks, but if I'm the owner of blank channel that costs the consumer 25 cents, and I get 10 cents of that, I want every possible household to see my channel, so I might negotiate down to 7 cents, provided that I'm included in every package.

Now, I might own the channel that has synchronized swimming and underwater basket weaving which nobody watches, thus I have zero leverage... When you look at the other side with ESPN, which had ALL the leverage and paid their anchors $$$$$$$$, the "impossible" happened and they collapsed like a bad Jenga dream.

The more "reality" trash that is invented, the more people cut the cord because they can get that garbage with an antenna... The Food Network channel isn't going anywhere, but I can get lots of cooking shows on PBS...

It's not the TV companies that don't want to do an al a carte type service. The broadcasting companies won't allow it. Disney for instance wants you to have all of their broadcasting, that means espn,Disney,abc,freeform and everything they own in between. Companies have tried to suggest doing a pick your channels service and Disney was talking 20+for their espn networks if they were alone. So what you wanna pay 50 bucks for 10-15 channels? I highly doubt it