Roku Adds Live Streaming HD MLB.TV Premium Service to Roku Player

Premium subscribers to MLB.TV will now be able to watch live HD baseball games on the Roku Digital Video Player, as well as archived games up to 7 days old.

The new MLB channel will be rolled out to all Roku Players over the next few days, but if you want access now go to "Settings," select "Player Info," and then "Check for Update."

The Roku Player channel existing and announced channel lineup: Netflix, Amazon, MLB, Mediafly, and Blip.tv (more are expected by the end of the year).

Thanks to Brian & Jay for sending this in.

Comments

[moviemeh]

Now all they need to do is to live stream some news and financial channels and I can cancel my satellite TV service.

[fozzy]

Seems odd to add MLB after the allstar break. You would think this should have come earlier. Anyway this was what I was waiting for to pick up a Roku, sign me up.

[Robert]

Of all the things I could think of that would make sense on Roku, MLB was probably the last thing I actually wanted. I guess I'm in the minority, though.

[Armando]

This is amazing - not because it's MLB, but because it's the jump to live streaming events.

News can't be far behind.

I do hope they add the PBS library sometime soon - talk about increasing the educational value of the Roku!

[dAVe]

I've been enjoying MLB Gameday Audio on my Blackberry for awhile now. MLB has been moving towards an accessible digital age the last few years rather than locking down in exclusive contracts with DBS/Cable (Yea, that's right, I'm looking at you NFL.)

Nice work, MLB! I am looking forward to seeing your product via my Roku!

[Kam]

My interest in MLB has waned considerably over the last decade, and I'm not alone. From 1996 to 2008, World Series broadcasts have dropped from a 29 share to a 14 share. Fewer people are watching baseball, for a number of reasons.

I think that Roku missed out on a tremendous opportunity to take advantage of a steadily growing fan base in the U.S. ESPN recently signed a contract to broadcast games from the English Premiership (that's soccer). If ESPN can trick people into thinking it's cool to watch poker and lumber sports, why not soccer?

If Roku could find a way to deliver MLS Direct Kick (also soccer), they would immediately gain the support of legions of American soccer fans, and position themselves to gain from ESPN's "risky" decision to broadcast the EPL.

This post is not intended to pit the game of baseball against the game of soccer, but to illustrate that Roku partnered with a product that is losing popularity, rather than one with a bright upside in this country.

[banter]

Kam

The EPL issue is a deep mess that Roku can't even begin to get involved in. Those issues with Setanta are way too deep.

However...I would be besides myself in joy if they somehow figured out how to show EPL on Roku.

[Kam]

Banter

Perhaps my post was a bit convoluted. I was suggesting that Roku secure a deal to stream MLS Direct Kick. It's an affordable product, and with ESPN pushing to legitimize soccer to the US audience through Champion's League and EPL contracts, Roku would be positioned downwind.

[banter]

Fair enough Kam!

I agree!

[Andy]

Since MLS games have a share of <1 regularly, how does it make sense to show them instead of baseball?

Maybe that's what you'd prefer, but it clearly makes no sense financially.

[banter]

English premier League games would do well and so would Champions League.

[sports nut]

for the most popular sports Roku would need to stream MLB, NFL, NBA and NHL.

the money makers for ad revenue are pro golf and pro tennis. the fans for these 2 sports have the $$$ to make advertising revenue worth streaming.

[Kam]

Andy,

Perhaps I was off-base to suggest MLS Direct Kick as a true "alternative" to MLB.tv, but that doesn't change my opinion about Roku's decision to add MLB.

In my opinion, investing in a product (MLB) that is consistently losing relevance "makes no sense financially".

[Chris Hein]

Kam,

Your example is valid, but it is missing the point. The "share" of viewers has gone down since there are more and more channels each year. The ratings have gone down, but not nearly as much. Because of the competitive nature of baseball, different teams often appear each year. Lately, the Yankees have not made the World Series, and thus New York has not tuned in to drive up ratings. When smaller market teams make the World Series, smaller audiences happen.

However, you are wrong to correlate popularity of baseball to the amount of people who watch it on TV. The last 2 or 3 seasons have set new attendance records at ballparks. Baseball is not on a decline or losing relevance, but simply more competitive which allows teams other than the Yankees to play in the World Series.

[Chris Hein]

Also, keep in mind that your stats only mention the World Series. This deal is for the full season, which is 162 games.

Plus, the World Series had the worst ratings ever last year due to lots of rain pushing start times later into the evening, thus losing viewers.

[plasticus]

Holy cow! I don't care about baseball much, but I see this as good news. I hope it works out well for everyone. And I mostly hope that it eventually leads to other sports on the Roku (I dream of watching NFL games without satellite).

[Kam]

Chris,

I was citing World Series data in order to avoid your argument that dispersion is creating the illusion of less viewership

I know it's just Wikipedia, but look below and try to convince me that rain is to blame for these numbers. As far as "attendance records" go, I'd like to see proof. Over the last two years, baseball journalists galore have appeared on local radio (in Houston, I'm a Stros fan) to make the argument that league wide attendance woes don't translate to a decreasing audience. What gives?

World Series

Year Rating Share
1996 17.4 29
1998 14.1 24
2000 12.4 21
2001 15.7 25
2002 11.9 20
2003 13.9 25
2004 15.8 25
2005 11.1 19
2006 10.1 17
2007 10.6 18
2008 8.4 14

[Justin]

Kam, I think your post is slightly misguided due to a misunderstanding of the products involved. THIS deal is only possible due to MLB's streaming online product which is made available my MLB Advanced Media. There is absolutely no comparable package offered by MLS, the NFL, the NBA, NHL or anybody else. However, there is a MLB package that is comparable to all the offerings made by those leagues: MLB Extra Innings. These packages are all distributed via cable TV and satellite systems. MLB.tv (which is what Roku has taken on) is a streaming only service available over the web. MLB.tv is also newly available on Boxee.

Roku cannot negotiate to bring on products that simply don't exist as far as its capabilities are concerned, which is what you are suggesting it do. MLB has had the foresight to invest millions of dollars into building their system and it's paying off massively for each team ($30 million a year or so per team). Heck, they handle the online March Madness on Demand. MLBs internet offerings are the model for how to do it and nobody has followed suit...at all.

Roku is simply bringing on the only available content from a Major League source. I guess they could try to bring on ESPN360, but other than that I see nothing for them to do at this point.

[Justin]

Kam:

MLB attendance vs. population:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MLB_attendance_vs_population.png

Also, looking at attendance this year will be problematic, as it is sure to be drastically affected by the economy: total attendance looks to be down 5.5% this year.

Here are the total numbers over 12 of the previous 13 seasons (roughly the same number of games played per year):

MLB 1996 2,267 60,097,381
MLB 1997 2,266 63,168,689
MLB 1998 2,430 70,601,147
MLB 1999 2,428 70,139,380
MLB 2000 2,429 71,358,907
MLB 2001 2,429 72,581,101
MLB 2002 2,397 67,390,074
MLB 2003 2,411 67,630,489
2004
2005 74,926,175
2006 76,043,902
2007 79,503,175
2008 78,614,880

[Kam]

Justin,

I appreciate your even handed and informative replies. I certainly failed to consider some key factors. It seems I'll be having crow for lunch today. :)

Cheers,

Kameron

[Jim]

I couldn't care less about sports... I bought my Roku player to watch Movies and TV -- as most folks did I suspect. I'd rather see YOUTUBE or HULU or just about anything other than sports.

[Del]

MLB = Boooorrrrring

About as fun as watching the grass grow.

[moviemeh]

Armando's comment is what I was thinking. After reading the subsequent comments, I'm less hopeful, but I guess the transition from TV based news to streaming news will be a slow journey, like the complete changeover from DVD movies to streaming movies.

[Jim]

I think live streaming is a huge leap for Roku. I would love to see NHL Center Ice, but baseball... no thanks.

[dAVe]

(BETA)MLB.TV on Roku works pretty darn well. Is it perfect? No, but baseball is slow enough to see on streaming video without suffering to much, most of the time. I would think any NHL or NASCAR product would ramp up the data bit rate transfer so much that it'd be nothing but blobs of pixilation. Fast action+swinging camera lense=high bit rates!