Slashdot Mirror
Hulu Testing Client App; Boxee Dispute Explained
N!NJA sends in word of Hulu's new beta section, Hulu Labs, which is now showcasing Hulu Desktop, a client that runs on both Windows and Mac. The author believes that Hulu Desktop explains why Hulu has been so touchy about Boxee. "This clearly explains why Hulu has been so persistent in blocking Boxee — an open-source media-center application for Macs, Apple TVs, and other devices — from including its content. Since Hulu provides free, ad-based mainstream content from the largest studios and networks in the business, they are under tight constraints imposed by these major players. We have already seen good examples of where Hulu is heading with integrated advertising inside the browser. A desktop client produced in-house will be much more conducive to monetizing Hulu using these kinds of campaigns."
Now Hulu just has to dump Flash and pick an HD format that can get some hardware accelerating love, and this will make every owner of a Netbook extremely happy.
Right now, hulu works on any browser that has flash. What does the desktop app give you that the web site doesn't? It seems like this is a step BACKWARD, not forward. I'd be more impressed if it was on XBOX live like Netflix is right now.
We don't live in Shouldland.
where's the Linux version?
Currently the web-based Hulu works great on Linux. This is why I use Hulu, because they built it in a platform-agnostic way. I can understand them not putting effort into a Linux application... but I just hope they don't get rid of the Hulu web interface totally in favor of a desktop app. That would be a mistake, since in addition to alienating the (small) Linux userbase, they will also exclude the (somewhat larger) group of people leery of installing third-party software, and the (positively huge) group of people who are too lazy to install some silly application just to watch videos on their computer.
In any case, the Hulu web experience is pretty good, and runs fine full-screen, so I have trouble seeing what this new application can really bring to the table from the user's perspective.
One three letter acronym: DRM
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
The problem is time and adoption. Flash (as much as I hate it) is available now. Hulu is growing at the rate that needs to run on technology available, not invest in under-developed OSS alternatives that could take a long time to reach a critical mass of adoption. There edge is that they are faster and more available than bit-torrent and a bit easier to use. If you add esoteric plugins to the mix you're going to adjitate the users, and you're going to rely on whatever viewer the client happens to use to process/view the video (VLC, WMP, QT, etc...) which introduces another issue in configurability for the masses. Unfortunately, Flash is the path of least-resistance that works for the vast majority of their customers (even though it runs poorly on non-Windows platforms.)
They are not a technology company... and operate more like a cable/satellite provider that just so happens to use HTTP and a browser to show the lineup rather than a set-top box/media center on game console (though that may change), and probably will.
Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
and we get the same thing when we try to watch stuff on the BBC website. it's not an american thing, it's just a copyright proprietarian thing.
Ads? No, it doesn't have anything to do with ads. Advertising on Hulu is little more than a shell game for the networks (dba Hulu).
Consider the history of the music industry on the Internet. The technology for purchasing music online was entirely in place by 1995 when people started to use Netscape Navigator in large numbers. Napster didn't come into play until 1999, iTunes in 2001.
The general (and correct) opinion is that the music industry wasted several years of opportunity to establish themselves as the major purveyor of online music content on their own terms. When Napster came around people got used to trading music for free, and with iTunes the industry accidentally ceded major amounts of mindshare and control to Apple. I've seen interviews explaining that the reason for the wasted opportunity was that they had no clue what to do, even who they should work with.
The TV studios today are not nearly as clueless as the music industry was in 1995, and they are determined not to repeat the same mistakes. They are aware that they have an opportunity to dictate terms and lengthen the survival of their traditional broadcast delivery model if they play things right.
Enter Hulu -- Hulu is not a for-profit corporation in reality. Hulu is a (perhaps illegal) collusion among NBC, FOX, and ABC (via their respective owners) to provide a "just right" level of service via the Internet -- enough that people are not (as) tempted by BitTorrent/iTunes, but not enough to make for a better experience than that available on a TV.
That's the reason for all the jacking around with availability schedules and the reason Hulu will never allow itself to be repackaged into a convenient format. The inconvenience is the entire purpose of the service.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
I would think that it has more to do with the markets that the advertisers are paying to reach...
Not exactly. TV shows have been traditionally licensed out by region, sometimes with exclusive licenses granted for particular regions... So if Hulu wants to license a show to play on its web service, they either need to restrict access to the regions for which they've obtained licenses, or else pay more to get a worldwide license - any other solution would make the other licensees very unhappy (as in, "why am I paying $X for this 'exclusive license' to this show in the European market when Hulu pays approximately $X and gets to show the show in my market?" Or "Why if we're paying about the same does Hulu get to show the show worldwide?") and thus possibly disrupt the licensor's business...
'Course, I too, am an "outsider" and to some extent "guessing"... :D
Bow-ties are cool.
If you know how to set up Boxee/XBMC/Plex/whatever, you've probably got your PC hooked up to your TV and probably aren't too excited about running an app outside of your media center (extra clicks and whatnot). You might even consider canceling your cable subscription. If you don't know how to set up one of those apps, you probably don't have your PC hooked up to your TV (at least not permanently), so you're going to (as Hulu apparently imagines it) lean back in your chair at your desk and watch Hulu on your PC. More importantly, you aren't going to cancel your cable subscription, which is where the content producers get the lion's share of their revenue.
So why use it? I never really understood the fascination with Hulu, *especially* if you are watching it on your media center system where you could ostensibly just have recorded the content you're looking to watch from a tuner card. I could understand if they had a vast library of shows and you could go back and find any episode you want to satisfy your desire, but from looking through the catalog of shows I'm interested in they don't ever seem to have more than a few weeks worth of episodes online.
Some of the older shows off the air are even worse and just had a season or two online and not even all the episodes in the season were represented. Why the hell would I want to watch a show that is off the air that I may have never seen if I can't watch the complete series from start to finish? Hulu *could* have been completely awesome and replaced my DVR and/or cable TV if they would just keep all the episodes for all the shows they offer online for you to access immediately. I know the reason is the content providers don't like it, but why not? Why would they not want you to be able to watch any of their back catalog of shows on demand... lost DVD sales? Since Hulu runs commercials during the video it only seems to make sense that they'd want more people to watch older episodes, especially series that aren't even on the air anymore so they get ad revenue.
Hulu is a (perhaps illegal) collusion among NBC, FOX, and ABC (via their respective owners) to provide a "just right" level of service via the Internet -- enough that people are not (as) tempted by BitTorrent/iTunes, but not enough to make for a better experience than that available on a TV.
While I agree with your point, I don't agree with this comment. Hulu to me is significantly more convenient than watching the shows on TV. There is a significant amount of overhead involved with a DVR (the ones from the cable manufacturers are worse than not having one, PC ones require a constantly running power-hungry computer, etc.)
Hulu lets me watch the shows on my schedule, and while I think the network's availability restrictions are dated and costing them business, I would much rather watch four 30 second commercials than fool with everything else. Now, if Hulu increases ads beyond what they currently are, I can't say I'd stick with the service.
I don't want integration with the desktop. I want to be able to download the video as a stand-alone file and play it on my big screen via a media center box, and not on my dinky 17" monitor in my office. If I could get the video directly from a provider I'd even put up with 1 commercial per break period (like Hulu is doing now) embedded in it. As it is, my option now is to bit-torrent the shows that I like for immediate gratification, and then get the DVD's as they are released, so as to promote future seasons.