Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hulu May Begin Charging For Video Content

Posted by timothy on from the might-even-pay-for-more-southland dept.

An anonymous reader writes "According to Jonathan Miller, News Corp's CDO, Hulu may soon begin charging subscription fees for some of their online content. News Corp is the parent company of Fox, which owns a huge portion of Hulu. When Miller of Newscorp was asked if Hulu would begin charging for online content during an Interview with Daily Finance, he said that 'the answer could be yes.' He went on to say that he doesn't 'see why over time that shouldn't happen.'"

15 of 313 comments (clear)

  1. Still not available by Jeruvy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since we still can't watch Hulu in Canada, I won't be paying anything. It's probably cheaper than cable anyways.

    --
    Jeruvy
    1. Re:Still not available by maxume · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You really think you are paying for the shopping channels? Really?

      Really?!

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Still not available by LandDolphin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      2 possible ways I could see ala-cart going:

      1)They charge for for the popular channels - So, the big channels still sub. the little ones and your bill remains the same or more.

      2)They charge more for the un-popular channels to maek them worth offering. You find out that some of the channels that you like (like discovery, sci-fi, and others) are not as pupular as Lifetime and you end up paying more to get those channels and you bill remains the same or more.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    3. Re:Still not available by mrdoogee · · Score: 3, Insightful

      IF
      they provide the entire current season.

      IF
      they stop showing comercials.

      IF
      they make every show on the network available, regardless of ratings

      Then I may be interested in paying for Hulu. If not, then back to torrents for me. I already pay for cable, and I have a open source DVR that can record OTA network TV fine.

  2. Alt title: How to kill an extraordinary service by ecolossal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do they feel the need to add a subscription fee when they already show commercials....? Isn't that what drives dissatisfaction with cable?

    1. Re:Alt title: How to kill an extraordinary service by FlyingBishop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, I think what drives dissatisfaction with cable is that you can only watch what is currently on.

      Oh, and you're forced to watch ads.

      I'd gladly pay $10/month for on-demand commercial-free access (under Linux) to any episode of every show currently offered in Hulu's library.

      Throw in Dr. Who, Torchwood, and Top Gear, and I'd pay $20/month.

      I also might be persuaded to watch commercials if you did it on something that wasn't as dog-slow as flash (video tag anyone?) Hell, throw in Linux codec licensing as part of the deal and it would be great. Though this doesn't mean I want some half-assed proprietary video player. PowerDVD, Windows Media Player, just about every proprietary player, Windows or Linux, has been completely inadequate without accelerated graphics. VLC is great, Mplayer is better performance-wise. Simply put, license me the codec, and I'll watch it, but I want my own implementation, yours sucks (and that's a platform-agnostic assertion.)

  3. Not Smart by shma · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they charge for on demand content, then people will just go back to downloading it for free.

    --
    I came here for a good argument
    1. Re:Not Smart by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactamundo. I download a lot of TV shows, and recently, I'd taken to watching available programming on Hulu. No skin off my back to go back to Bittorrent.

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
  4. Why not? by Nerdposeur · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He went on to say that he doesn't 'see why over time that shouldn't happen.'"

    Fine, but it's either subscription or ads. You don't get to do both.

    1. Re:Why not? by SwordsmanLuke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Tell that to the cable company.

      --
      Any plan which depends on a fundamental change in human behavior is doomed from the start.
  5. Re:Surprised? by Enuratique · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The first hit's always free...

    --
    A black hole is where God divided by 0
  6. Re:Surprised? by v1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The first hit's always free...

    it's a great business model if you can afford front the startup costs without any initial customers. Attracts a lot more initial customers because you get a lot of people that normally would not pay for your service, but once they've had a sample of it they change their mind. Of course you'll lose a bunch of people when you switch to pay, but the only hit you'll take on that is what you've already fronted them with so it doesn't come as a surprise or a bad hit you didn't see coming or couldn't calculate/prepare for.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  7. Re:Surprised? by sunderland56 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Did anyone really think they were going to give away their content for free forever?

    What, you mean like broadcast television?

  8. OK, now people, DO NOT PAY and it will pass... by rAiNsT0rm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously I try to get this through people's heads all the time... for geeks we sure can be dumb. It is and has been free. If everyone ignores the service if/when it goes pay or even if only parts go pay only IGNORE them, also make it known you are NOT going to pay for the content... ads are enough to deal with for the content. Then Hulu (which is already successful) will find alternate avenues for revenue. If everyone just jumps in right off the bat you have instantly ensured all future video services like this will be pay-only. Wake up! Please.

    --
    http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
  9. Cable? by somethinghollow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have one of these already. It's called "cable." You pay a monthly fee and you get to watch a bunch of different channels with lots of different content. The only difference I can tell between a paid Hulu and cable is that Hulu is only "on demand," has less content, and wants to be PC-only. So, basically, Hulu will be the crappy version of cable.