3 ms·

Awesome, now I understand why there are two different HBO apps and why HBO Now is a little clunky. Little confused about how the article is spinning BAM as a p

Awesome, now I understand why there are two different HBO apps and why HBO Now is a little clunky. Little confused about how the article is spinning BAM as a plucky underdog. They got $77 million dollars from Major League Owners, demanded another $10 million from TicketMaster for selling baseball tickets and have a monopoly on some of the most popular content on the planet. I'm glad they've solved some hard technical problems and particularly glad that I can watch Game of Thrones without a cable contract but not sure that they are a shining example of plucky little startup succeeding despite the odds...

adventured 11y ago
Where in the article did it imply they were an underdog? They clearly spelled out the numerous advantages BAM has had, including the capital infusions, which implies the exact opposite of them being an underdog. They're blatantly proclaiming BAM as being a rising juggernaut in the field of streaming, rather than an underdog. There is frequent promotion of their scale and accomplishments, including their revenue and how they're powering other large businesses.
- chuckcode 11y ago
  Perhaps I'm mistaken in my reading of the article but the quotes below set a tone for me of an organization that was succeeding where it shouldn't have instead of an organization with huge financial backing delivering products that it was supposed to. The group they assembled wasn’t a Silicon Valley dream team, more like tech’s version of Bad News Bears: a minor league beat writer, a former state treasurer, and assorted AV nerds from around the league. BAM began as the in-house IT department for the league’s 30 teams, a small handful of employees originally tasked with building websites for teams and clubs. But over the last 15 years, BAM has emerged as the most talented and reliable name in streaming video, a skill set suddenly in very high demand.
  - scott_s 11y ago
    That's talking about how they began, 15 years ago. I think the author was trying to get across that in the beginning, BAM was not a technical leader in their field. But as they faced large technical and infrastructure problems before other groups did, and they decided early on to keep development internal, they became a leader.

adventured 11y ago

Where in the article did it imply they were an underdog? They clearly spelled out the numerous advantages BAM has had, including the capital infusions, which implies the exact opposite of them being an underdog. They're blatantly proclaiming BAM as being a rising juggernaut in the field of streaming, rather than an underdog. There is frequent promotion of their scale and accomplishments, including their revenue and how they're powering other large businesses.

chuckcode 11y ago
Perhaps I'm mistaken in my reading of the article but the quotes below set a tone for me of an organization that was succeeding where it shouldn't have instead of an organization with huge financial backing delivering products that it was supposed to. The group they assembled wasn’t a Silicon Valley dream team, more like tech’s version of Bad News Bears: a minor league beat writer, a former state treasurer, and assorted AV nerds from around the league. BAM began as the in-house IT department for the league’s 30 teams, a small handful of employees originally tasked with building websites for teams and clubs. But over the last 15 years, BAM has emerged as the most talented and reliable name in streaming video, a skill set suddenly in very high demand.
- scott_s 11y ago
  That's talking about how they began, 15 years ago. I think the author was trying to get across that in the beginning, BAM was not a technical leader in their field. But as they faced large technical and infrastructure problems before other groups did, and they decided early on to keep development internal, they became a leader.