Hulu Launches With Few YouTube Killing Qualities

Hulu.com, the online video venture from NBC Universal and News Corp., has launched a private beta program. Early reports suggest it's far from being a YouTube killer. "Although Hulu's parent companies have done a lot of things right with the service, the scheduling leaves something to be desired. For the time being, the site will only feature five weeks worth of content for any given show. From there, it's assumed that older content will get the boot in favor of newer episodes and movies. This isn't necessarily a deal breaker for us, but for a lot of viewers this will prevent the service from becoming with online video Shangri-La they'd imagined. Furthermore, with the lack of user-generated content, it falls short of the end-all be-all site for online video. Viewers are still going to go to YouTube and still click their ads -- but in terms of piracy a minor rebellion may have been quelled."

Comments

A better Youtube killer

[ardor]

is this: http://stage6.divx.com/

Re:A better Youtube killer

[JackieBrown]

Hell, it even works in Konqueror and adds
"For Linux support try Mplayer"

Nice to see a non flash driven site

Re:A better Youtube killer

[McFadden]

But yeah, the actual website itself expects this stupid plugin, and that's retarded.

Too right. Retarded. That makes sense. If we want to play DivX video in our browsers, we should just ask the magic fairies to do it. It's ridiculous to expect us to install new software to give functionality we don't currently have.

Um... but the question remains

[garett_spencley]

... is NBC trying to create a "Youtube Killer" ?

I thought they were just trying to provide a service where you can get their videos through a medium that they control ?

Also, (while I didn't RTFA), if they provide full length episodes in a single stream then they do offer something over Youtube. While I can often find complete episodes on youtube they need to be broken up in to 10 minute clips and sometimes you find the first 10 minutes and then can't find the rest of the episode and that's really annoying.

From the summary it sounds like their major "gripe" (for lack of a better word) is the lack of user generated content and only fresh episodes ... but if all NBC is trying to do is offer their recent tv shows online then it sounds like NBC is doing exactly what they set out to. Did NBC ever mention trying to compete with Youtube ? I thought they just didn't want random people uploading random content that NBC owns the copyright to on Youtube. Not trying to steal the "market" or something.

Re:Um... but the question remains

[HTH NE1]

... is NBC trying to create a "Youtube Killer" ? Indeed, I thought this was to be NBC trying to create an iTunes Video killer.

Complementary

[4D6963]

Actually this service has little to do with YouTube, and doesn't risk to kill it, since Hulu and YouTube are actually complementary. YouTube serves user-submitted content and no shows, and Hulu serves no user-submitted content and nothing but shows. So actually it has little to do with YouTube, it's just a free web-based VoD service, I guess. Sorry if I'm stating the obvious, but that's just no YouTube killer at all.

Youtube killer?

[SamP2]

So one is a corporate outlet for streaming their shows, while the other one is a hobbyist amateur creative outlet.

They compete with each other how, exactly? How is one the killer of another, when they operate in a completely different niche?

click their ads?

[gEvil (beta)]

Viewers are still going to go to YouTube and still click their ads

Okay, I get the first part, but the second confuses me. Does anyone actually do this?

Re:click their ads?

[Sporkinum]

Snap snap, Grin grin, Wink wink. Say No More!

Re:click their ads?

[Arancaytar]

Five years is pretty impressive considering that the name Firefox didn't exist until three years ago. :P

Maybe just a little killing?

[Grandiloquence]

If it can't kill YouTube, can it at least kill the mouth-breathing YouTube comments? I would also settle for just killing the comments at the source.

Hulu.com

[Junior J. Junior III]

I can only hope, that somewhere on their intranet, they've got a subdomain called ct. Please please please make it so if anyone reading this has the power.

Except...

[christopherfinke]

Hulu Launches With Few YouTube Killing Qualities

Except for legitimate, good-quality copies of popular TV shows and movies that are free to watch in a standard-ish format. I don't know about you, but that kills YouTube for me.

Re:Except...

[Alsee]

Except for legitimate, good-quality copies of popular TV shows and movies that are free to watch in a standard-ish format. I don't know about you, but that kills YouTube for me.

COOL!
What site did you go to? Because I want it too! It sure as heck wasn't Hulu.

Oh sure it's got the "legitimate, [] copies of popular TV shows and movies that are free to watch []". But the quality is painfully unwatchable crap, and I can't imagine what prompted you call it a standard format. The resolution was perfect but the framerate was unwatchable - it made me want to gouge my eyes out.

They still don't 'get it'. They still do not understand the internet. They are still BATTLING against the internet. They still have DRM Derangement Disorder. The 'format' is still the delusional notion "we will download a stream to them, because a stream magically isn't a download!"

Call me when they get over DRM Derangement Disorder, when they understand that "stream" is merely a download that you can start watching while it downloads. Call me when they start including MPEG or AVI or other proper formats.

They're sticking commercials in... fine. No one likes commercials but they are legitimate and reasonable and acceptable. But as far as the current Hulu goes, the eye-gouging video and DRM Derangement Disorder, No. Just go grab a torrent. They just don't get it. If they sabotage their own service it's just not going to be used. They can have their commercials, but so long as they have DRM Derangement Disorder and sabotage themselves "legitimate" is the only thing that is going to be lost from your list "legitimate, good-quality copies of popular TV shows and movies that are free to watch in a standard format".

In a way I sorta hope you were just astroturfing. Maybe they actually watch how the campaign is/isn't working and pay attention to the kind of replies it creates. Maybe.. just maybe.. the massage will finally get through their thick skulls of why some things on the internet take off like wildfire and some things are steaming turd piles that sit there doing SQUAT no matter how much they spend on development and how much they spend on viral marketing schemes. If they offer what people want - and that means normal non-crippled formats like MPEG and AVI - then they will get the viral buzz for free. If they don't, no amount of investment is going to succeed.

-

This is no surprise

[Paktu]

This doesn't surprise me at all. Youtube was started by a couple nerds who wanted to create a simple, easy to use video sharing site. Hulu is being created by decree from old media executives with conflicting priorities- they want lots of people to see their content but also want to control its distribution. And I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the engineers and programmers working for NBC are slightly less capable than those working for Google.

Why will they go to Hulu?

[webmaster404]

Its the Microsoft effect working, people don't like change even if Hulu managed to be 100X better then YouTube people for the next 5 years would still be on YouTube, why hasn't the Mac and Linux gotten more appeal even though most people agree that its a better operating system? Its the unknown and the average web browser/computer user won't remember about Hulu. And also, about the "pirated" things, its not the things that are on NBC, ABC, FOX and CBS that people want, its the things that they can't get off-air such as Comedy Central, Disney and things that aren't out in America/Europe/Japan such as most Anime, T.V. shows and movies. People would have no problem paying if they could get the content they wanted, for a reasonable price with No DRM that works on Every format (Linux, Windows, iPod, MP3 player, DVD player, PS3, etc.) with infinite free downloads if your hard drive/flash drive fails. No one is going to change from going to YouTube in any large crowd anytime soon, and not to NBC who seems to be a foe of open content.

Please! Enough product-killer titles!

[oahazmatt]

I've previously ranted on my dislike of the [product]-killer label, but considering my diminutive post count I'm certain no one has read those comments.

Labeling any new product as its primary rivals (and defacto market leader) as the killer of the original product by any party does no good to actually help the product succeed. Continued reference to the original product by the new product's producing company can reek of arrogance, whereas the reference by either that party or by any media coverage can imply that the new product does not have the foothold in the market necessary to become successful and still publicizes the name of the original product, keeping the original product in the spotlight.

For example, and I am not using this to ruffle feathers, simply as an example, the Zune was labeled as an iPod-killer by multiple parties. Were I an uninformed consumer looking for a new digital music player and happened to be reading a commentary on the "Zune" which referred to it as "Microsoft's iPod-Killer" two things would come to my mind. 1) What is an iPod, and 2) Why does an iPod need to be killed?

Labeling a product as the killer of another product can also be the byproduct of a lack of objectivity in a review, which can also be inferred by the reader as a lack of faith in the product. Are many users satisfied with their Zune purchase? Yes. However, as an uninformed reader, if I see a paragraph begin "Unfortunately, Microsoft's iPod-Killer doesn't---" then I may consider evaluating my future purchase when the Zune may have suited my needs perfectly.

And I realize that this is not at large the fault of the Slashdot submitter, and often these are quotes from the article, but I find it very disconcerning to see such remarks in what should b an unbiased critque of an application in a private beta stage being compared to a well-identified landmark on the internet.

The hype! The horrible, horrible hype!

[Scrameustache]

for a lot of viewers this will prevent the service from becoming with online video Shangri-La they'd imagined. No viewer that actually exists ever imagined this would be an online video Shangri-La.

You had me until "NBC Universal and News Corp"

[Dan667]

Really, what kind of blood do they require for the EULA? Think I will pass.

Actually, it's a different question

[KingSkippus]

To me, it's an entirely different question.

Can I watch it on my television?

I think it's really weird that Amazon.com, Hulu, Netflix, and so many others think that I watch television on my computer. I don't. I watch television on... well, I watch it on my television.

Now, I know, some of you have fancy media PCs set up so that you can watch television on your computer on your television, and if you do, congratulations, sounds like you've got a nice setup. But the vast majority of people don't.

A while back, I bought one of the AppleTV boxes. Know why? So that I can watch television on my television, not on my computer. So now, I buy shows from iTunes. I've also been known to rent a movie or two on my Xbox 360, which is also hooked up to... well, you already know what it's hooked up to, right?

So to NBC, and to anyone else who wants me to watch their stuff, unless it's short clips that are posted on sites like YouTube, it doesn't matter how great the quality your programming is, it doesn't matter how simple it is to download and watch it on my computer. If you can't give me a relatively simple way to watch it on my television, I'm not going to be watching it. Period, end of story.

By the way, that's one of the things that would be so hypothetically great about downloading torrents of movies and/or television shows, if I participated in such illegal activities. With a few button presses, I could have a DVD copy of anything I download to watch at my leisure... ON MY TELEVISION!

Come back when shows on Hulu can be watched on an AppleTV, or when you're willing to let me burn a copy to DVD. Maybe then, we'll talk. (Somehow, I kind of doubt we'll be talking anytime soon.)

Now mod me up, dammit, that's one of my better rants, and something painfully obvious that I don't see discussed very often in these threads.

Re:Actually, it's a different question

[KingSkippus]

Nope, and I doubt it will anytime soon. When I use my computer, I tend to want to sit close to the screen to make out detail. When I watch television, I tend to sit six to ten feet away and don't care so much if I can make out itty bitty fonts.

I'm just not willing to switch back and forth right now. I wouldn't mind having a cheap dedicated computer for the purpose of serving as a media center, something with a simple interface (I don't want a keyboard interface to watching television). You know... like an AppleTV. ;-)

I still think that ultimately, it will be the successful player (no pun intended) in the market. It's pretty easy to use, it works really well, it's already got some media companies behind it (although it admittedly needs several more to really take off), and best of all, it doesn't ask people to watch television and movies on their computer screen. I honestly thinkg that someday, after Hulu is recognized for the abject failure that it will be, the idiots at NBC that decided to bail in it will eventually be fired for incompetence and allowing its competitors get a huge lead on them in the market of digital media distribution.

Re:Actually, it's a different question

[KingSkippus]

Um yeah you can watch it on your TV, either:
1) when it airs
2) from your VCR or PVR
3) if you have a decent cable package that has "On Demand"

Maybe you don't want to watch this content on your computer but many of us do. This is who they are serving.

And more power to you, but you've completely missed the point.

Like I said, the vast majority of users out there do NOT watch television on their computers. Which means that any service that requires one to do so is serving to a very minute audience, and as such, is probably doomed to failure in the market unless they manage to price their service expensive enough to recoup their costs.

Meanwhile, there's a perfectly good service out there, iTunes with an AppleTV, that allows me to watch programming:

1) When I want
2) On my computer, my iPod, or my television, and
3) For an extremely low price (around $350 to $400 a year for the 10 or so shows I watch) compared with a "decent cable package that has 'On Demand'" (at least $720 a year in my area).

But because NBC is being such a dick about telling me when, where, and how I must watch their shows, and because other networks and other content creators are being so stingy with their stuff hoping they can be the next Google or something, I'm supposed to put up with watching stuff on a monitor that's half the size of my television, listening to it on my computer speakers instead of my nice surround sound system?

No thank you, NBC et. al. can go to hell, because that's the only place I'll be watching their shows on my computer.

I'm sorry if it makes me sound like a demanding consumer to expect companies to provide an easy means for me to watch their shows when I want to, where I want to, and how I want to. They don't have to cater to my tastes if they don't want to, and I will continue not watching their shows. However, considering that the vast majority of the world are consumers that are pretty much like me, if they keep that attitude much longer, they will completely lose their audience to other companies that realize how much better it is to please their customers instead of just telling them to watch the show "when it airs, from your VCR or PVR, or on a decent cable package that has 'On Demand.'"

Jesus, do you actually run a television network? Because you sure sound like the pinheads that do.

The funny thing is that I was actually serious, I don't do BitTorrent to get television shows or movies. (Or music either, for that matter.) I simply choose not to watch the shows. But I totally understand people who do. I mean, given the choice of all these stupid limitations imposed on people by content creators, versus being able to simply download DRM-free copies of whatever they want and streaming it anywhere to any device, burning media of it, and whatever the hell else one might want to do with the content, why would you not use BitTorrent instead of some asinine service like Amazon.com's unbox service, Netflix, or Hulu? The way they keep shutting down distribution channels for their media, you'd think the companies desperately want copyright infringement to run rampant.

The iTunes/AppleTV solution isn't perfect, but at least it gives me lots of options, covering pretty much anything I want to do with the media, for a very reasonable price. If it weren't for that and the fact that I don't watch more than 10 or so shows regularly, I probably would resort to BitTorrent just to get everything.

Re:Actually, it's a different question

[elrous0]

I've got my TV setup like this and it's not that easy to set up (harder than most people think). First of all, if you have a SD TV with s-video or component inputs, you can't just hook it directly up to your video card unless you want really annoying ground loop artifacts (banding in the video and buzzing in the audio which get worse over time). You're going to need ground loop isolators, which will run you over $100 for both audio and video.

You're also going to need long cables if your computer is any distance from your TV. This is a real problem for both analog and digital signals, as they degrade over long distances (jut TRY finding a 20' VGA cable sometime). This is going to mean obscure relays and God knows what else to solve. Big pain in the ass.

You're also going to need a remote or wireless mouse to control the computer. You can get around the keyboard by using a on-screen keyboard widget for konfabulator, but it's not ideal.

In other words, a big hassle. The only reason I do this is because it's the only way to be sure you can play ALL video formats (including web video). Most extenders (like AppleTV, Xbox 360, etc.) are VERY picky about the video they play, with very limited codecs.

Beta isn't very private

[smart2000]

On the corporate blog there is a sample video. The URL to watch any video is of the form:
http://www.hulu.com/embed/1734 In a stunning lack of foresight the number is the primary key of the record in the database. You can enter anything less than 1850 and view the shows. Since they give permission to embed on your own web pages, I've embedded a sample of ten random shows

Sensationalist headlines

[jgc7]

That damn headline is a real disservice to slashdot and wired...

Let's see.
1) Real TV Shows
2) Runs on Linux
3) No DRM
4) 100% Legal
5) Free (as in Ad supported)


The headline should read, "NBC, FOX finally get it right. Let's hope it lasts."
The comparison to YouTube is just moronic, and the gripe about only 5 episodes being available just shows how stupid the author really is. Does anyone actually expect the networks to canabalize DVD sales by releasing the archives for free?