02-15-2013, 07:38 PM #27
- 800 Posts
I just got a newsletter with a link about next season's MLB.tv subscriptions. Part of it:
The At Bat 13 offer is available on supported iOS and Android devices only. MLB.TV Premium is not available on Windows Phone devices or Blackberry.
So, at the very least, we know that an MLB.tv subscription won't include the Windows Phone version again, and if there even is an MLB At Bat app, it doesn't sound like it'll support streaming games.
02-16-2013, 09:27 PM #30
- 1 Posts
I tried a couple times to get any reply or at least let MLB know there are billions (possible customers @ $14.99 a pop) out there that want access to the full MLB at Bat (2013). I also mentioned that they were holding up my purchase of a Nokia 920. I can't get the phone until I'm sure the app will be in the Marketplace. I think they are missing out on some serious cash.
Below is the BS reply I get:
Recently you requested personal assistance from our on-line support
center. Below is a summary of your request and our response.
Windows Phone 8 Compatibility Inquiry
Response Via Email(Shane) - 01/29/2013 06:00 PM
Thank you for your e-mail. For the most up to date information regarding minimum requirements and supported devices for the At Bat application, please navigate to MLB.com At Bat | MLB.com: Mobile.
If you have any additional questions, please contact Customer Service toll-free at 866-306-5311.
Thank you againg for taking the time to write.
MLB.com Customer Service
- 02-17-2013, 03:19 PM #31
Yeah, the reply I got was something to the effect that my request would have to be handled by the billing department, or something stupid like that.
Rather than give up a high-quality device because of their laziness, I refused to give them my money. If you tell them "I can't get this phone because I want your service," they won't care. If you tell them "I got my phone anyway, and you won't get my money until I get your service on my phone," it means more. The first statement basically says you're picking a platform they support and you are giving them your money. The second statement says you're not going to get forced into what THEY want, and they're not going to get paid unless they listen to their customers.
I'm thinking I might send them another e-mail again shortly and remind them that I'm pretty pissed at their decision.
02-17-2013, 05:16 PM #32
- 721 Posts
02-18-2013, 09:03 AM #34
- 25 Posts
re:streaming of games, i wonder if MLB are not supporting WP for video for the same reason the BBC isn't. The reason the BBC put on their website for lack of an iPlayer app is "Unfortunately, as the Windows Phone doesn't support HLS, Adobe Flash or Air, the formats we use for streaming videos, we can't make BBC iPlayer available on this phone at the moment."
- 02-18-2013, 10:35 AM #35
MLB knows how many WP devices are out there, they know about what percentage of WP owners will buy their app and they know how much it will cost to produce.
MLB is a for profit, greedy cartel run by men in charge of their own little fiefdom in each franchise city. This group of warlords can smell a dollar from across the river. If there were money to be made from a WP version of the app, there'd be an app.
- 02-18-2013, 07:08 PM #36
Also, what the **** is "fair," in this? It's not "fair," for me to want MLB to create an app? Since I chose Windows Phone, I am obligated to say "it's not fair for me to want apps," shut my mouth, and never let developers know that Windows Phone has a market?
As to which is more important: Windows Phone, every time. There is no single application on the planet that is more important than Windows Phone to me.
I keep having to say this, and it's becoming a bother: Why are people saying that it's wrong to want to advance the platform, whether it be by showing off the hardware and software or telling developers we want their stuff? I mean, it's not like I'm saying "MLB, I got a Windows Phone, give me your service for free!" I'm saying "I am on Windows Phone, and I am willing to pay for your service, if you are willing to offer it to me." That's how economic transactions work, I exchange currency for a good. I'm telling MLB that I will exchange currency for their service, and that I will not give them money to not give me the service. What's so wrong about that?
02-19-2013, 01:46 AM #37
- 721 Posts
- 02-19-2013, 02:29 AM #38
I don't really agree with the first half of the assessment. I doubt they've calculated anything, because I don't think that they've had any legitimate data TO calculate. That's not their fault. However, we DO know that at least a few people have TOLD them that they are interested, based on this thread. I'd bet those things don't ever get properly passed up the chain of command, but rather thrown away and given a canned non-response instead (that's what I got, along with at least one other person). I also don't believe that it's correct that there isn't money to be made because of the shared kernel between the platforms.
They could probably create an app for Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8 rather easily, or at least without a lot of additional effort for both platforms. That sort of has me believing that maybe WP doesn't support their streaming method like one person claims. All MLB would have to do is say that Microsoft's got limitations that they cannot reasonably work around in the platform, and I wouldn't have an issue.
That said, I still wouldn't buy MLB.TV because I want it to use on my phone, and whether it's their fault or not, if I can't use it on my phone, I don't have much use for it at all. I mean, I AM home a lot and could watch on my computer, but I mostly like the idea of watching it anywhere--I can follow along at home via GameDay or a box score just fine. IF the live radio works on Windows Phone's At-Bat app, I might pay the $20 or whatever for that.
Just a random note, there's the allegation that the next Xbox has multitasking capabilities built in. It'd be sweet to run the MLB GameDay Audio feed on the Xbox while playing a game of MLB 2K, if that was possible.
- 02-19-2013, 10:17 AM #39
It was me that posted about streaming incompatibility. That's what I was told in a support email. I don't know how accurate that info is.
02-19-2013, 11:21 AM #40
- 823 Posts
Well, I will still buy MLB.TV. I live in a different state from where I grew up, and this is the only way I can watch my "home" team.
There was an At Bat app for WP last year. I hope at least they give us that one. I know it was not the full app, but if it could be done last year, it should be able to be done this year. Now, I won't buy the one for WP at $14.99. I will just use the free version they give to subscribers on Andorid/iOS on my tablet and ipod touch.
Maybe the person in charge of getting developers to create apps over at Microsoft is not a baseball fan.
- 02-20-2013, 08:46 AM #41
The first year that At Bat was available for Android it didn't even have live audio streaming. MLB Advanced Media said that Android owners were cheap ****s and they didn't think enough people would buy the paid version to make it pay.
They were wrong about that one, but it was a fairly heavily covered topic in the Android world just a few years ago, and it goes to show their mindset when it comes to platform support.
02-20-2013, 09:09 PM #42
- 12 Posts
Where the "money to be made" has to fall on Microsoft's side. If they can't prove to the us that they will bring us the apps we want then we have invested in a failed ecosystem. Its simple.
Microsoft NEEDS to start making apps like this a priority. I don't care about Instagram but I saw a sale fail in front of my eyes because a young girl who thought the 8x looked cool asked if they have Instagram. I could care less about app count. But high profile apps need to come to Windows Phone sooner rather than later.
02-20-2013, 10:05 PM #45
- 766 Posts
Its simple, WP has to have a significant market share for a company/developer to invest in making an app.
It will get there, I'm hoping that the ease of developing for W8 and WP8 at the same time will slowly draw more apps and users. But it takes time. Developing for 2 platforms is already a large investment, let alone 3 or 4.
02-20-2013, 10:07 PM #46
- 766 Posts
- 02-20-2013, 10:56 PM #47
I've been on the platform since launch in November 2010. It's been 2.5 years and we still don't have Pandora. Or Mint.com. Or a non-beta gimped Skype. Or a Starbucks app. Or a TD Ameritrade app. Scottrade. Fidelity. Wall Street Journal. Economist. Sports Illustrated. Hulu. Instagram has already been beaten to death.
What does it take for apps that produce a couple bucks? We're not talking about that. We're talking about MSFT fixing a huge, gaping hole in the platform that is dissuading users from adopting it. The platform needs app parity (for at least the key guys mentioned above), and it needs it now.
02-21-2013, 04:59 PM #49
- 1 Posts
Yep, this is a bummer for me, too. I understand it's a chicken-egg sort of thing - Microsoft needs devs to produce apps, and devs need enough WP8 users to show it's worthwhile financially. But the reality is - this has me again rethinking my WP8 purchase. I love my Nokia 920, but I don't love missing a handful of apps that are most important to me. So when renewal time comes, I act the same way as MLB or MSFT or devs, which is to decide if it's worth my while. Microsoft needs to think hard about if it wants to change that for its subscriber base. It can, through partnerships (read: $) that make it worthwhile for devs and orgs like MLB. A commercial with Gwen Stefani is fun, but does it really move the needle?
- By mt1202 in forum Windows Phone AppsReplies: 53Last Post: 08-09-2013, 04:25 PM
- By gsquared in forum Windows Phone 7Replies: 3Last Post: 10-22-2011, 11:26 PM
- By jgor2000 in forum Windows Phone AppsReplies: 17Last Post: 08-23-2011, 11:13 AM
- By hardrock1a in forum Upcoming & Rumored DevicesReplies: 2Last Post: 06-27-2011, 09:33 AM
- By tnvolz20 in forum Windows Phone AppsReplies: 4Last Post: 05-25-2011, 02:12 AM