ESPN Shutting Down ESPN3D Channel At Year's End

[OrangeXtreme]

http://www.multichannel.com/distribution/espn-shutting-down-3d-channel-years-end/143865

 

[sufandu]

It doesn't surprise me. Seeing things in 3D isn't enough of an upgrade to make me want to wear glasses when I'm watching TV. Maybe the occasional movie, but not regular television, and certainly not a sporting event, especially when I'm interacting with other people watching it with me.

 

[Moontan]

They probably started 4-5 years too early. Also an easy way to save $$.

I never saw their coverage to know how it looked. Most 3-D demo stuff I've seen on in-store TVs has been underwhelming.

 

[Millhouse]

3d tv is what happens when dorks get to make decisions. i don't want to wear headgear to watch tv, i don't want to have to hold an ipad to watch tv, i don't want to hook up a computer to a tv to watch tv

i want to turn on a big tv on a table, have my hands free for doritos, and watch the stupid game in 2d without thinking

 

[OttoinGrotto]

3d tv is what happens when dorks get to make decisions. i don't want to wear headgear to watch tv, i don't want to have to hold an ipad to watch tv, i don't want to hook up a computer to a tv to watch tv

i want to turn on a big tv on a table, have my hands free for doritos, and watch the stupid game in 2d without thinking

amen, brother

 

[Orangemen]

Who would have thought that getting people to upgrade to 3D TV's, right after everyone just upgraded to HDTV's was a bad plan? (Not to mention forcing them to wear glasses at home to watch TV as well.)

3D TV's are an idea whose time may never come. If it can be as simple as turning on a TV and seeing a 3D picture (no glasses), then you will have something. Until that day comes, 3D will never be a factor for TV's.

 

[longtimefan]

3d tv is what happens when dorks get to make decisions. i don't want to wear headgear to watch tv, i don't want to have to hold an ipad to watch tv, i don't want to hook up a computer to a tv to watch tv

i want to turn on a big tv on a table, have my hands free for doritos, and watch the stupid game in 2d without thinking

Agree with all of that. Except it was the nerds, not the dorks, who made the decision.

 

[PhatOrange]

Avatar 3D is pretty friggin cool.

And today's 3D glasses have come a long way since the paper ones with red and blue cellophane eye holes.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

I'll wait until the Holodecks are available for sale.

 

[Texas Otto]

I look dorky enough without 3d glasses why should make it worse :crazy:

 

[Timonen]

http://www.multichannel.com/distribution/espn-shutting-down-3d-channel-years-end/143865

As a market researcher, I cannot fathom the market sizing or usability testing that happened here. Either it was the crappiest work ever or it never happened. The following are what common sense would have said before any money was spent on research:

-people don't watch TV without changing channels and/or without also looking at their phone/tablet (neither of those things are comfortably done with the glasses)
-the share of people with 3Dtvs is incredibly small
-the share of people with highest end tv packages is incredibly small
-the share of content that lends itself to 3D is incredibly small, even for those cool with 3D
-those shares are wittled down tremendously by normal behavioral inertia (people want to do things the way they've happily done them forever)

So there's your baseline. How the heck does a business case get built? Did they project adoption out x years? Did a tv manufacturer actually back the whole thing?

their stupid phone idea was 100x more defensible than this, because they could at least say "x percent of men already follow sports via their phone" and "y% of phone usage by men is for sports purposes." 3D doesn't have any of that data to fall back on.

 

[texascpa]

It was funny when 3D TV's were the rage and the future 2-3 years ago. 3D is a fad that seems to come and go every 7-8 years.

Now, that said, I have a 3D TV, but only because it was priced better than the non-3D equivalent.

 

[Scooch]

As a market researcher, I cannot fathom the market sizing or usability testing that happened here. Either it was the crappiest work ever or it never happened. The following are what common sense would have said before any money was spent on research:

-people don't watch TV without changing channels and/or without also looking at their phone/tablet (neither of those things are comfortably done with the glasses)
-the share of people with 3Dtvs is incredibly small
-the share of people with highest end tv packages is incredibly small
-the share of content that lends itself to 3D is incredibly small, even for those cool with 3D
-those shares are wittled down tremendously by normal behavioral inertia (people want to do things the way they've happily done them forever)

So there's your baseline. How the heck does a business case get built? Did they project adoption out x years? Did a tv manufacturer actually back the whole thing?

their stupid phone idea was 100x more defensible than this, because they could at least say "x percent of men already follow sports via their phone" and "y% of phone usage by men is for sports purposes." 3D doesn't have any of that data to fall back on.

Why so angry?

Sometimes you give something a shot. And if it doesn't work out, you move on.

:noidea:

 

[rocklloyd]

I spent 3 grand on LASIK not to wear glasses while watching tv. I'm not going backwards.

 

[Timonen]

Why so angry?

Sometimes you give something a shot. And if it doesn't work out, you move on.

:noidea:

Not angry at all! Just a weird move for a company that tends to get it right. There's always a logic or motive so just trying to figure it out.

 

[PhatOrange]

I have a 3dtv led and a 3d Blu ray. The kids watch the 3d movies and love it. I've got to say Avatar in 3d was pretty friggin cool. Nemo was good but avatar was sick. And today's 3d glasses ain't your old cardboard ones with red and blue cellophane eye holes.

I've never watched 3d sports and don't hardly watch anything in 3d but must say some of the movies are pretty cool.

 

[Chip]

3d tv is what happens when dorks get to make decisions. i don't want to wear headgear to watch tv, i don't want to have to hold an ipad to watch tv, i don't want to hook up a computer to a tv to watch tv

i want to turn on a big tv on a table, have my hands free for doritos, and watch the stupid game in 2d without thinking

I put 3D glasses on in a Best Buy, watched for about 30 seconds, had a headache, and decided it's just not for me.

I do like the iPad for watching TV shows though. Nice alternative when you have a 4 year old whose mother apparently frowns upon his participation in his father finally watching all 5 seasons of The Wire. iPad, headphones, HBOGO, perfect.

 

[Scooch]

Not angry at all! Just a weird move for a company that tends to get it right. There's always a logic or motive so just trying to figure it out.

Gotcha. Being an innovative company means sometimes getting in front of a market that just never develops. Better to occasionally fail than constantly be playing catch up.

 

[Moontan]

I have a 3dtv led and a 3d Blu ray. The kids watch the 3d movies and love it. I've got to say Avatar in 3d was pretty friggin cool. Nemo was good but avatar was sick. And today's 3d glasses ain't your old cardboard ones with red and blue cellophane eye holes.

I've never watched 3d sports and don't hardly watch anything in 3d but must say some of the movies are pretty cool.

Some things are done well, but most 3D that I've seen (starting with "Friday the 13th Part III") have just seemed forced ("hey, this is 3D, watch this object come right at you") instead of natural.

 

[PhatOrange]

Some things are done well, but most 3D that I've seen (starting with "Friday the 13th Part III") have just seemed forced ("hey, this is 3D, watch this object come right at you") instead of natural.

Yeah that's all stupid and regualr movies are dumb. The cartoon movies are good and check out 3d avatar though, it was pretty cool.

 

[Timonen]

Gotcha. Being an innovative company means sometimes getting in front of a market that just never develops. Better to occasionally fail than constantly be playing catch up.

I hear ya and feel free to tell me to shut up and drop it...but in product development terms, getting out in front doesn't mean skipping the research. I've gotta think this is was too big for someone to just decree and operationalize use (you could envision that for a show or web content but not for a network and entire technology). Somebody else must've bankrolled and signed off on the risk.

 

[Hoov50]

My wife and I have a 3D television, not because we set out to get one, but because the particular model that fit our needs happened to be 3D. Occasionally, we will watch a movie on 3D, either from on-demand or a Blu-Ray, but as many have already stated it isn't something I NEED to have. We also bought ours at the very end of the powered 3D glasses phase. Many of the newest 3D televisions can be watched in the 3D by using the same glasses that are used in movie theatres. Unfortunately, the 3D glasses my wife and I have need to be charged, which is another obstacle for many.

I do have to say the 3D movies we have watched on our television do look pretty good, but in most cases it isn't worth the extra time and money to watch something in 3D when I can enjoy it the same in 2D.

 

[sufandu]

3d tv is what happens when dorks get to make decisions. i don't want to wear headgear to watch tv, i don't want to have to hold an ipad to watch tv, i don't want to hook up a computer to a tv to watch tv

i want to turn on a big tv on a table, have my hands free for doritos, and watch the stupid game in 2d without thinking

The same dorks that decide changing to stupid camera angles (the last second switch to directly above or below the basket on a dunk or the extreme close up of one particular player's face) is a good idea. The fun thing about watching a dunk is seeing how high an elite athlete can jump. I can't see that when my perspective is either immediately above or below the basket. And everytime you zoom in an athlete's face during the course of play (this has happened a lot the last 2 NCAA tournaments) I'm missing everything else that's happening on the court. Non-sports people should not be making decisions about sports broudcasting.

 

[PhatOrange]

The same dorks that decide changing to stupid camera angles (the last second switch to directly above or below the basket on a dunk or the extreme close up of one particular player's face) is a good idea. The fun thing about watching a dunk is seeing how high an elite athlete can jump. I can't see that when my perspective is either immediately above or below the basket. And everytime you zoom in an athlete's face while during the course of play (this has happened a lot the last 2 NCAA tournaments) I'm missing everything else that's happening on the court. Non-sports people should not be making decisions about sports broudcasting.

I fargin hate hate hate the switch to the camera under the basket when a kid is screaming in for a thunder dunk.

 

[dollarbill44]

I have a 3D tv. I didn't get it for the 3D, but in order to get an OLED with 240 hz refresh rate, I had to get a 3D smart TV (didn't care about the "smart" part either, but I like the built-in MLB network). The main problem with the ESPN3D channel was that they pretty much only showed old X-games footage and old Duke hoops games. So, I saw it as a gimmick channel only. There is a 3D adult PPV channel that I haven't tried out. So, the 3d glasses pretty much sit in a drawer. I have a 3D blu-ray player as well that gets very little use.:noidea: