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."
This has been asked before, but... where's the Linux version? And will we need a liquid cooled Phenom x4 processor to render the Adobe video in full screen?
Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
As I run Boxee on Ubuntu and I get all the ads from Hulu. Currently using the latest Boxee build, which uses the Hulu public feeds.
As Hulu's popularity has skyrocketed over the past year, users have been clamoring for a way to get it out of the browser and into the living room. Hulu Desktop looks like quite a major effort towards answering this call, so we'll have to see how users respond.
Hulu Desktop is a free download and requires a Mac with a 2.4GHz Intel Core Duo or comparable processor, 2GB of RAM, and Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger or later. You'll also need Adobe Flash 9.0.124 and a 2Mbps Internet connection.
Great, something about to explode in the consumer market passing up on open source and instead locking everyone and all their hardware in to the requirement of Adobe Flash. You want to discuss why you need a core duo to run this!?
... people having to pay again ... for their hardware and ... software and ... codecs and ... media licenses and ... internet connection and ... no one will have enough money to afford it anyway.
*massages his forehead* I see in the future
There's free (and I mean actually free) alternatives out there that could make it so that hardware manufacturers and mobile companies don't have to get Adobe Flash on their devices. I'm not sure why Hulu isn't beefing up other open source software, containers and codecs to meet these needs. It would certainly make it easier for them to satisfy the media licenses with ad revenue. Oh well, enjoy your setback.
My work here is dung.
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.
So wait, every post by "Anonymous Coward" is actually just one person? You?
MABASPLOOM!
It's not about what it gives you, it's what it gives them: control. You're right of course, why would anyone use the application?
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.
I'm excited about the exclusion of game consoles, assorted media boxes, Linux machines, and all users outside the US. Still, this is a little too open for my tastes. Couldn't they have made it Vista-only?
Uh... have you not poked around boxee's site AT ALL? They give you VERY clear instructions on how to add the repository (Ubuntu is supported).
Hehe, I remember back when I started reading slashdot in ... 97? 98? ... I thought Anonymous Coward was just another user. An exceptionally stupid user.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Do you think Bill Gates cares about Windows people?
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
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.
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.