Amazon Prime Football

Just read on the BBC site that City won 4-1, it mentioned that the kick off time was odd because of it being streamed live. Guess who has Amazon prime and never knew about it. Bloody Amazon.
 
Got Amazon Prime on our TV so it played fine obviously. Bit of an eclectic commentary team. I don't like Gabby Logan, her turn of phrase is often wrong, like someone who's just learned about football because it's her job. Shearer is Shearer. Nigel De Jong was pretty decent. Martinez is meh. I didn't catch who the commentators were as I had it on quiet until the end.
 
Got Amazon Prime on our TV so it played fine obviously. Bit of an eclectic commentary team. I don't like Gabby Logan, her turn of phrase is often wrong, like someone who's just learned about football because it's her job. Shearer is Shearer. Nigel De Jong was pretty decent. Martinez is meh. I didn't catch who the commentators were as I had it on quiet until the end.

I actually don’t mind Logan. She was good on itv years ago. Certainly grew up around footy too.
 
I watched bits of both games with 1 eye on my bets, palace game was 33 seconds behind and city game was 41seconds behind.

For me to part with my hard earned, I expect a better service.
 
Got Amazon Prime on our TV so it played fine obviously. Bit of an eclectic commentary team. I don't like Gabby Logan, her turn of phrase is often wrong, like someone who's just learned about football because it's her job.
Surprised at that considering her background, to be honest I tend to ignore the pundits and whoever is chairing them.
 
My coverage was absolutely rubbish, kept buffering all the time to the point that I had to turn it off. Had enough by 3-0 in the Man City game.
 
Splitting the games up will cost more money for the consumer because each portion will need to be recouped by the purchasing company. I’m not a football fan so it means little to me but if I were I would be rightly hacked off by having to pay for 3 services to view what I used to see on one.
Sky are the leaders in this field and others have had to really throw huge cash at it to wrest part of it off them. Remember when BT sport came free with your broadband? Not anymore! Amazon will end up charging a subscription separately to Prime for this in time I think.
Winners are the big clubs as they get more revenue.
how long before amazon start up a europen super league with their cash??

I don't think that's how it worked. They didn't take the existing number of games being shown on one platform and split it between more broadcasters. They made more games available to watch and offered them out (meaning there's also no reason for the cost of sky to come down)

So just for example if you paid x amount to watch 100 games live on one platform you then had the option to pay xx amount to watch 150 games on 2 platforms or even xxx amount to watch 175 games on 3 platforms
The option to watch 100 games for x amount still exists, but by spreading more live games around different broadcasters it means the customers who cant afford 100 games also have the option to spend less and watch 50 games or spend even less and watch just 25 games (competition is therefor a good thing because otherwise that option to watch 25 games wouldn't exist)

Its only the people who believe they 'must have' all the games that are troubled at paying for all the broadcasters (even when they used to be happy with 100 games they now think they must have 175 games or they are somehow missing out)
 
I don't think that's how it worked. They didn't take the existing number of games being shown on one platform and split it between more broadcasters. They made more games available to watch and offered them out (meaning there's also no reason for the cost of sky to come down)

So just for example if you paid x amount to watch 100 games live on one platform you then had the option to pay xx amount to watch 150 games on 2 platforms or even xxx amount to watch 175 games on 3 platforms
The option to watch 100 games for x amount still exists, but by spreading more live games around different broadcasters it means the customers who cant afford 100 games also have the option to spend less and watch 50 games or spend even less and watch just 25 games (competition is therefor a good thing because otherwise that option to watch 25 games wouldn't exist)

Its only the people who believe they 'must have' all the games that are troubled at paying for all the broadcasters (even when they used to be happy with 100 games they now think they must have 175 games or they are somehow missing out)


no reason for the cost of sky to go down, just as there wasnt when they lost the FA Cup, Champions league, Europa League, Premiership Rugby, Champions Cup rugby, Cricket in Australia, WI etc etc

they dont reduce the cost when they lose rights, as a customer if you want access to it all you pay more!
 
Going to suggest any time lag in coverage will not be an issue for the vast majority...

I noticed this and was the only negative.

Didn't have any buffering issues, but undoubtedly many people will. I'd imagine this will be worse tonight with more games and more people twigging onto the fact it's on and the broadband network generally getting a lot more usage.
 
I noticed this and was the only negative.

Didn't have any buffering issues, but undoubtedly many people will. I'd imagine this will be worse tonight with more games and more people twigging onto the fact it's on and the broadband network generally getting a lot more usage.

Had a quick look and it was streaming in uhd 4K and it looked fine to me. Let's hope they start streaming golf this way as well. ;)
 
Top