MLB announces iPhone streaming of the Yankees, plus a few other teams (maybe, if they feel like it).

by zknower on Jun 22, 2009 1:42 AM EDT Comment 16 comments

How classic.

In MLB's press release regarding games now streaming to an iPhone near you, the copy reads:

Adrian Gonzalez's power. Huston Street's saves. Curtis Granderson's range in the outfield. Matt Wieters' future behind the plate. David Wright fouling off pitches until he gets the one he wants. Matt Cain's control. Carl Crawford's wheels.

Matt Weiters' future behind the plate? It will be difficult to see, since there are no Orioles games scheduled to appear on MLB At Bat 2009 any time soon. From the same article, there are 26 games scheduled to appear in the next two weeks. And guess who appears the most? Yup, you're right.

Appearing 5 times:

The most storied franchise in the history of storied stories.

Appearing 4 times:

Braves, Mets, Dodgers

Appearing 3 times

Cubbies, Rockies

Appearing twice:

Rays, Angels, Phillies, Giants, White Sox, Cardinals, Mariners, Padres, Pirates

Appearing once:

A's, Rangers, D-backs, Red Sox, Twins, Reds, Astros, Brewers, Marlins, Blue Jays, Indians

I guess it will be hard for Detroit fans to see "Curtis Granderson's range in the outfield as well." Other also-rans include KC, Washington, and.....yup, that's everyone.

In advance of making every game available within the app, which is expected to happen in the short term, the MLB.com editorial staff will be choosing two games per day and will do so to ensure that fans of all 30 clubs can see their favorite teams via this portable viewing experience.

Oopsies. I guess the MLB.com editorial staff is kind of stupid. Maybe they can't count to 30.
26 matchups, involving 52 opportunities to slot a team in. 30 teams in the majors. Yet somehow, in the first two weeks of the service, they were unable to include every one of them. "Oh, we were gonna get to you guys later on in July." Right. Can't say as this bodes too well for the future. One can only hope they decide to throw us a bone or two before the full roll-out.

FanPosts are user-created content and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors of Camden Chat or SB Nation. They might, though.

0 recs | Comment 16 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Maybe

they are just douchy moronic pseudo-fans and think Wieters will be on the Yankees before the season is over. Ya know, because thats how things work. Also, they might think Baltimore, KC, and the Nats don’t have fans, so it isnt going to be a problem that they arent showing them.

"I’m sure glad he didn’t try to bunt." - DD on Melmo's game winning double, 6/17

by daveh873 on Jun 22, 2009 8:51 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It makes sense on several levels.

Article says the full selection of games will be available in the short term, so this is more in line with load testing and gauging demand.
This app was worth the 10 bucks before streaming video, even before they started complete game recaps for that matter. If they manage to make all games available without incremental charges or service fees it will be pretty amazing (Next season of course, I will expect the tag to be in the $20 range)

Quality over 3g is pretty much what you expect, over wifi it’s great.

The only thing that could make it better at this point would be hooking into sbn gamethreads :)

by mpire on Jun 22, 2009 9:38 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

they're showing the pirates twice. they're showing the padres twice.

if they’re trying to check load deman, they might notice that the baltimore-washington area is one of the most populous corridors in the country. it also might occur to them to test the AT&T network at least once in that region.

It's 4 in the morning. Too much to drink. All the girls look hot. So, the Nationals are Jennifer Lopez to me. —Julian Tavarez

by zknower on Jun 22, 2009 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well

They are showing the Pirates because they are playing the Cubs and Mets.

The Orioles will just have to wait until they play a team that MLB thinks people care about.

by dkdc on Jun 22, 2009 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for that analysis

I’m in the market for an iPod, and have been considering the iPod Touch (which along with the iPhone will be compatable with the MLB package.) No O’s games? No reason for me to spend an extra $50 for the Touch. Also – unless you have a network-enabled (AT&T iPhone) you’ll need to be near a WiFi spot to get anything with the Touch.

We’re not getting our due respect with the national media – no Sunday night games, quick mentions on ESPN, etc. We’ve won 5 in a row, swept the world champs, and won 7 of 9, but the lead story today is that Ryan Howard has a sinus infection and… O’s sweep. We’ll have to earn our cred back, so keep winning…

by Jasphil on Jun 22, 2009 2:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

well

I’m guessing if more fans showed up to the park, or at least watched games on tv, then services like this would notice us. Bigger ratings, bigger crowds, more fans, more dollars flowing in. I hate it too, and I curse it all the time, but when it comes down to it the fan base just isn’t there. Yes, that falls on ownership for not delivering a competitive team all these years, but when it comes down to it, if we had a bigger following and people didn’t drop the team they supposedly loved, then maybe this wouldnt be an issue.

"I’m sure glad he didn’t try to bunt." - DD on Melmo's game winning double, 6/17

by daveh873 on Jun 22, 2009 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

oh, they'll show the games after the full roll-out.

I just think it’s funny that they are “ensuring that fans of all 30 clubs” can see their teams, but they don’t happen to have any scheduled for 4 of those clubs.

But when the full launch happens, they’ll carry every game.

It's 4 in the morning. Too much to drink. All the girls look hot. So, the Nationals are Jennifer Lopez to me. —Julian Tavarez

by zknower on Jun 22, 2009 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Disparity aside...

once the full rollout happens, what’s the difference between having an mlb.tv subscription and paying a one-time $9.99 to watch on the phone (which in theory is also a lot easier to output on a tv)?

by mpire on Jun 22, 2009 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the quality is kind of meh

and i don’t think there’s any way to output the phone to a TV, though I could be wrong.

i watched a video the other day and it was very cool to be able to do that out on the road. but at home, I think i’d still watch on my computer. that said, if the $15/$20 per month that mlb.tv costs gets in your grill, the iphone is certainly a bargain by comparison.

It's 4 in the morning. Too much to drink. All the girls look hot. So, the Nationals are Jennifer Lopez to me. —Julian Tavarez

by zknower on Jun 22, 2009 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gotta throw in my 2 cents

against the ipod touch. I sort of regretted mine a day or two after I bought it. Its okay and all, but not worth the price to my mind.

1933 was a bad year

by Senatorrosewater on Jun 22, 2009 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

OK, I'll say it

There’s a deep irony to the fact that you bemoan overhyping the Yankees in relation to … an iPhone app. Have you considered the similarities between MFY fans and iPhone cult members?

by punkrawka on Jun 22, 2009 2:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

You sound like you need a new phone.

by mpire on Jun 22, 2009 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the difference is:

the iPhone actually is the superior product on the market. The hype is entirely justified.

Whereas with the Yankees…..

It's 4 in the morning. Too much to drink. All the girls look hot. So, the Nationals are Jennifer Lopez to me. —Julian Tavarez

by zknower on Jun 22, 2009 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm curious

Who really cares about watching a sporting event (or a movie) on a iPhone?

We’ve been told big screen and HD will bring the game to your living room. I find it kind of ironic that technology is now trying to squeeze this onto tiny screens.

Perhaps if you are stuck traveling it is a diversion. I’ve done consulting gigs where I can see it. Now? When I go out I have no need to watch a game. Maps apps are a different story.

by drj on Jun 22, 2009 4:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I have always felt this exact thing.

Why wouold ANYONE watch a sporting event on a phone?

But the other day, when I was trapped out of the house, waiting in line at the bank, I realized I could watch a baseball game. And it was beyond awesome.

I think this is solely for people who are stuck at a wedding/airport/shoe store for a while and want to be able to kill time.

It's 4 in the morning. Too much to drink. All the girls look hot. So, the Nationals are Jennifer Lopez to me. —Julian Tavarez

by zknower on Jun 22, 2009 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs