2 ms·
Yeah I thought of that as one option, but that means that the sports leagues need to get in the business of streaming video. Now they can dip their toe in it b
by kasey_junk 9y ago
Yeah I thought of that as one option, but that means that the sports leagues need to get in the business of streaming video. Now they can dip their toe in it because the numbers are so low, but to support the Super Bowl for instance you'd have to be fairly sophisticated.
- dagw 9y agoto support the Super Bowl for instance you'd have to be fairly sophisticated. That is a good point. Good old cable technology still has some advantages. From what I can find the current record for a single live video stream is 4.6 million concurrent viewers, and the Superbowl consistently gets over 100 million.
- Touche 9y agoRight, which is why I see them to continue to outsource that to networks. Amazon and Netflix are in a position where they have the reach that leagues want, but they don't have the experience with live content. My guess is that is their (Amazon, etc.) hesitation in jumping into a bid.