GPWizard F1 Forum
F1 News & Discussions => General F1 Discussion => Topic started by: vintly on January 30, 2013, 03:45:07 PM
-
Below is a quote from Jeri's recent post on the 'Glock: Nothing to do with sport' thread. It's meandered into another discussion, so I thought I'd take up one aspect in a new thread.
However, I wasn't being sarcastic when it comes to getting sponsorship out of the sport. If we want the teams to make the money directly off of fans, then we as fans need to pay directly into F1, eliminating the need for sponsors.
According to James Allen on Twitter today:
You Tube is to start selling subscriptions to channels - typically $1 to $5 per month. (i.e. like Netflix). There are #f1 possibilities here
This was explored in more depth back in April last year by Dan Ross: http://www.motorsportmusings.co.uk/2012/04/youtube-future-motorsport-coverage/
This could be good news all round - could it mean advert-free GPs streamed to any device?
-
Most smart TV's now will broadcast Youtube. It would be great, but I guess is still many years away. For one thing the current TV contracts wouldn't allow it, with all the broadcast rights being sold country by country, youtube broadcasts would contravene them and somebody would be up in arms.
-
Bernie's single biggest weakness is that he doesn't seem to get the internet. F1's presence is not what it could and should be. Sky or some other broadcast provider could arrange with YouTube to stream a race on a pay per view basis. F1 would pick up extra viewers and the TV guys would collect extra revenue which Bernie could hijack. Should make him happy.
-
Bernie's single biggest weakness is that he doesn't seem to get the internet. F1's presence is not what it could and should be. Sky or some other broadcast provider could arrange with YouTube to stream a race on a pay per view basis. F1 would pick up extra viewers and the TV guys would collect extra revenue which Bernie could hijack. Should make him happy.
I think Bernie gets the internet just fine.
Remember last year when Anonymous took down the F1 website during the Bahrain Grand Prix? Bernie does. He knows better than to charge the fans for something he cannot guarantee (promoters are a different kettle of fish...).
I know that if I paid $5 to watch a race on Youtube, and it didn't work, I wouldn't try again.
-
I suppose it might be counter productive for Anonymous to take down Youtube since so much of their own material is on it, and to take down the entire YouTube domain would enrage a lot more people than just F1 fans. :DntKnw:
-
Amazon, Hulu, and iTunes do a pretty good business in pay per view video. Admittedly it's reruns and pre-recorded but I don't see why they couldn't provide a live feed with the same level of competence.
-
Absolutely. Certainly there are global sponsors like Shell and UBS who would probably even be happy to sponsor it with the odd ad as well.
-
Bernie, being about 150 years old, is rather old school, so maybe can't / doesn't want to get his head around YouTube and the internet's live streaming potential.
In hindsight I'm keen on GPs being streamed online, but YouTube is synonymous with crap phone videos, talking dogs and epic fails - it's ugly! F1 could be better streamed from an F1 site, simple.
Anyways we'll see, I hope it happens soon.
-
Bernie, being about 150 years old, is rather old school, so maybe can't / doesn't want to get his head around YouTube and the internet's live streaming potential.
In hindsight I'm keen on GPs being streamed online, but YouTube is synonymous with crap phone videos, talking dogs and epic fails - it's ugly! F1 could be better streamed from an F1 site, simple.
Anyways we'll see, I hope it happens soon.
Bernie attempted On Demand/Pay Per View TV long before it was fashionable and it was a disaster. FOM is not fundamentally opposed to new revenue streams, however, they are once bitten, twice shy.
As I previously stated, until they can guarantee a flawless online experience, I don't think they'll even try.
-
It would help Bernie reach people like Alia, who said once it wasn't possible for her to get SKY even if she wanted to.
-
Same here. If I could get every race in english, I would pay for it, but I don't even have the choice where I am.
-
I don't think that any sort of pay per view is the way forward for F1. The Sky fiasco has already caused a lot of ill feeling in the UK, and, as Jeri says, it didn't work out too well for Ecclestone when it was tried before.
Also, call me old fashioned, but I like watching television, on a television, not on a computer screen, or even worse, a mobile phone.
-
In the not too distant future, your television will be a computer screen. I could hook either of my computers to my TV right now and stream whatever I could find. I'm pretty happy with SPEED's coverage of F1, but what happens this year is way up in the air, so it would be good to have an alternative.
-
I can stream to my TV now. Had Youtube on my TV for almost 2 years. I don't care what format it comes into the house, TV is TV.
-
Smart TVs have already blurred the line between computer and TV - the PC is just another channel on the TV remote, and with a bluetooth keyboard and mouse there's no need even to hook another computer to it, wirelessly or otherwise.
I agree with you Irisado, watching a decent TV set is always better than a mobile or computer screen, but if there's the choice then you needn't miss a GP just because the TV is being used by someone else. Or as a car passenger, or at the office, onlibe screening would be very handy!
Of course, Sky Go already caters for that, and a very good job it does. Borrowing someone's Sky ID during last season I watched a GP on an iPad on a 3G network - no problem.
In the UK at least, Sky have this neatly sewn up, unlike Virgin or anyone else, and it works well because one company is in control of the tech. Virgin's 'TV Anywhere' is still awful. Streaming on YouTube, apart from looking awful with those ads and 'suggested videos' everywhere, would entail re-negotiating ALL other TV channel deals - a nightmare. So I guess it will be a while if GPs get streamed anywhere else other than via Sky Go.
As for pay-per-view - if you wanna watch them all then we already do don't we??
Edit:
One thing's for sure, streaming shouldn't be left to the teams! Ferrari's online launch was lo-resolution! And I've just watched a pitifully poorly synched Mercedes launch on YouTube. Incredible - cars to die for but video tech from the dark ages.
-
Smart TVs have already blurred the line between computer and TV - the PC is just another channel on the TV remote, and with a bluetooth keyboard and mouse there's no need even to hook another computer to it, wirelessly or otherwise.
I agree with you Irisado, watching a decent TV set is always better than a mobile or computer screen, but if there's the choice then you needn't miss a GP just because the TV is being used by someone else. Or as a car passenger, or at the office, onlibe screening would be very handy!
Of course, Sky Go already caters for that, and a very good job it does. Borrowing someone's Sky ID during last season I watched a GP on an iPad on a 3G network - no problem.
In the UK at least, Sky have this neatly sewn up, unlike Virgin or anyone else, and it works well because one company is in control of the tech. Virgin's 'TV Anywhere' is still awful. Streaming on YouTube, apart from looking awful with those ads and 'suggested videos' everywhere, would entail re-negotiating ALL other TV channel deals - a nightmare. So I guess it will be a while if GPs get streamed anywhere else other than via Sky Go.
As for pay-per-view - if you wanna watch them all then we already do don't we??
Edit:
One thing's for sure, streaming shouldn't be left to the teams! Ferrari's online launch was lo-resolution! And I've just watched a pitifully poorly synched Mercedes launch on YouTube. Incredible - cars to die for but video tech from the dark ages.
The limits involved in this aren't 'broadcast rights'. Bernie can make the rights work with a few phone calls. The issue is guaranteed level of service. ANYTHING done over the internet can be disrupted with disturbingly little effort. (Wasn't the whole point of the internet to eliminate communication disruption?) No one is going to pay any amount if there is the possibility of Anonymous taking it down. And FOM isn't keen on issuing refunds to the people who do take a chance on watching the Bahrain GP, only to find 5 minutes of the race blacked out.
-
ANYTHING done over the internet can be disrupted with disturbingly little effort.
Ah yes, this is true enough. There is no way to guarantee against DDoS attacks such as the ones Anonymous are infamous for. Bernie's such a t*t for racing in Bahrain anyway. I hope it bites him on the bum.
-
As I said before, I guess Anonymous going after Youtube would be counterproductive considering most of their propaganda is on YouTube. They would be more likely to take down the F1 website again or a government website for their protests.
I wondered for a minute if Anonymous had takend down the power into the Merc Dome during yesterday's Superbowl. Was a bit of a bad time to suddenly lose power to half of the building.
-
All this connecting televisions to your PC, and streaming the internet via your television is completely beyond me, so I hope that they never go down that route, because I'll never be able to set it up.
Jeri's right about the service. There's nothing worse than the internet crashing when you're in the middle of something, and denial of service attacks are not, as far as I know, easy to prevent.
-
If you buy a TV these days, or have in the last year or two, they often come equipped with WiFi (or more - SMART TV's, just a step behind SMART phones). All I had to do was enter the password and voila, I had YouTube and limited surfing capabilities and other various online features. Least complicated thing I've hooked up in ages. Plays movies from a memory stick as well.
Taking down the internet is quite a bit more complicated than you make it sound. I don't think the actual 'internet' has ever crashed. Only tiny fingers of it, and just like in F1, it is usually the $5 piece that fails.
-
Anonymous usually takes down a site by overwhelming it with hits. If enough computers attempt to access a site the server will shut down to prevent damage from an overload. It becomes more difficult to do if you have to pay for access.
-
But Lonny, do you understand the volume of hits a site like YouTube gets legitimately? Their capacity is literally tens of millions times that of a sleepy old DOJ site. Plus it is mirrored all over the world. Anonymous would have to hijack most of the computers in the world to take down something like YouTube. Trust me, if YouTube goes down, it's due to something internal, not Anonymous.
-
But Lonny, do you understand the volume of hits a site like YouTube gets legitimately? Their capacity is literally tens of millions times that of a sleepy old DOJ site. Plus it is mirrored all over the world. Anonymous would have to hijack most of the computers in the world to take down something like YouTube. Trust me, if YouTube goes down, it's due to something internal, not Anonymous.
Youtube (or whichever service) will have to successfully stage a large scale live event before F1 will consider it. And it must be LIVE, not even delayed a few seconds. People gamble on the sport, and being behind by a few seconds means there's no point on betting on something that's already happened.
CTV streamed the olympics in high definition in Canada. It looked amazing, but watching a 'live' stream quickly fell behind 'live' as seen on TV, and I'm pretty sure no one was trying to disrupt it.
-
That's where sky are stupid, if they would split their F1 channel from the sports package I would seriously consider paying virgin to receive it if it was a sensible amount.
-
That's where sky are stupid, if they would split their F1 channel from the sports package I would seriously consider paying virgin to receive it if it was a sensible amount.
But if Sky did that, you'd stay with Virgin. They wan't you to leave Virgin, and have you ALL to themselves! HAHAHAHAHAHA evil laughs all round.
-
But it'd be a win win for both sky and virgin vintly, I wouldn't even consider joining sky or taking the sports package, but if sky sold virgin the F1 channel separately I'd probably take the F1 channel so they'd both profit.
-
Not a big enough win. Sky are happy to pass on, say, a £10 a month F1 bung from Virgin customers wanting only F1, if it means they'll either pay £25 for the whole sports package or switch entirely to Sky. Virgin don't have a say, and get what they're given. Anyway, whateva, that's my take on it.
-
France goes exclusively pay per view: http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2013/02/france-follows-uk-and-italy-to-pay-tv-model-for-f1-coverage/
-
That's the trouble with these greedy moguls, they want it all, in my book 10% of something is better than 10% of nothing, perhaps that's why I'm still a pauper, not greedy enough.
-
I read a comment in the internet, saying he has been a fan of F1 since he was 10, and he was the only one in the family who was interested in the sports. If he was not given the free to air coverage of F1, there would have no way he would become a massive fan today. It also goes same from me, if I had to pay for F1 in my early days, I would be definitely shoved aside as because except my younger brother no one has any interest in F1. Making it exclusive does cut off these young future fans.
I think solution would have been the general people getting only the race coverage while the people who are massive fan may be able to get the full exclusive coverage. That would have satisfied everyone. But due to the narrow minded people on top of management and their greed for profit, will really hurt the sports in long run.
-
That's a good point BD. Like you, nobody in my family has ever had an interest in any kind of motorsports, and if there had been a premium cost to get those telecasts, I never would have seen any F1, Indy, or even NASCAR as a child.
-
Some news:
"Sky is also planning to offer on-demand access to Sky Sports via its Now TV streaming website. This service, which does not require a Sky contract, will offer 24 hours’ access to Sky Sports, including the F1 channel, for £9.99"
More in this article http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2013/03/07/sky-f1-channel-price-rise-on-demand-now-tv-stream/
This may be received warmly by non-Sky customers, as a less expensive route to watching F1 races not screened by the BBC. Sky's Now TV website currently just screens movies, but that'll change soon.
-
Is that £9.99 per race, month or season??
-
Der Wiz, Vintly clearly posted...24 hours access to Sky Sports for £9:99 including the F1 channel. :DD :DD :DD :DD :DD
-
Der Wiz, Vintly clearly posted...24 hours access to Sky Sports for £9:99 including the F1 channel. :DD :DD :DD :DD :DD
They never miss a chance to pull your leg Wizzo, do they? :DD :DD :DD :DD
-
You guys missed the ' . :P
-
U lot must fink I'm stoopid! :-[
-
What do you mean 'fink.'?