I would say that people are ready to watch sports and other broadcasts via their cell phone. After all, people have been listening to sports on the go via radio for many, many years. Why not watch it? I think the two biggest issues here are:
1. Are cell phones and the networks they utilize able to handle this new feature at a quality and price people are willing to accept? What value is added when your paying a premium to watch a stream with so little detail that you are unable to follow the game in anymore detail that the free picture the AM radio announcer paints in your head?
2. Would the outcome have been different if ESPN was a content provider/channel offered through existing mobile providers like cingular, verizon, and Sprint/Nextel? Sure ESPN is a Sprint/Nextel phone with Sprint/Nextel service but how many consumers out there know that? All the advertisements that I've seen have ESPN tagged all over their phones, which at first glance makes them appear to be a 4th or 5th tier provider rather than an extension of a top tier, established provider. To the casual consumer I would be concerned about service issues going to a new un-established provider regardless of who it was. ESPN is a sports broadcaster not a mobile phone provider. Same notion goes with Disney Mobile. They appear to have great features but I'm sure there are plenty of consumers out there that are wondering why they should switch from a "nation wide network" to Disney / ESPN mobile.
Slashdot Mirror
I would say that people are ready to watch sports and other broadcasts via their cell phone. After all, people have been listening to sports on the go via radio for many, many years. Why not watch it? I think the two biggest issues here are: 1. Are cell phones and the networks they utilize able to handle this new feature at a quality and price people are willing to accept? What value is added when your paying a premium to watch a stream with so little detail that you are unable to follow the game in anymore detail that the free picture the AM radio announcer paints in your head? 2. Would the outcome have been different if ESPN was a content provider/channel offered through existing mobile providers like cingular, verizon, and Sprint/Nextel? Sure ESPN is a Sprint/Nextel phone with Sprint/Nextel service but how many consumers out there know that? All the advertisements that I've seen have ESPN tagged all over their phones, which at first glance makes them appear to be a 4th or 5th tier provider rather than an extension of a top tier, established provider. To the casual consumer I would be concerned about service issues going to a new un-established provider regardless of who it was. ESPN is a sports broadcaster not a mobile phone provider. Same notion goes with Disney Mobile. They appear to have great features but I'm sure there are plenty of consumers out there that are wondering why they should switch from a "nation wide network" to Disney / ESPN mobile.