Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Disney-Hulu Deal Is Ominous For YouTube

Posted by Soulskill on from the business-models-are-for-wimps dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "Dow Jones reports that Hulu scored a big victory when Disney agreed to take a nearly 30% stake in Hulu and put full episodes of its ABC TV shows on the site, enabling users to see shows like Lost, Scrubs, Ugly Betty and Desperate Housewives for free. Disney views the move as a way to reach a new audience that isn't coming to the network's own website. Although the ABC.com website has attracted regular viewers of its shows, Hulu offers the opportunity to tap into a new group of viewers. Now Google is under mounting pressure to add more professional content to YouTube in order to attract more advertisers. According to Dow Jones' Scott Morrisson, the equity structure of the Disney-Hulu deal suggests that content creators want greater involvement in online distribution than Google has offered with YouTube. 'Content providers don't want to give (YouTube) content because the advertisers aren't there yet,' said Edward Jones analyst Andy Miedler."

133 comments

  1. One Simple Solution by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Give the IP holders the right to run their own commercials, and some API to make it possible for them to change commercials out easily without a full reupload. Commercial lengths will manage themselves. In order to get this particular interface you need to share the cost of the downloads, which the system will broker. (e.g. the actual cost, not any cost to the user, since there is none.)

    However, I don't see it as that big an issue, either; Google is here to stay, so is YouTube, and if it became THE site for non-commercial content, I for one would still use it. I suspect others would, also.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:One Simple Solution by Kaetemi · · Score: 1

      http://www.youtube.com/shows
      http://www.youtube.com/movies

      --
      Kaetemi
    2. Re:One Simple Solution by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While i agree that youtube is a completely different platform to hulu, i think youtube is going to run into problems if it doesn't change its ways soon. In looking to get commercial content providers on-bored they stopped protecting their users and will take down just about anything instantly, this is loosing them users, who either go elsewhere (dailymotion, etc) or just using online videosites much because they can't find what they want. By shutting down the accounts of high volume user that infringed copyright and/or offended xenu, they have clearly reduced their user base significantly. Given the safe harbor provisions in the DMCA, the only reason to become so pro-active is to appeal to the content providers, at the cost of pissing off their userbase.

      While this is clearly hurting youtube, as im not google all i can offer in the place of evidence is an anecdote. I have a friend who uploads highlights of wrestling videos with old video games as the soundtrack, at some point last year he got his account closed down for copyright infringement. He set up a second account and since then he has made it into the top 100 subscribed channels a few times, however his old channel had something like 10 times as many subscribers. Now even if what he was doing wasn't fair use (not having seen them i cant say), youtube could have just taken off the offending videos while leaving his account open.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    3. Re:One Simple Solution by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful

      However, I don't see it as that big an issue, either; Google is here to stay, so is YouTube, and if it became THE site for non-commercial content, I for one would still use it. I suspect others would, also.

      The problem is making money. Yes, Youtube is popular, but is it profitable yet? I don't know. Advertisers won't pay much on ad space until they can place their ads on premium content, and they won't be able to get premium content until they can show that advertisers are willing to pay a premium. It's a catch 22.

      So content owners are saying they won't license their content for the Internet because the ad revenue isn't there. The advertisers are saying they won't pay much because the viewers aren't there. The viewers won't watch because content owners are busy pushing their products on broadcast channels while withholding them from the Internet. And around we go.

      If things are going to change, someone has to make the leap, and it won't be the advertisers. It might be the content owners, but I'd bet on the viewers. Not so much a leap, but a gradual falling off-- people canceling their cable because they get enough shows on Hulu or iTunes to keep them content, and maybe they supplement those sources with some illegal stuff. So then advertisers and content owners will have to go online to get those viewers.

    4. Re:One Simple Solution by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well, how long can Google keep the thing floating? They probably have a lot of time to work it out, and it's worth taking some time to be the leader in yet another space... if they can maintain their lead, anyway.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:One Simple Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This video is not available in your country.

    6. Re:One Simple Solution by nine-times · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course, you're right there. Somewhere along the line, though, someone will have to make it profitable.

    7. Re:One Simple Solution by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 1

      However, I don't see it as that big an issue, either; Google is here to stay, so is YouTube, and if it became THE site for non-commercial content, I for one would still use it. I suspect others would, also

      Google is losing over a quarter of a billion dollars a year on YouTube just from bandwidth costs. How long are they going to be willing to keep that up?

    8. Re:One Simple Solution by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem is making money. Yes, Youtube is popular, but is it profitable yet? I don't know. Advertisers won't pay much on ad space until they can place their ads on premium content, and they won't be able to get premium content until they can show that advertisers are willing to pay a premium. It's a catch 22.

      Estimates vary, but most analysts put YouTube's loss to Google at between $250 million and $500 million per year, with the bulk of that being due to bandwidth costs. The big problem is almost no one wants their ads on user supplied content.

      Suppose, for instance, you were a company like Purina. You are interested in advertising your cat food. If you told Google to show your ad on videos that match the keywords "cat" and "cute", sure, you'll get a lot of impressions on videos of nice cats doing cute things. And you'll also get on videos of cute cats getting run over by lawn mowers, sticking paws in garbage disposals, and so on. Purina does NOT want to be associated in any way with running cats over with lawn mowers.

      One article I read, if I recall correctly, said that Hulu is already getting more advertising revenue than YouTube, despite only having a fraction of the visitors YouTable has.

    9. Re:One Simple Solution by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      Yes, Youtube is popular, but is it profitable yet? I don't know.

      Ok let me let you in on a secret that isn't a secret in any way. Yes it's profitable. No youtube.com itself does not net a profit. The profit is on the analytics of that traffic. Google isn't a fly by night company who fails to monetize traffic. Reach (attaching contextual, demographic, behavioral, etc. information to a unique id of a visitor) is the primary way to increase hits in your ad server (versus a default ad being served because of a "miss" in being able to successfully match a running campaign with a user's profile). While google has a huge reach in search, it's currently got a huge reach in behavioral targeting through properties it owns and the number of campaigns it runs. There is 0 reason to worry about youtube, as it is not competing for the same space as HULU. Yes a lot of people go to properties Google doesn't own. Google has no reason to worry or care about it.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    10. Re:One Simple Solution by rexertea · · Score: 1

      well I agree with you but will advertisement companies allow us to do that.

    11. Re:One Simple Solution by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Yes, but Google is trying to get the same sort of content that Hulu has, licensed by content owners, and ad-supported. For whatever reason, content owners aren't going for that, either.

  2. Bollocks by tpgp · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Youtube's value is in the long tail - Hulu doesn't seem to be going down that path.

    --
    My pics.
    1. Re:Bollocks by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Youtube's value is in the long tail.

      And it's losing money at the rate of one Library of Congress. ($half-billion a year)

    2. Re:Bollocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Long tail?
      Furries!

  3. Available outside U.S. ? by javacowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wake me up when Hulu is available outside the U.S.

    --
    This space left intentionally blank.
    1. Re:Available outside U.S. ? by robzon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly! It really pisses me off that I'm locked out just because I don't live in the states anymore. No wonder torrent sites flourish.

    2. Re:Available outside U.S. ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Wake me up when Hulu is available outside the U.S.

      Can't do it. It's like exporting software - we, the USA, have to make sure certain technologies do not get exported out of the country. The US Congress, in their wisdom, put these export restrictions on software and other media because we all know that the USofA is the only country in the World that is capable of developing technology.

      Why, just think of what could happen if the terrorists got a hold MS Excel or Hulu! They could bombard every city in the US with shitty TV programming and keep track of the damage!

    3. Re:Available outside U.S. ? by patro · · Score: 3, Funny

      There is an other provider. It's called Torrent and it's available everywhere. I wonder what Hulu-ABC will do if they hear about it. Change their business model or something?

    4. Re:Available outside U.S. ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah yeah yeah - and maybe someday the BBC will allow streaming of Dr Who for US users too...

    5. Re:Available outside U.S. ? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was surprised to click on the YouTube shows and movies links above and find that they actually worked here in the UK. The content selection isn't huge, but combined with iPlayer there's probably still more than I have time to watch. There isn't even any point in pirating content that the studios don't make available over here - there's already more stuff available legally than I have time to watch, and if they don't want to make their products available to me then I won't go out of my way to see them.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:Available outside U.S. ? by foniksonik · · Score: 3, Funny

      You mean the cost of the Iraq War right? Wait am I trolling or being trolled?

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    7. Re:Available outside U.S. ? by computerMechanic · · Score: 1

      Look, our american government has already explained this, its tubes, not something that you just dump something on. You want to clog up our tubes?

    8. Re:Available outside U.S. ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh yeah it's so unfair only your tax-money goes to hulu

    9. Re:Available outside U.S. ? by tony1343 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That sucks. But can't non-Americans just route through a proxy or something?

      I'd probably also blame this on your networks, since they syndicate many of these shows. It would probably violate the contracts to allow non-Americans to view the shows before your local neetwork has shown the program. The question is why is there often such a delay before the foreign network airs the show? If there isn't a delay than this is really stupid.

      But really I often just don't understand Hollywood. They bitch that China is pirating all their movies. Yet you can't legally buy them in China. So how can it possibly be costing them money? Plus half the time, the movies wouldn't be allowed in China because of censorship.

    10. Re:Available outside U.S. ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this one NOT -1 troll?

    11. Re:Available outside U.S. ? by SumterLiving · · Score: 0

      Why doesn't some smart person create their own Hulu in the EU or where ever it isn't available?

    12. Re:Available outside U.S. ? by EvilIdler · · Score: 1

      While we're wishing, wake me up when all of YouTube is available in Europe.

    13. Re:Available outside U.S. ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's actually true. Flamebait? Perhaps -- Americans are jealous of everybody else now.

    14. Re:Available outside U.S. ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because there is an element of truth in it.

      And I say that as an American, a VERY concerned American. Bush was the straw that broke out back, we really don't have much to look forward too, much less wave at the rest of the world.

      No, Obama isn't going to fix it.

    15. Re:Available outside U.S. ? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      Wake me up when Hulu is available outside the U.S.

      I agree 100%. I suppose I wouldn't mind the region-blocking if there was a local alternative, but there isn't. Why block SNL if there isn't an alternative place I can go watch a clip? Who are they protecting?

    16. Re:Available outside U.S. ? by Psychochild · · Score: 1

      Both. After all, 1d12 trolls can appear at one time, according to the 2nd edition Monster Manual.

      --
      Brian "Psychochild" Green
      MMO developer's blog
    17. Re:Available outside U.S. ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the cost of the Iraq War right? Wait am I trolling or being trolled?

      How did you get an Iraqtile Disfunction reference
      into a discussion of HuLu?

    18. Re:Available outside U.S. ? by my+$anity++0 · · Score: 1
      Until then, there's this thing called Torrent, and it's free!

      I think if you asked me honestly whether I'd want to be able to stream the entirety of American TV or just Doctor Who and it's spinoffs (Classic and new) I'd quite probably say Doctor Who, the only thing dragging me back somewhat being Futurama.

    19. Re:Available outside U.S. ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet you can't resist American culture, the product of all the "bad" things you described. It's always funny when stupid fucking foreigners such as you complain about America, yet complain that they can't watch "Lost" over the Internet. I bet you also can't resist American cock either.

      Asshole.

    20. Re:Available outside U.S. ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wake me up when Hulu is available outside the U.S.

      Anchor Free VPN, means you can see Hulu anywhere

  4. Who gives a shit? I just want free video!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, no one gives a shit. Just keep that free video flowing and keep this Idiocracy rollin' and no one will care whether they have to surf to youtube.com, hulu.com, goatse.cx, iamafaggotassbitch.com, or whatever. Free everything is the way of the future. Can't you all see that we're headed for a Star Trek economy, where money is obsolete? God bless Obongo!

    1. Re:Who gives a shit? I just want free video!!! by duhjim · · Score: 1

      Seriously, no one gives a shit. Just keep that free video flowing and keep this Idiocracy rollin' and no one will care whether they have to surf to youtube.com, hulu.com, goatse.cx, iamafaggotassbitch.com, or whatever. Free everything is the way of the future. Can't you all see that we're headed for a Star Trek economy, where money is obsolete? God bless Obongo!

      John Lennon never did sing, "Imagine there is no money. Its easy if you do. No more long term debt above us. No more bitting off more than you can chew."

  5. Thank you, ABC by hal2814 · · Score: 4, Informative

    It annoys me to no end that I have to get up and click a stupid button to continue EVERY TIME an ABC online show goes to commercial. At least Hulu understands that people wanting to watch TV on the Internet might actually want to do so on their TV. I'll never visit ABC's online site again once those shows are up on Hulu.

    1. Re:Thank you, ABC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is an option you can set to automatically continue after the commercial ends. To get to these settings you click on a "preferences" or "settings" button (I forget the details).

    2. Re:Thank you, ABC by slashkitty · · Score: 1

      I came here to say this. Not to mention that the commercials are in a tiny little box, when I'm trying to watch the thing in full screen mode. Stupid ABC..

      --
      -- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
    3. Re:Thank you, ABC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, will Hulu offer HD quality like ABC.com does?

    4. Re:Thank you, ABC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Settings -> Auto-continue after ad break

    5. Re:Thank you, ABC by QuantumRiff · · Score: 2, Informative

      They're last big "upgrade" to their player about a year ago killed off linux functionality. Fortunately, Hulu.com works great in linux. Maybe I'll actually start watching ABC shows again...

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    6. Re:Thank you, ABC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hulu already has a 480p mode that looks very good, and works over 1Mbps DSL.

      It also looks like they've made some improvement on the codecs they're using to work better for darkly-lit settings, as are often encountered in the Sci Fi genre.

      And, perhaps most important, you don't need to install Disney Corp. spyware (complete with fascist ToS that would make Mousillini envious) on your machine to view Hulu content.

    7. Re:Thank you, ABC by BikeHelmet · · Score: 1

      Hulu also buffers continuously, rather than treating commercials and the show's segments like separate streams. For people like me with slow internet connections (mine is barely fast enough for 480p), that means no delay after a commercial, instead of 20 seconds of buffering.

      And unlike Youtube, there's none of that random jerking. I have four computers in my house, and every single one of them jerks/jolts on the worst quality youtube vids.

      Crysis doesn't jolt. Neither does Hulu. Youtube does. :/

    8. Re:Thank you, ABC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go to optans on abc's player and change the optan for the adds. That will fix that prob.

  6. But, but, but.... by SIR_Taco · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now Google is under mounting pressure to add more professional content to YouTube...

    But it's YOU-Tube, not THEM-Tube

    --
    I say don't drink and drive, you might spill your drink. Before you get behind the wheel just stop and think.
    1. Re:But, but, but.... by crossmr · · Score: 1

      oh please. You-tube hasn't been "you"-tube for a long time. Half the content is clips of shows, full movies uploaded in 9000 parts for the 3 people on the planet who can't figure out torrents, and porn ads that you-tube won't take down.

  7. Google Ads by olddotter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't see why google doesn't just put some basic google text ads on the right of youtube served up based on the description of the video and the content of the comments. Heck I just went there now and saw an ad for Civony (http://www.civony.com/tour.php). So whats the problem? Not enough ad revenue to offset the bandwidth charges?

    --
    Think Deeply. ...
    1. Re:Google Ads by jo42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not enough ad revenue to offset the bandwidth charges?

      Ding! Ding! Ding! You've won the jackpot. Google subsides IdiotTube from other sources of ad revenue. Google's business model is 99% based on ad revenue. Once that dries up, they're fraked.

    2. Re:Google Ads by Inner_Child · · Score: 1

      I don't see why google doesn't just put some basic google text ads on the right of youtube served up based on the description of the video and the content of the comments.

      I can't wait to see targeted ads for "ur all fags!" or "this sux" or any of the other typical brilliance found in comments alongside my YouTube videos.

      --
      Today is red jello day - all workers must eat all of their red jello. Failure to comply will result in five demerits.
    3. Re:Google Ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      They pop ads up at the bottom, seemingly based on the description/comments or possibly their speech recognition technology. I mean, I was just watching the latest Mr. Chi-City video, and up pops an advert for a tickets company.

    4. Re:Google Ads by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 1

      I don't see why google doesn't just put some basic google text ads on the right of youtube served up based on the description of the video and the content of the comments

      The big problem is that advertisers don't want their ads to show up next to videos that will offend their customers. YouTube is full of truly disgusting content, and it is almost impossible to pick keywords that will hit the places you would like your ad to be without also hitting a lot of disgusting videos.

  8. Digging their own graves? by mister_playboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am eager to see the old cable subscription model fail, so we can actually have some decent internet speeds here in the US. If these companies have trouble monetizing this new approach, that won't exactly break my heart, though.

    --
    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    1. Re:Digging their own graves? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If these companies have trouble monetizing this new approach, that won't exactly break my heart, though.

      Would it though, if they had to cancel your favorite show because there just isn't enough money to justify making it?

      I mean, your attitude is basically demanding that the show producers take a 90% cut in revenue or else you're not happy.

    2. Re:Digging their own graves? by Macrat · · Score: 1

      Would it though, if they had to cancel your favorite show because there just isn't enough money to justify making it?

      They already cancel the good shows.

    3. Re:Digging their own graves? by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Would it though, if they had to cancel your favorite show because there just isn't enough money to justify making it?

      I'd be okay with that, its not like TV is a necessity or anything. I could probably live my life just as well (if not better) without an idiot box. But then again I'm not very typical, since all I really watch on the damn thing is news and Dirty Jobs. One of which I can get on the internet with richer content, the other I really don't care too much about.

      I can't even watch network TV anymore, the commercials drive me insane, and counteract the entertainment value of the 40 minute shows in a 60 minute slot. Hulu is even beginning to get there now.

      Television competes with other ways to waste time, so even if it tanks there is still the internet, videogames, movies, books, etc... Hell, long walks, and hobbies as well. I could care less.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
  9. Who cares? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1, Troll
    If I wanted to watch Ugly Betty, etc, I could watch TV.

    Its rubbish, and I dont want to watch it. I don't care about the method of delivery, it is still pointless garbage.

    I do download music and videos, but its not the stuff that the major networks produce. That is the advantage youtube has: it has stuff that has not had the hand of the major networks in it.

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    1. Re:Who cares? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Right, because Youtube is that much better. Sure there's a lot of stuff, but if you want anything of value, that's few and far between. And good luck if you want any semblance of consistency. It's not that the major networks don't produce crap it's that you're not really meant to watch absolutely everything. As much as I hate most programming there are still shows here and there that are worth watching.

      Despite you're animosity towards the networks, there's a huge number of programs that wouldn't be available at all right now if not for sites like Hulu.

  10. Professional Content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If I wanted to see "professional" content I'd get a fuckin' TV.

    1. Re:Professional Content by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm surprised that this AC's most insightful comment has not already been modded all the way up.

      From the summary:

      Now Google is under mounting pressure to add more professional content to YouTube in order to attract more advertisers.

      Why is that? Pardon me, but I go to youtube for everything from crazy mashups and ukulele instruction videos, vids of my friends in Alaska demonstrating their proficiency with the Chinese broadsword and other friends in Baltimore displaying their latest performance in the Brooklyn Battlefest. A guy playing the Super Mario theme on the balalaika. Some 8 year old kid in Japan shredding the hell out of a Jeff Beck tune.

      Are you telling me that Disney will having videos like this?

      Why is Google supposed to change its business model because Disney has a different business model?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Professional Content by tknd · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why is Google supposed to change its business model because Disney has a different business model?

      Because the current opinion is the youtube business model doesn't work. It is similar to a coffee shop trying to make money off of random local performances while the radio stations get contracted to play Britney Spears a certain percentage of the time.

      I'm not saying that I know the solution, but it is inevitable for an internet video content provider to start partnering with the "professional" studios and move the from the broadcast TV service business model to the streaming online video business model. Investors will take a hard look at this and if Google either says "we still make money with youtube" or "we're not in that market", then the investors might be okay with that. But I'm certain a good portion of investors think that markets are similar and may change their investments based on this type of news.

    3. Re:Professional Content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Professional content" is like the recording industry telling the world in the past that "professional music" can be produced only in professional, multimillion dollar recording studios with huge budget.

      Creating products that require more and more capital is a way of maintaining monopoly for the few largest players in the field. Most businesses brag about how efficiently, how cheaply they can produce their products. The opposite is true in "professional content", producers working for "big professional content" brag about how expensive the movie, the tv show, the recording of a CD was. The more expensive, the more "professional", seems to be the message.

      It's the interest of these huge companies to get everyone think that anything "professional" can only be done on huge budget, meaning only by them.

      It's similar to what NASA was saying about space flights, until some of the private companies were allowed to prove that it was possible to do it at the fraction of the NASA cost.

    4. Re:Professional Content by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 1

      Why is Google supposed to change its business model because Disney has a different business model?

      Because Google's business model is losing a quarter of a billion dollars a year on YouTube (that's the low end of published estimates)? Because Hulu will have higher advertising revenue this year than YouTube, on much lower traffic?

    5. Re:Professional Content by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Because Google's business model is losing a quarter of a billion dollars a year on YouTube

      I know, those stupid Google guys. They don't know how to do anything right. They don't have two nickels to rub together.

      Wait..

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  11. Duh by mindcorrosive · · Score: 1

    Please excuse me for not being exactly thrilled by the news, as Hulu is not available outside the USA (and many other content providers). For all the rest of us mere mortals, the "news" is as useful as the information about the weather last week in Tahiti.

    You wouldn't guess which popular video site I'd be watching then.

    --
    + 3.14 Transcendental
    1. Re:Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boo fucking hoo. You can start your own tech news site for whatever corner of the world you live in then.

      Deal with it.

    2. Re:Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry you don't live in the United States, and come to a web site based in the United States and primarily covering United States technology issues to complain about that fact and the fact that Slashdot IS a U.S. web site.

  12. Most viewed debacle by computerMechanic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The major downside to this deal IMHO is the disappearance of the most viewed categories from both youtube and google video. Now we have the Most Popular categorie which consists of fred, disney, american idol and the like. I miss being able to look up a list of most viewed, by country and date.

  13. "On-Demand" for FREE by I'm+not+really+here · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I care - here's why:

    On-demand from Comcast has commercials.
    "On-demand" from Hulu has less commercials.
    On-demand with Comcast costs me money.
    "On-demand" from Hulu costs me nothing.
    On-demand with Comcast has practically everything, but it costs money to watch.
    "On-demand" from Hulu has practically everything but is free to watch.

    I care, because finally I will be able to just pay for a connection to the internet.

    --
    Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
    1. Re:"On-Demand" for FREE by value_added · · Score: 5, Funny

      I care - here's why:

      Maybe it's just me, but if I was an Ugly Betty fan and needed her on-demand, I'd probably post anonymously.

    2. Re:"On-Demand" for FREE by sponga · · Score: 1

      You have commercials on the OnDemand channel?

      I have TWC and we have no ads in the VOD library, just pure shows and nothing else.

      They have hundreds of shows available and I don't have to watch an ad before watching the show and no commericals during the show.

      Usually the triple pay packages are cheap enough now $100 for TV,phone,internet; but if you want to pay $33 for internet alone it might be a bargain.

      I personally think the non major network shows are complete crap; give me my Heroes, 24 and Discovery channel. I am not a dictator though, so I cannot tell people what they like to watch or force others to watch my crappy soon to be cancelled show.

    3. Re:"On-Demand" for FREE by SupremoMan · · Score: 1

      It's COMCASTIC!

    4. Re:"On-Demand" for FREE by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      It's COMCASTIC!

      Get the Porn on demand and it's COMGASMIC!

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    5. Re:"On-Demand" for FREE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... major network shows are complete crap ... Heroes, 24

      I completely agree.

  14. But I already watch them for free! by Legion303 · · Score: 1

    Oh, you meant on hulu. Meh.

  15. Good for Hulu, Good For Consumers by CycleFreak · · Score: 1

    Personally, I think this is great news. Competition is a good thing. If Youtube was the only destination for video, that type of monopoly would - eventually - prove to be bad for everyone. Even if it is "do no evil" Google.

    Several months ago, I canceled my TV service. I use Hulu quite often to watch the shows I want to see. They are always there, commercial interruptions are minimal and video/audio quality is good. And that is just using VGA cable from my laptop to DLP HDTV @ 720p res and a headphone-to-RCA output to my HTR.

    I upgraded my internet service to 6mbps down for only $5 extra / month. Canceling the TV service saves me more than $70 / month. Obviously, I come out way ahead here.

    Hulu.com is a great service and I disable ad-blocking for the site and try to actually click an ad every once in a while. I want this model to work. It's unobtrusive, on-demand and costs me exactly what is should: Nothing.

    If I'm going to have commercials shoved down my throat, then it should not cost me money to view the content. That's what the advertisers are for. The traditional cable TV service model is on the way out. Good riddance - I'll not miss it in the least.

    1. Re:Good for Hulu, Good For Consumers by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      Spend an extra $200 bucks on a good antennae + receiver with HDMI and you'll feel even better about canceling cable (that is if you get good OTA HD reception). It's a one time cost and you get very high quality HD of network shows which may or may not make it to Hulu (Olympics was a good example).

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    2. Re:Good for Hulu, Good For Consumers by karmarep · · Score: 1

      Disney does NOTHING for free. I fear for Hulu, I watch an assortment of shows every week at my convenience in HD and I really like it. Adding shows from Disney/ABC is a great addition to the service, however I am afraid that now they may try adding a premium pay service. I use Hulu because it is free, if it is no longer free, I will not use it. I'll quit watching the shows or I'll torrent them. Most people wont pay either; Hulu, Don't shoot yourself in the head and start charging.

    3. Re:Good for Hulu, Good For Consumers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why would anyone watch the olympics?

  16. Surely this is GOOD for Youtube? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After all, all the economists are figuring that the cost of bandwidth is costing Google buckets of cash and there's no way to make money from it.

    So if they "sell" fewer movies, they spend less on bandwidth and so lose less money.

    Why is that bad for them?

  17. More BS.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now Google is under mounting pressure to add more professional content to YouTube in order to attract more advertisers.

    Yeah because when I think professional videos, I think youtube!

    The pressure google actually faces is from its users. Its pressure to make its site more useful to the kind of users who put together a video using mspaint (and a copy of the bible) and still manage to get hundreds of thousands of viewers.
    They want things like the fair placement of popular videos and protections against votebots. And they know how to find the advertising people way more effectively.

    And who needs even more ad space for the broad scrubs demographic...? Isn`t that where allmost all advertising is anyway (If it isn`t ignored or filtered) Now if google can target its youtube ads as precisely to whatever weird niches youtubers can come up as it can target search queries... that could bring some effective advertising.

    I feel like that time some 20 year old suit on MSNBC "explained" that ebay was competing with amazon but would loose out because it was harder to find something on ebay due to the way ebay designed its site. (he was the one with a tech-analyst kinda title among the octobox of bald talkingheads) You would think that at some point the people who try and turn the Internet into TV would give up, but they just keep coming back dont they?

    These guys dont run anything important, right?

  18. You're Just Too Cool by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

    I do download music and videos, but its not the stuff that the major networks produce.

    That's because you're young, and, consequently, have little money.

    In 10 years your tastes will have ossified, the lead singer of your favorite goth-noise-emo-trance band will be hosting a gameshow on VH1, and you'll have disposable income. Then you'll be part of the desirable demographic all these broadband deals are being scripted to attract.

    Enjoy your youth.

    1. Re:You're Just Too Cool by FreonTrip · · Score: 1

      Thanks. Enjoy your profound, weary cynicism. Hope the TV's a soothing balm.

    2. Re:You're Just Too Cool by foniksonik · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Heh, it happens. You'll see, it's not cynicism at all... it's biological. The interests you are imprinted with in your youth stay with you for the rest of your life. Sure you will notice new things and check them out but when you want to feel youthful again - strangely enough you'll go listen to the band you listened to in high school. That's how memory imprinting works.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    3. Re:You're Just Too Cool by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      That's because you're young, and, consequently, have little money.

      You are wrong on that - I am over 60. I have all the music I want in my vast collection from before CDs were invented, and my eyes are not very good, so I don't like watching moving pictures much.

      I have some interest in actual new content, but none at all in Hollywood movies,

      We have Sky at home, and I do watch (I am watching now) an African movie channel (Movistar).

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  19. Hulu? What is that? by simp · · Score: 1

    I'm from Europe..... As long as the Hulu world is limited to the US I will have to limit myself to a certain site in Sweden. Arrr mateys, set sail for some ISO island where the DVD bounty is hidden!!

    1. Re:Hulu? What is that? by sabernet · · Score: 1

      Likewise up here in Canadanistan.

    2. Re:Hulu? What is that? by bumptehjambox · · Score: 1

      You idiots don't know how to use a proxy? I'm baffled by how many people here haven't that figured out.

  20. Hulu == Intrusiveness.No && OldBoxSupport. by N!NJA · · Score: 3, Interesting

    i never watched videos at ABC.com because the site always required more than i was willing to install (or mess) in my PC. i just decided to give them another try and see what their current requirements for streaming videos are.... and guess what? surprisingly -- they changed it! however -- not surprisingly -- the new requirements are still too restrictive. currently, their videos wont play (and, given their nature, that really isnt any loss) just because i'm a happy user of Win2000.... O.o

    TNT is another loser who will eventually take their content to Hulu. on TNT.com the user is required to install some Microsoft DRM plugin crap.... those companies shoot themselves in the foot when they make their sites so picky! with Hulu, it just works! you only need a browser (ANY!) and the Flash plugin. it has never asked me to install anything! btw, YouTube and PBS have got some shows online as well....and they also just work!

    the other thing i like about Hulu is their choice of Flash player. it exposes the QUALITY options (HIGH, MEDIUM and Low), which can be the difference between a choppy and a smooth playback. i hope they dont remove it (seems to be the trend)!

    what's with that anyway? many websites are doing away with the QUALITY option and just imposing the (more resource-intensive) HIGH setting! geez, sometimes that setting makes Flash just plain unwatchable in my Athlon 3000. why are developers removing an option that is actually useful?!?! it was fine the way it was before when it defaulted to HIGH but let you change it. what's next? are they going to remove the FULLSCREEN option too?

    and no, kid! i'm not gonna retire my perfectly functional Atlhon 3000.... or my Pentium 3 700MHz! now get off my lawn!

  21. Build it at... by camperdave · · Score: 1

    'Content providers don't want to give (YouTube) content because the advertisers aren't there yet,' said Edward Jones analyst Andy Miedler."

    Advertisers are like ants at a picnic, mosquitoes at the cottage, and lawyers at an accident scene. If people's attention is there, they will find some way of advertising on it.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  22. Hulu actually works by JustinOpinion · · Score: 3, Informative

    I like Hulu because it actually works. In particular, it works on Linux with no fussing (in my experience) whereas the players on other sites often don't work, or require onerous downloads and installs (which are usually Windows-only). Hulu just works fine on Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X.

    Hulu is also a "one stop watch" at this point. For a while, I experimented with keeping track of different shows via different official websites. It was painful because each site had a slightly different interface... but worse, each network's online streaming site seem to want to change their format every so often. This makes it even more annoying to to watch a few shows in a row, because your bookmarks have died (if their format was even bookmarkable!) and you have to search anew for what you want.

    Hulu, instead, centralizes everything so that you only have to get used to the one (stable!) interface. And the accounts they offer make it easy to keep track of what shows you've watched... and you can even have your next subscription auto-play after you finish watching a show. It's the way TV "should" be: a channel that continually plays only shows you care about.

    Despite the things Hulu has going for it, I worry about all this consolidation. Hulu is fast becoming the de-facto supplier for online streaming of TV shows. And this means that they will soon have a monopoly-like control, and will no doubt start abusing it. I really wish that competitors would spring up (and that the networks would license to multiple streaming-aggregator-sites).

    And yeah, it does indeed suck that Hulu doesn't work outside the US. So much money (in targeted, country-specific advertising!) is being left on the table.

    1. Re:Hulu actually works by Your+Anus · · Score: 1

      I agree that Hulu is much better because it runs on Linux. It also has a better interface and it doesn't kick you out halfway through a long episode. I use it now instead of my VCR. Does ABC's website work outside the US? I'm guessing probably not. So, Hulu sucks, but no worse than ABC/Fox/CBS/whatever. Now, if you go through one of the anonimizer proxy services, you can fool Hulu into thinking you are in the States. Or you could just get the torrents like everybody else.

      --

      In the USA, we like stuff watered down, like beer, television, and freedom.
    2. Re:Hulu actually works by orkybash · · Score: 1

      This. If I had been able to legitimately watch Lost on Linux this season I would have. Instead, it was torrent time.

    3. Re:Hulu actually works by imikedaman · · Score: 1

      Competitors already exist: torrents. If Hulu screws up, people will give up and go back to pirating shows.

    4. Re:Hulu actually works by dbcad7 · · Score: 1

      I just use EZTV .. every day it lists shows that are airing that day.. and I pretty much have ones that I regularly download (torrents), which is based upon whether or not there are say 2 shows on at the same time, or are cable shows, since I don't have a DVR or cable.. It's also good, in that sometimes I find shows that I would probably otherwise ignore.. For example, I never watched Chuck.. but I was bored one day not long ago, and tested out the first episode, and eventually downloaded all the episodes, and pretty much watched them as a marathon.. who knew that NBC had another good show besides Heroes ?... I also did the same thing with Lost, about a year and a half ago.. talk about one really long movie watching them one after another... The writers strike also led to me watching and liking a lot of shows from the UK... EZTV made em easy to find.. They had a streaming thing, but I never really used it.. and I believe they have dropped it.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
  23. defective by design by kingduct · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I tried using Hulu. It was designed not to let me press the pause button and let the entire show download over my cheap DSL (my usual practice with any flash videos that are higher bandwidth than my internet). It would only buffer the next several seconds, I assume to prevent me from downloading the entire file. I never went back and had to go back to using other sources of television that exist online...

    1. Re:defective by design by man_ls · · Score: 1

      Agreed. My Comcast broadband connection is not fast enough to play back a Hulu stream without freezing while it re-buffers every few minutes. I think they're shaping the traffic, or something.

      But, yeah. I've used Hulu exactly twice. Once to see what it was like, and once to watch an episode of the Office my Tivo missed because I'd accidentally disconnected the power. Not being able to buffer up is a huge problem.

  24. Hulu just got my respect by British · · Score: 1

    Hulu has "fake full screen". Not just Flash's full screen mode that turns off when you click away, but you can maximize an individual window for viewing. That means you can put it on your secondary monitor & use the first monitor just fine. I like that. If they stuff some commercials in, that's fine by me. That's more than acceptable for good video quality & being able to catch up on missed shows. And their commercials are funny.

    1. Re:Hulu just got my respect by davidphogan74 · · Score: 1

      I hate to admit it, but I do like the ads on Hulu a bit. They seem a lot more experimental than most that you'll see on TV. It's a nice change, to me anyway.

    2. Re:Hulu just got my respect by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      I've pretty much stopped using my DVR because of Hulu. I get to watch shows when I want to, can catch up with series I've just discovered and the commercials are much, much shorter than on regular TV.

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
  25. Available outside Redmond? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    You get a funny , but remember your addiction is a win for American culture. Big media doesn't need to change it's business model when purveyors of what it has to offer can't "quit anytime it wants". Much like a certain other monopoly.

  26. Not a solution by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    http://www.youtube.com/shows http://www.youtube.com/movies

    Youtube sucks just as much as Hulu sometimes:
    This video is not available in your country
    That was for "The Outer Limits", "Married with Children", "The Addams family", and "Terry Jones' Medieval Lives". There may be some shows available in my country, but I gave up trying at that point.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    1. Re:Not a solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I encountered that "Not available in your country" crap when trying to see a trailer (a trailer, you know - advertising) for a TV show.

      The trailer really was all I wanted to see - but instead I had to torrent the whole episode...and since I have the whole episode, I watched the whole episode.

      Exactly what were they thinking?

  27. Linux users can now watch abc shows by theinvisibleguy · · Score: 1

    My biggest problem with the abc site is that it didn't support a Linux OS. I sent plenty of emails but was never even responded to.

  28. Save your money by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

    If I wanted to watch Ugly Betty, etc, I could watch TV.

    Or you could save yourself $50/month and watch them online instead. Why do people insist on paying for redundant services like it is "no big deal?"

    1. Re:Save your money by moortak · · Score: 1

      Over the air broadcast is free and covers many of the major networks. No need for a $50/month fee.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
  29. Ugh by Tarlus · · Score: 1

    Hulu and YouTube are two completely different different things. Sure, they're both web-based streaming services.

    But YouTube was founded on providing any average Joe with a way of putting their own home videos and generated content up for anybody to stream. From day one YouTube has fought legal battles because of TV shows and full length movies finding their way onto YT.

    Hulu, on the other hand, is a joint venture between major networks and exists for the sole purpose of legally streaming their shows (and in some cases, full length films).

    Each has found its niche and thus the two are completely things. YouTube is and always will be a place for user-generated content, not for commercialized entertainment.

    --
    /* No Comment */
    1. Re:Ugh by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

      Yeah.....Only problem is, YouTube loses Google a mountain of cash every year. They want to make some money from it somehow.

      --
      Only boring people are ever bored.
  30. Good idea on ABC's part by assassinator42 · · Score: 1

    Their video player is absolutely atrocious. Well, it's excellent when it works, but it rarely ever works. Last I tried (a few months ago), it crashed with IE and loaded a blank page with Firefox. And of course their support form didn't actually submit the request as the submit button was just a link to about:blank. And they didn't respond to my email to the general network email.
    At least Hulu actually works.

    1. Re:Good idea on ABC's part by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      You should be using Firefox from the getgo. I do and have never had a Hulu problem, except for as mentioned above when sometimes streaming isn't equal to bandwidth and you get a somewhat jerky picture. But, in that case just get you some cable.

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
  31. Is it a good idea to put everything in one basket? by antdude · · Score: 1

    I like Hulu, but does everyone need to be on it? What if Hulu is slow, has problems, etc. I'd like multiple sites. It's fine for them to be on Hulu if they have their own video site too (fox.com vs. hulu.com for the same videos on different servers).

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  32. What advertisers? by tepples · · Score: 1

    YouTube is and always will be a place for user-generated content

    But apart from America's Funniest Home Videos and similar shows, when has user-generated video attracted advertisers?

  33. cbc.ca/fifth by DirtyCanuck · · Score: 1

    The CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp) is a publicly owned operation and thus has a obligation to make content available to all Canadians via T.V (Air) Cable (free) or the Internet. However the site is a bit of a mosaic of formats they stream and what exactly is available.

    However, if you go to cbc.com/fifth you will get an ideal example of how things should be. Last 5-10 seasons made available without commercials, but also each episode has an area to get more information on the story at hand as well as giving feedback and communicating with others regarding that specific story. I usually opt for torrents as if I want to watch something it won't require me to waste bandwidth a second time. However I have watched every episode they offer online, and I am very happy with it (despite obvious quality issues compared to HD).

    If it is done right and made less of a hassle then searching downloading (waiting) and making space for torrents, then yes they will get back some viewership.

    Never underestimate the laziness of people.

  34. Re: Trolling by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    You're playing InternetGo with him, and you can't decide whether his stonegroup or yours is the one that lives.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  35. Re:Hulu == Intrusiveness.No && OldBoxSuppo by BikeHelmet · · Score: 1

    I have a system nearly identical to yours - overclocked Athlon XP 2400+, running Win2k.

    I've been following Hulu for a while, and they've actually been adding things over time. I sent in a few suggestions, and some made it in!

    Stuff like Space for pausing, alt+enter for fullscreen toggling, and a buffering bar so you can see why it's stuttering.

    I like how they did the buffering bit - it's even better than a regular bar.

    I'd be very surprised if they axed features. It's clear they have some smart guys on their design team.

  36. Free? by Servo · · Score: 1

    Eh, people already get to watch those shows for free... Advertisers foot the bill when its on broadcast TV. Why should web viewing be any different? For now I'll just stick to Tivo and watch what I want when I want, assuming I get whatever channel it gets broadcast on. No worrying about all the crap that you have to go through to watch on Hulu or when ABC decides I should watch the show.

    --
    A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
  37. Or maybe... by hackiavelli · · Score: 1

    you should contact Google when you create a system capable of serving targeted international advertising.

  38. Re:Hulu == Intrusiveness.No && OldBoxSuppo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately their current version of "place it on Hulu" is to add links to the ABC website. The software on the site is far worse than Hulu. At least on Hulu I haven't needed to wait for 5 minutes before having to kill a frozen browser.

  39. Hulu? Hu-cares? by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

    Hulu is US only. Nothing to see here, Rest-of-World. You're out of zone. Move along and check out the vids on YouTube, DailyMotion (and bittorrent) as usual. These people don't want your money....so don't give them any.

    --
    Only boring people are ever bored.
  40. This post is unavailable in your country by zdzichu · · Score: 1

    Can we please not get more this crap about Hulu? Most of internet users see "Sorry, currently our video library can only be streamed from within the United States", so please don't post such trash on /.

    --
    :wq
  41. You Can't Pay: africa, latin america, east europe by Mana+Mana · · Score: 1

    I hate to break it to you, but if your countries' advertisement rates vs exorbitant bandwidth cost ratios do not make financial sense to web entertainment companies (such as facebook, hulu, youtube, veoh) in these tough times you are likely to be cut off, or about to be cut off from the spigot!

    Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe, Asia users make up the huge percentage in many of these sites, but their nations' ad rates are very low! The NY Times has a piece on it. Relatedly, it amazes me that facebook claims a gargantuan photograph cache so vast that storing it, and disseminating it is that much of a problem, third world or not. ?

    ..."Whenever you have a lot of user-generated material, your bandwidth gets utilized in Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, where bandwidth is expensive and ad rates are ridiculously low," Mr. Volpi said. If Web companies "really want to make money, they would shut off all those countries."

    ...There may be 1.6 billion people in the world with Internet access, but fewer than half of them have incomes high enough to interest major advertisers.

    ...Web companies that rely on advertising are enjoying some of their most vibrant growth in developing countries. But those are also the same places where it can be the most expensive to operate, since Web companies often need more servers to make content available to parts of the world with limited bandwidth. And in those countries, online display advertising is least likely to translate into results.

  42. Re:You Can't Pay: africa, latin america, east euro by robzon · · Score: 1

    I get it that advertising won't be enough, but I'd be more than glad to pay a few bucks a month to get sites like pandora or hulu working. Actually I pay for US-based proxy, so I CAN access these services for a small fee, it just sucks that this money goes to hosting company not to the content providers.

  43. The well known fact is by Phoghat · · Score: 1

    As we all know, "There can be only one"

    --
    Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
  44. ABC? Right. The one that killed Pushing Daisies by smchris · · Score: 1

    I find it remarkable, really, that ABC virtually doesn't exist for me. The un-channel of everything I would never watch and hadn't for years before Pushing Daisies and don't again after they canned that "loser" that was only nominated for something like 2-1/2 dozen awards.

    So, YouTube killer? Not whatever demographic I'm in.

  45. HD OTA + Boxee + Hulu = no more cable or sat bill. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I personally also have an Apple TV for premium content when I want it, but I realized there is very rarely the case that I want to watch a show in HD that I'm not willing to pay for.
    But you could fill that need with netflix or whate have you instead of AppleTV if you don't want to go the iTunes route.

  46. professional programming? meh... by jaggerfroid · · Score: 1

    the best stuff on youtube just happens to NOT be programs brought over from the tele. the best thing youtube offers is the opportunity for us to create our own shows without the pressure of greedy advertisers, and unfettered by other pressures inherent within the network media. i see all walks produced by maverick minded individuals and groups: comic critiques, games, movies, technology, political and social commentaries...t.v. sucks!