Phil hints at freeing apps from Pay Wall.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

If the ESPN comes to the ps4 with a different layout but a UI that is still tailored for the tv, then that is all it needs to match the X1. Netflix did the same thing and that is why I said it is not an example of a unique experience.

So when the ESPN app comes to the ps4, then it will have ceased being a unique experience for the X1. As of today, it is only on the X1. So would you say that right now, in the present day, it offers a bit of value that you can't get elsewhere?

 

Nope, for the reasons I gave above. If it had content or features that were exclusive, then I'd agree with you.

 

If the ESPN website was redesigned tomorrow to a sleeker / easy to navigate UI on par with the app, would the X1/360 version still be of good "value"? ;)

 

Well if MS helped with the app, then I think that matters. If you don't know what work they did with ESPN, how can you assume it was superficial at best?

I mean its not about the dollar amount. This goes back to the idea that if MS helps build an app, that makes more of an 'exclusive' experience. They treated the ESPN (and the NFL app) as a special case, making a huge deal out of it and going as far as partnering with the groups in question and making some sort of investment.

For instance, MS did not help build the youtube app, Google did that using the tools MS provided. The youtube app isn't exactly good either, even if they just added the upload option. So obviously MS is not reaching out to all app developers and helping them build apps.

 

They don't build, they support. i.e they are on hand when the developer doesn't know how to implement the APIs etc. That's the same across any ecosystem of devices or app store. The reason they pay so much is to keep it exclusive in the first place, not to buy the app. You're talking about artificially cutting your audience numbers for money because there are millions of NFL fans much larger than any console install base who would use it if given the choice. ESPN/NFL made that decision just like console developers do when they pick what console to developer for, for $.

 

MS are appealing to their US market as usual, sports, tv and games. It's what they've always done. They invited a top NFL player on stage to the unveiling of the 360 ffs :laugh: There is money to be made in those markets so they've made a deal.

[+Eternal Tempest MVC]

I think since Sony is been selling more PS4's and pulling a head (not saying X1 is not selling well) this is one of the larger arguments in the PS4 vs X1 and cause critic's to be a bit vocal on.

Makes since to make this change to be more competitive. 

[trooper11]

Nope, for the reasons I gave above. If it had content or features that were exclusive, then I'd agree with you.

 

If the ESPN website was redesigned tomorrow to a sleeker / easy to navigate UI on par with the app, would the X1/360 version still be of good "value"? ;)

No it would not. Once a quality app matches what it does on any other platform, it loses its value. Why do you keep coming up with future scenarios to try and downplay the value of the app in its current form?

Right now, today, in reality, we have an app that is unique compared to other platforms.

The crazy thing is, ESPN could have redone their website to improve it for that usage, but even after all the years that the Xbox app has been around, they haven't. So the situation remains the same.

Hey, I'm just a user of the app and a sports fan, so I have been waiting for apps like this one that work like it does, disregarding the kinect stuff.

They don't build, they support. i.e they are on hand when the developer doesn't know how to implement the APIs etc. That's the same across any ecosystem of devices or app store. The reason they pay so much is to keep it exclusive in the first place, not to buy the app. You're talking about artifically cutting your audience for money because there are millions of NFL fans much larger than any console install base who would use it if given the choice. ESPN/NFL made that decision just like console developers do when they pick what console to developer for.

 

MS are appealing to their US market as usual, sports, tv and games. It's what they've always done. They invited a top NFL player on stage to the unveiling of the 360 ffs :laugh: There is money to be made in those markets so they've made a deal.

So you don't think MS actually helped build the specific apps, just offered tech support that all app developers get?

I was just thinking they did more in that case because MS has done that before outside of console gaming.

If MS did not help build the apps, then that takes away some of 'exclusive' value. I guess you could then say that value is just the exclusivity, which, like you said is like any exclusive game.

[trooper11]

I think since Sony is been selling more PS4's and pulling a head (not saying X1 is not selling well) this is one of the larger arguments in the PS4 vs X1 and cause critic's to be a bit vocal on.

Makes since to make this change to be more competitive.

The funny thing is though that I would bet you that this change will not change sales numbers much. I'm not saying its not worth doing, it very much is, but I am saying that there are not that many end users that base their choice of console solely on the app policies.

It would be more about changing the mood around MS and the Xbox. There is a such a negative cloud that it will take MS doing many things like this that aren't necessarily done to increase sales in a huge way. Its about getting more people to just look at it positively, which is good in the long run. It effects things like developer excitement. This combined with other positive moves would eventually lead to more sale though.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

No it would not. Once a quality app matches what it does on any other platform, it loses its value. Why do you keep coming up with future scenarios to try and downplay the value of the app in its current form?

Right now, today, in reality, we have an app that is unique compared to other platforms.

The crazy thing is, ESPN could have redone their website to improve it for that usage, but even after all the years that the Xbox app has been around, they haven't. So the situation remains the same.

Hey, I'm just a user of the app and a sports fan, so I have been waiting for apps like this one that work like it does, disregarding the kinect stuff.

So you don't think MS actually helped build the specific apps, just offered tech support that all app developers get?

I was just thinking they did more in that case because MS has done that before outside of console gaming.

If MS did not help build the apps, then that takes away some of 'exclusive' value. I guess you could then say that value is just the exclusivity, which, like you said is like any exclusive game.

 

Because there is no value today in the app. The app would be the same today if it was available on every single platform that other apps are. We're obviously going to go around in circles with this so I'll let you have the last word and agree to disagree :p

 

And no I don't think they build them. I've yet to see evidence they do. Whereas we have time and time again been told that the apps are outsourced or developed internally (iPlayer/YouTube).

 

Edit: quick google search and you can find the companies who make the apps:

 

http://www.floatleftinteractive.com/customers

http://www.floatleftinteractive.com/xbox-app-developer

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?tab=ww&ei=iddGU97fHKa30QWA8oC4CQ&ved=0CBUQ1S4&gfe_rd=cr#q=linkedin+xbox+360+app+developer

[trooper11]

Because there is no value today in the app. The app would be the same today if it was available on every single platform that other apps are. We're obviously going to go around in circles with this so I'll let you have the last word and agree to disagree :p

 

And no I don't think they build them. I've yet to see evidence they do. Whereas we have time and time again been told that the apps are outsourced or developed internally (iPlayer/YouTube).

People that have used the app would disagree that it has no value, but as you said, we are going around in circles and we wont agree on this point.

Since your going to graciously let me have the last word, then I guess there will be no reply :laugh:

As far as the building part, fair enough. I have no evidence to the contrary, so your probably right.

As I tried to find out info about the history of these apps, I stumbled upon an article that mentioned that MS plans to add the same fantasy football feature for the NFL app to the ESPN app (using the ESPN fantasy football league of course), so maybe they will add something that is clearly more valuable and not this subjective stuff.

Also, I've been trying to find out who actually built the app for ESPN or others for that matter and its not easy to find. The closest that I have come to thinking that MS at least had a hand in the actual building and maintenance of the app is from an article that happened to be focusing on the MLB.tv app: http://www.baseballnation.com/2012/3/30/2913438/review-mlb-tv-xbox-360-app

Then there is this article discussing the X1 versions of the apps that at least hints one way: http://thug-geek.com/2013/09/03/xbox-ones-espn-and-nfl-apps-sports-on-demand/ I'd like to see more conclusive evidence somewhere, but that seems to be hard to find.

[trooper11]

Edit: quick google search and you can find the companies who make the apps:

 

http://www.floatleftinteractive.com/customers

http://www.floatleftinteractive.com/xbox-app-developer

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?tab=ww&ei=iddGU97fHKa30QWA8oC4CQ&ved=0CBUQ1S4&gfe_rd=cr#q=linkedin+xbox+360+app+developer

Good info. I started digging through that info and came up with the following names for the 360 ESPN app:

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/richard-mosley/22/687/bb0

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/nikolas-hayes/34/1b5/788

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/emily-price/2a/532/851

The first two seem to have been testers for the app. The third one apparently worked on the network layer and services tied to the app. The first two seem to have been brought in from the outside just for that work, but the third one has been at MS for a while.

I get the impression that more people worked on it then just these three, but maybe not. Either way, it does show that MS did do some kind of work on the app. I'll keep looking through this stuff for more evidence one way or another.

Edit: Found another one:

http://www.linkedin.com/in/scottqlongstreet

A MS developer that was working heavily on the app for a while.

I can't find references to the X1 version yet.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Good info. I started digging through that info and came up with the following names for the 360 ESPN app:

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/richard-mosley/22/687/bb0

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/nikolas-hayes/34/1b5/788

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/emily-price/2a/532/851

The first two seem to have been testers for the app. The third one apparently worked on the network layer and services tied to the app. The first two seem to have been brought in from the outside just for that work, but the third one has been at MS for a while.

I get the impression that more people worked on it then just these three, but maybe not. Either way, it does show that MS did do some kind of work on the app. I'll keep looking through this stuff for more evidence one way or another.

 

The SDK and ADK etc are all built by MS and they provide the support, already agreeing with that. That 3rd one seems to do a lot of that including the certification or building the test tools which is 100% handled by MS (their walled garden obviously, just like iOS and the approval process).

 

Interesting about the network layer though, but I'm not about to start praising apps on their OSI implementation :laugh: For all we know the ESPN network is a mess (and maybe why their site is out of date), so she was involved in it more than other apps required to get it working / compatible with MS tools.

 

But you can see from the 3 links I provided, particularly the first company who have done 120 apps, the bulk of the work isn't handled by MS. Just freelance / outsourced coders.

[trooper11]

Interesting about the network layer though, but I'm not about to start praising apps on their tcp/ip implementation :laugh: For all we know the ESPN network is a mess (and maybe why their site is out of date), so she was involved in it more than other apps require to get it working / compatible with MS tools.

I just want to know the truth about this, so I appreciate you indulging me in trying to root it out.

I am looking for anyone listed by name that clearly worked to build the app in areas like UI, something that would more clearly point to MS doing more than what they have to do for any app.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

I just want to know the truth about this, so I appreciate you indulging me in trying to root it out.

I am looking for anyone listed by name that clearly worked to build the app in areas like UI, something that would more clearly point to MS doing more than what they have to do for any app.

 

Edit: Found another one:

http://www.linkedin.com/in/scottqlongstreet

A MS developer that was working heavily on the app for a while.

I can't find references to the X1 version yet.

 

If you want some more reading to do, I came across this article earlier this week. Forgot to post it until you found the 4th guy. A little dry for the typical GH topic I think but seeing as his role is on the subject I'm sharing :p http://www.vg247.com/2014/04/04/xbox-live-compute-implementation-explained-by-xbl-lead-program-manager/

 

Ignore if this was covered at Build, I completely missed the video streams.

[Showan]

I don't think Microsoft would lose many Gold subscribers as long as online play is Gold only because that is what people primarly pay for. Their current Gold policy has done nothing but shoot themselves in the foot. Apps being free would get many people over to their platform. Value by addition not substraction which Gold hasn't followed for many years. Games with Gold, dedicated servers, NFL for some are worthy perks and they only turned up recently and one is pretty weak sauce compared to the competition, another is unknown and only useful to one country.

 

As for Xbox Live Gold numbers, over the years it started around 65% with original Xbox, around 50% for 360 and keep falling, currently it's down to around 38% of users. Even from a buisness perspectivie I don't think selling your platform to content providers with the cold hard truth, only 38% of our user base will even see your content is not a good selling point.

 

Microsoft says there are about 82million Xbox 360's in consumer homes and about 46million have Gold accounts, wouldn't that be around 45% not 38%?

[Showan]

IMHO Microsoft has set a standard with GOLD.  Sure some things can be questioned, but not enough for me to say  I'm leaving GOLD because of Netflix or Amazon or whatever app is behind a paywall.

Some of these apps that are available elsewhere do perform better on Live. 

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Microsoft says there are about 82million Xbox 360's in consumer homes and about 46million have Gold accounts, wouldn't that be around 45% not 38%?

 

There's no point trying to work it out. Any figure you come to isn't going to be accurate. You have millions of RRoDs to account for, never mind multi-owners/subs and the 46 million figure including the free accounts. They've never said how many actually pay for Gold.

[trooper11]

But you can see from the 3 links I provided, particularly the first company who have done 120 apps, the bulk of the work isn't handled by MS. Just freelance / outsourced coders.

That first company does not list the ESPN app among their work, so it doesn't tell me anything on that point. I never said MS didn't outsource app development or didn't work with third parties.

Along with the 4th name I listed, it seems like the ESPN app may have been different from the norm. Same maybe for the NFL app.

 

 

If you want some more reading to do, I came across this article earlier this week. Forgot to post it until you found the 4th guy. A little dry for the typical GH topic I think but seeing as his role is on the subject I'm sharing :p http://www.vg247.com/2014/04/04/xbox-live-compute-implementation-explained-by-xbl-lead-program-manager/

 

Ignore if this was covered at Build, I completely missed the video streams.

It was covered at BUILD, but this does offer a few more pieces of info, so its very much welcome.

[Showan]

There's no point trying to work it out. Any figure you come to isn't going to be accurate. You have millions of RRoDs to account for, never mind multi-owners/subs and the 46 million figure including the free accounts. They've never said how many actually pay for Gold.

 

 

If no one truly knows, how does one know it's declining?

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

If no one truly knows, how does one know it's declining?

 

He doesn't mean it's declining in that current subs are leaving the service, he's talking about attach rate. The number of consoles sold is far out weighing the number of people subbing to Gold.

 

The 48 million number won't go down, it'll only ever go up and up. They include free and gold accounts, dormant and probably even banned accounts. Go turn on your 360/x1 and start making alt GTs and every single one of them is put towards that figure. Every single time you do it, the ratio of gold/free will go down and down.

[George P Global Moderator]

 There is no way that out of the 80million+ only 48million have Live accounts, it makes little sense.   Out of everyone there's very few who don't connect online with their Xbox at all and don't register, there's no way those people make up 20% of the base.    And having banned accounts counted?  Really?  That's a stretch at best, I'm betting they're only looking at active usage, people actually on live playing MP or watching something like Netflix and so on. 

[BajiRav]

As for the Roku comment, it's palming off the issue. Why not save yourself $300 and just buy a PS3. Use that mentality and you're beginning to sound like Don Mattrick as if you don't even want any customers :laugh:

:p My comment is coming from the other direction,

-If your primary requirement is gaming, then you are paying for Gold anyway (unless you don't play online), therefore the pay wall shouldn't matter.

-If your primary requirement is a streaming box, then Roku etc. are much better than Xbox/PS. You lose integration but something's gotta give.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

There is no way that out of the 80million+ only 48million have Live accounts, it makes little sense. Out of everyone there's very few who don't connect online with their Xbox at all and don't register, there's no way those people make up 20% of the base. And having banned accounts counted? Really? That's a stretch at best, I'm betting they're only looking at active usage, people actually on live playing MP or watching something like Netflix and so on.

So why are MS saying 48 million on their own website?

http://www.xbox.com/en-GB/live

[George P Global Moderator]

So why are MS saying 48 million on their own website?

http://www.xbox.com/en-GB/live

 

48 million active accounts, but I doubt that's counting banned and old inactive accounts that haven't been used in years.    There's also no way 30million + are second consoles and or rebuys only, another thing some people like to imply.   Those who have multiple systems, of the same brand, are a minority.  Odds are higher you have one of each not 2 or 3 of the same though.   And RRoD warranty units that were covered don't count as a sale either. 

 

Besides, there are live accounts that they're not counting in this as well, all those people with a Windows 8 device or a WP who don't own a Xbox console also have a Live account by extension, but they're not being counted in the 48million number.  So it has to only be active 360/XB1 users right now.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

48 million active accounts, but I doubt that's counting banned and old inactive accounts that haven't been used in years.    There's also no way 30million + are second consoles and or rebuys only, another thing some people like to imply.   Those who have multiple systems, of the same brand, are a minority.  Odds are higher you have one of each not 2 or 3 of the same though.   And RRoD warranty units that were covered don't count as a sale either. 

 

Besides, there are live accounts that they're not counting in this as well, all those people with a Windows 8 device or a WP who don't own a Xbox console also have a Live account by extension, but they're not being counted in the 48million number.  So it has to only be active 360/XB1 users right now.

 

Why would they count them when talking about the Xbox 360/XB1? That would be misleading to say the least as it's suppose to be numbers reflecting those on either console, not other Windows devices.

 

There's not really any point in trying to spin or read into numbers MS are issuing themselves - Don't you think the marketing team has already thought about presenting such a number in the most favourable light anyway? Is it really that inconceivable to think there's people who do not use XBL Gold?  :/

 

MS revealed back in 2010 about 50% of the Live users pay for Gold. While a long time ago it's not inconceivable to think such a trend will carry on in some shape or form and you'd be daft to think it's ever going to be a 1:1 ratio of XBL user to Gold. I think it will be higher than 50% now for sure, but not 90/95% or something that high.

 

"Of our 25 million members, about half of them are subscribers for the business and pay us about $60 a year for that. So, it's a very, very large business for us and for our partners." 

 

If they were reporting their Live install base back then as a combined figure, why wouldn't they be now? It's the most favourable way for marketing to report things.

 

From 2013 as well, during an investors/financial report

 

Microsoft says that Xbox Live subscriptions are up 18% over last year, reaching a grand total of 46M, out of 77M Xboxes sold.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2013/04/20/always-on-microsoft-xbox-live-subscriptions-up-to-46m-will-never-be-free/

 

But the ratio wasn't specified

 

Additionally, the global conglomerate revealed that Xbox Live now has 46 million members, but it didn?t specify how many of those are of the paid-subscriber variety. Either way, that number is up 18 percent from last year.

 

http://venturebeat.com/2013/04/18/xbox-division-up-big-for-microsofts-q3-xbox-live-now-has-46m-members/

 

You cannot play MP or watch Netflix on silver so from your comment earlier you think the 48 million is all Gold?

 

 I'm betting they're only looking at active usage, people actually on live playing MP or watching something like Netflix and so on.

 

MS haven't been reporting their figures released each fiscal year as Gold only, ever, in fact in 2010 as above the split was actually revealed. In years just gone by, forbes/wiki/all the other news sites are reporting saying the ratio hasn't been divulged. Do you not think if you were MS and it was 46m/48m Gold you'd have the PR ninjas sent out in a hearbeat to correct all these sites?

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

AB said everything perfectly but just to add that AFAIK only Steam release active numbers. MS/Nintendo/Sony don't.

 

And as for counting inactive accounts or dupes, they certainly do. I remember Sony releasing their numbers probably back in 2009/10 for PSN and it overtook XBL with something like 70 million accounts. The service was only 4 years old :laugh: Funny how they managed that with half the install base at the time. Reason? Multiple accounts.

 

Trust me, neither install base number will ever go down. They'll only ever announce milestones of it going up.

[Guest]

Did you just say Xbox Live has a better community than Steam?!

 

Steam has a better community? Starting right from the people that moderate that very community. If you say something bad, you get banned. Much love being spread there. /s

 

Now if you're talking about groups and stuff, you can also have that on Facebook / it doesn't matter since that's not the general community.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

AB said everything perfectly but just to add that AFAIK only Steam release active numbers. MS/Nintendo/Sony don't.

 

And as for counting inactive accounts or dupes, they certainly do. I remember Sony releasing their numbers probably back in 2009/10 for PSN and it overtook XBL with something like 70 million accounts. The service was only 4 years old :laugh: Funny how they managed that with half the install base at the time. Reason? Multiple accounts.

 

Trust me, neither install base number will ever go down. They'll only ever announce milestones of it going up.

 

Yeah the PSN numbers are hilarious. Everyone and their granny have about 5 accounts to get all the other stores content/gameshare. Last count I think I had about 4 or something. Don't think duping will be as rampant on Live, it really kicked off on PSN due to how easy it was to make an account and use worldwide stores, and more importantly the rise of gamesharing when we had 5 activations.

[Unrealistic]

:p My comment is coming from the other direction,-If your primary requirement is gaming, then you are paying for Gold anyway (unless you don't play online), therefore the pay wall shouldn't matter.-If your primary requirement is a streaming box, then Roku etc. are much better than Xbox/PS. You lose integration but something's gotta give.

I understand your logic, but don't agree with it at all.

Of the current-gen consoles, only one has a pay wall for apps.

Of the last-gen consoles, only one has a pay wall for apps.

Of the streaming boxes, none have a pay wall for apps.

Windows 8, Windows 8 RT and Windows Phone do not have a pay wall for apps.

Apple, Android, etc. do not have a pay wall for apps.

Just because your primary reason for having an Xbox One is gaming doesn't mean your preference is more valid than mine or anyone else. Microsoft's DRM policy, paywall and many other things are significantly behind their direct competition. Whether you, Microsoft or anyone else think differently, iOS and Android are competitors in the gaming landscape. Their models are significantly more consumer friendly than Microsoft and to some degree even Sony.

I will continue to support platforms that are economically beneficial to myself and slowly rid myself of the platforms that aren't. Others will (are) do the same.