Rumors of Hulu's Subscription Plans

whychevron found a story discussing Hulu's plan to offer subscriptions. The rumor is that $10 a month will grant paying users the ability to get episodes older than the last five, while the current five episodes remain ad-supported. This starts pitting Hulu even more squarely against iTunes for anyone who watches more than a few shows a month.

Comments

I'd pay it

[FredFredrickson]

I'd pay for it - if they stopped being dicks.

That means, if I could watch it on my xbox 360 (either official support, or they stop playing cat and mouse with playon.) and put support for hulu on the roku.

Ever since the last update, playon has had to do a screen capture instead of decrypting the original stream. That gets far less performance and kills my server.

Also I have to point out that the article mistakenly compares paying $10 for hulu (on demand) vs just watching it on "tv for free". I wonder if the author of the article still lives in his mom's basement.

Re:I'd pay it

[MightyMartian]

I'd pay for it if they made it available outside the US.

Re:I'd pay it

[MBGMorden]

That's about where I'm at on it too. I like the idea of Hulu, but I simply don't want to watch TV sitting at my computer monitor. In the past I've kept a regular computer hooked to the TV and just used the regular interface to pull stuff up, but it's just gotten frustrating to keep a mouse and keyboard by the TV. If they can't integrate it into something I can use with a remote (Windows Media Center, MythTV, Xbox 360, anything), then I'm just not bothering. I'm ESPECIALLY not subscribing.

It's a shame though. If they managed to partner with some of these services I'd happily pay $10 a month for it. It beats the heck out of a $60 per month satellite bill.

Re:I'd pay it

[Anonymous Coward]

Note: I work for a telecom regulatory body in Canada.

Hulu is being blocked at every turn. Certain companies in Canada are attempting to stop Hulu from entering the market.

Why not try a proxy? I run a private proxy on one of my servers based in the U.S.

Re:I'd pay it

[Fnkmaster]

Completely agreed - I'd pay it too, if they'd put it on my Roku. I love Roku and all the Netflix and Amazon content (and some of the other content is okay, but not exactly worth much), but it would be *the* killer set-top box with Hulu content.

However, the problem as I understand it though isn't that Hulu are being dicks, it's that the licensing terms they've been able to negotiate simply don't allow them to put content on set-top boxes or even make it easy for set-top boxes to access that content.

I just don't think big media is going to let that content go to Roku or any equivalent set-top box. I mean, you'd have people canceling their subscriptions to cable right and left if that started happening. You can do it now, but you need an HTPC setup and to navigate to Hulu via a browser, and that's not quite mass-market.

Re:I'd pay it

[KingSkippus]

I'd pay for it - if they stopped being dicks.

It's all relative. Your average American pays $50 to $60 for cable service that doesn't allow them to watch back episodes, then tacks on hefty additional fees if you want something like a DVR that will allow you to watch shows independently of their normal timeslot.

Is it less than ideal? Yeah. But as long as Big Content is involved, "ideal" is a pipe dream, and Hulu is a hell of a lot better than what we've got now. I'll probably be signing up.

Re:I'd pay it

[slaker]

I thought it was totally sweet that Hulu worked under Skyfire on my phone. For the couple weeks that I could do that. I listened to two weeks worth of the Daily Show (also not on Hulu any more) during a long-ish car trip and it was fantastic.

I would expect to see device support, just like Netflix has added device support, for paying customers. We don't all have a PC in our living room to best leverage Netflix (I do and I'm sure a lot of other Slashdotters do too, but probably a lot more people have an Xbox or something).

Also, it kind of sucks that with a 70Mbit connection to the internet at home, hulu can't reliably deliver 480p streaming content to me. I expect that would need to change for paying subscribers, too.

Re:I'd pay it

[elbiatcho1]

I use Boxee in this case as there is some integration made for Hulu.
Problem I see with Hulu is the limited number of shows (incomplete full seasons).

Re:I'd pay it

[WhoIsThePumaman]

I'd pay for it if they brought back The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.

Re:I'd pay it

[slaker]

Get a Logitech Keyboard for PS/3, or one of these thingies

Re:I'd pay it

[jedidiah]

If they dumped the ads, I would be interested.

I can already do streaming of old shows with Netflix. However, Hulu is more Linux friendly despite all of their nonsense trying to supress Boxee and whatnot.

Re:I'd pay it

[TooMuchToDo]

Want a free VPN tunnel so it appears you're in the US?

Re:I'd pay it

[john83]

I'd pay for it if they made it available outside the US.

I wouldn't. I lived in the US for a while, and the streaming from Hulu was the worst I've seen for years. Not a patch on youtube, for instance.

Re:I'd pay it

[Jellybob]

You can use Tuner Free MCE to get (rudimentary) integration between Media Center and Hulu. It's not great, but it's better then using a web browser from 10ft away.

Re:I'd pay it

[Deag]

I got an app on my phone that allows controlling of the keyboard and mouse on my laptop - I use it specifically for watching hulu with the laptop plugged into the tv.

Re:I'd pay it

[causality]

I use Boxee in this case as there is some integration made for Hulu. Problem I see with Hulu is the limited number of shows (incomplete full seasons).

I wish they'd delete every 4-minute "excerpt" clip and use the space to host more complete episodes, myself. I never knew that brief clips from the middle of a show with little or no context were so popular, yet they are a large amount of the offerings on Hulu and a *majority* of the available videos on Adultswim.com.

Re:I'd pay it

[TheRaven64]

Another vote here. $10/month and no ads, I'd pay it to access their content from he UK. I wouldn't pay anything for content with ads though - my time is worth more to me than it is to the advertiser.

Re:I'd pay it

[spire3661]

This is EXACTLY why I refused to give PlayOn money. They have no control over when someone else is going to pull the plug.

Re:I'd pay it

[wtbname]

I watch 5-10 shows a week on Hulu, streamed over DSL, then over the wireless router, and have never had a streaming problem. Once I thought I did, but it turns out the cat sat on the laptop.

Anyone else want to share their unscientific anecdotes?

Re:I'd pay it

[Lord Byron II]

lol, you'd better have a bunch of upload bandwidth to spare. I tried that when I was overseas and found that at low quality, Hulu needed around 50KB/s to remain stutter-free. Which is about double what my ISP gives me, so I spent a lot of time watching the buffer fill.

Re:I'd pay it

[Lord Byron II]

Hulu has 3 to 4 ad breaks during a 30min show and each break is usually only 30 seconds long (a few are 15s and a few are 60s). So, if the show you're going to watch isn't worth two minutes of your time, then you might want to reconsider watching it in the first place.

I for one applaud Hulu for the way they handle the ads. Minimal, non-invasive advertising means that they are one of only a few sites that are on my AdBlock and NoScript white-lists.

Re:I'd pay it

[scot4875]

You are correct in that there is most definitely a fail here, but the fail is not by the GP/GGP posters.

--Jeremy

Re:I'd pay it

[camperdave]

There used to be a TV provider here in Toronto called Look. They offered a variety of networks at a dollar per channel. No required channels, no bundles, no tiered rates. You want the History channel and the Golf channel, and nothing else? $2/month.

I'm sure they ran into regulatory hassles and were crowded out of the market by Bell and Rogers. Delivery of the service by line of sight radio didn't help much either, I'm sure.

Re:I'd pay it

[Faerunner]

I occasionally get skips in video (but not audio) when it's opening/buffering (so really, all it skips is the ad at the start). During actual streaming of the video I've rarely had a problem. Quality is good, audio is synced, and while I'm not thrilled by the in-browser screen size, it -does- fit perfectly on my netbook screen!

I'm satisfied with Hulu, although I doubt I'd pay for the service. If I get more than 5 episodes behind on any given show, I probably don't care enough about it to catch up, especially if it costs me $10 to do so.

Re:I'd pay it

[Captain Splendid]

Yeah, I was calling it on Hulu, not the poster(s).

Re:I'd pay it

[iamhassi]

Another vote here.

Same here, but $10 is too high, $5 is more reasonable, jumping from $0 a month to $10 a month is a huge increase. Before Hulu I would just download episodes, only thing Hulu does is save me the trouble of downloading. I really don't even have to search, programs like TED notify me when a new episode is available, I just have to click "download". I could go back to living without Hulu.

But if they want $5/mo I want officially supported streaming to devices other than PCs, a free PlayON type program. And I better never see another ad if I'm paying them, not when they "generate over $100 million in advertising revenue in the first half of this year."

Re:I'd pay it

[TheRaven64]

But in the UK, their competitor would be iPlayer, which is both free and ad-free. If they want to make it a subscription service, then it needs to be better than the free ones.

Re:I'd pay it

[MobyDisk]

vs just watching it on "tv for free". I wonder if the author of the article still lives in his mom's basement.

Antenna maybe?

Re:I'd pay it

[poopdeville]

Until the BBC starts airing shows you can only watch on Hulu, Hulu has a monopoly on shows you can only watch on Hulu.

Re:I'd pay it

[Tumbleweed]

I'd pay for it if they brought back The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.

That's more Comedy Central's call, sadly.

Re:I'd pay it

[cortesoft]

The upload bandwidth he was talking about is for the VPN tunnel.... since the person hosting the VPN on the US side would have to stream the feed from Hulu to the guy outside the US.

Re:I'd pay it

[HermMunster]

I don't need $10.00 worth of Hulu. I only watch a few shows there when I can't view them elsewhere. Maybe $18.00 per year.

What'll happen is that they'll not make their quota and resort to all content being subscribed. That'll then reduce their target audience significantly. Count on it.

Re:I'd pay it

[icebraining]

I wouldn't mind watching the ads, but I do mind getting interrupted. That's one of the reasons I don't like watching movies on TV: it's fine for talk-shows, news, etc; but getting interrupted in the middle of Band of Brothers is nasty.

Re:I'd pay it

[TooMuchToDo]

I own a hosting company pushing 6-10Gb/s (aggregate across three datacenters). I think I can handle a couple of Hulu streams ;)

Re:I'd pay it

[TheRaven64]

Except that's not really how it works. I am not paying to watch a specific show, I am paying to be entertained. I find that ads interrupt the flow of programs and destroy the entertainment value, so I choose not to watch them. The BBC doesn't have to show the same things, it just has to show things that are equally entertaining.

Re:I'd pay it

[FlyingBishop]

Who is this aimed at if not people who are hoping to cancel their cable subscriptions? Why would anyone pay twice for (mostly) the same shows?

Re:I'd pay it

[BobPaul]

Huludesktop uses a remote. Have you tried that?

I edited the menu on MythTV to provide Hulu Desktop as an option and launch it. I then setup the remote in the .huludesktop configuration file. Works on Windows and Mac, too, if that's your fancy.

Re:I'd pay it

[poopdeville]

That's fair enough, but check out the number of comments in this topic whining about how Netflix streaming (a better value than Hulu's offering) doesn't have the latest seasons of TV. If people merely wanted to be entertained, this wouldn't be a consideration. Instead, they want the latest shows, so they can watch them with their friends, or talk about them with their coworkers.

Of course, this doesn't change the value proposition for our British cousins. You have your own "new shows" to watch.

Re:I'd pay it

[BobPaul]

I'm not really sure I'd say "they're delivering content to you". They're merely offering to proxy, and proxies need to send the same amount of data in as they send out, hence the upload requirements. Also, nobody wants your upstream unless you're offering to proxy.

Re:I'd pay it

[BobPaul]

So you don't mind short advertisements in many of your Simpsons and 30 Rock episodes, but aren't interested in watching an entire episode of the Sopranos or Dexter?

That's weird.

Re:I'd pay it

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I'd pay for it if they made it available outside the US.

Good luck. They aren't getting advertisers from your region and it's unlikely they'd be happy with you just paying them what the advertisers would have.

Re:I'd pay it

[nabsltd]

Also I have to point out that the article mistakenly compares paying $10 for hulu (on demand) vs just watching it on "tv for free".

With DVRs capable of holding literally thousands of hours of TV shows at the same quality as Hulu, the only advantage Hulu would have is the older episodes (which is what they are making you pay for).

Otherwise, for any show in reruns, it's merely a matter of time until you could collect the entire series so it was available "on demand".

Re:I'd pay it

[nine-times]

It's a shame though. If they managed to partner with some of these services I'd happily pay $10 a month for it. It beats the heck out of a $60 per month satellite bill.

... and that's why you won't see it happen. Hulu is run by the TV networks, and the TV networks still want the money from Cable/Satellite. If they make their content available online, it might become a competitive market. Instead of charging $10/month on Hulu, they'd rather lock you into paying $100/month on cable.

Re:I'd pay it

[bertoelcon]

Most shows that would already be on ad supported networks have commercial cuts in the show that are usually noticeable in a copy that is all one piece, if they put a small ad in there in is not going to cut the flow any more than having seen it when it aired.

Re:I'd pay it

[Jer]

You pay a hundred bucks a month for cable?

Just for cable? Without internet, or phone or anything else?

Wow. I'm glad I don't live in your market. I don't even pay that much with Internet service bundled in.

Re:I'd pay it

[BobPaul]

In the UK, iPlayer also competes with iTunes where shows like Lost, V, Simpsons, and 30 Rock are sold. I'm not sure how much revenue Apple generates from these shows in the UK market, but that they even have them available suggests that at least some people are paying to watch specific shows.

If Hulu were available in the UK for $10/mo it could certainly be a better value for many users than iTunes, even if they left the collective 2 minutes of advertising in the typical 20 minute show. This is especially true if the $10 granted access to the full back library rather than the current last 5 episodes. You might not care about having access to all of the Simpsons, Stargate, Battlestar Galactica, etc but I'm sure a sizable number would.

Re:I'd pay it

[nine-times]

I'd pay for it - if they stopped being dicks. That means, if I could watch it on my xbox 360

I agree, but I'm kind of looking at a bigger picture than that: I'll gladly pay a subscription service if the quit trying to fragment the market.

Right now, I can watch *some* TV and movies on Hulu, ad supported. I can watch *some* TV and movies on Netflix, subscription based. I can watch *some* TV and movies on Amazon or iTunes, but through a purchase model.

Even within iTunes, I can watch *some* movies on iTunes if I "rent" them, but I can't buy those, while other movies on iTunes I can buy but not rent. Some TV shows release each episode as it airs, but not until the next day, while other TV shows wait until the season is over and the DVDs are released. Some TV and movies available in HD, but some aren't even if they air in HD. The HD is 720p, which means if I want to future-proof things by getting 1080p, I have to buy Bluray instead.

Oh, right, and there's not a single set-top device that I can plug into my TV that can watch Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, Amazon, *and* Bluray. If I want to watch all of them, I have to hack together an expensive computer with a crappy menu system and hope that none of these services decide to change up their DRM on me. And then there are still things that are only available on Cable TV (e.g. sporting events), and they delay movies being available on these services to try to push you to see them in theaters.

And what's worse, they're doing all of this on purpose. It's a highly inefficient and expensive system with a piss-poor user experience, and they're doing it on purpose to squeeze every last penny out of each of us. They want you to pay for Hulu and Netflix and Cable TV and watch the ads and buy it on iTunes or Bluray and then buy it again later. They want you to do all of it, so for the time being they're being dicks. They're going to keep fighting tooth and nail to keep any service from having everything you want.

And then while all of the confusion and frustration is keeping you and me from actually buying these products, they'll complain to the government that their revenue losses are due to evil pirates. Then they'll get even more cultural/economic control out of the deal, and be even bigger dicks.

Re:I'd pay it

[SparkleMotion88]

You don't need to navigate using a browser on an HTPC. You can use the (fully supported (for now)) Hulu Desktop application and browse using a remote control. You can even set up a launcher in Windows Media Center to launch the program so you never need a keyboard. It works fine and my wife uses it all the time. Though I would definitely prefer better integration with Media Center.

Re:I'd pay it

[lazy_playboy]

Sigh. iPlayer is not free, it requires a tv license.

Re:I'd pay it

[node 3]

It's not the ads themselves that are the entirety of the annoyance, it's the forced 30 second break. Even if it was just 30 seconds of a no picture and silence, it would be a problem. Since the streams are free, it's an acceptable trade-off. Everyone understands that they have to pay the bills.

But if I'm expected to pay money for this, I absolutely do not want ads. A paid subscription costs me money and effort. If they are going to push me to go through so much for the exact same ad-laden content I can already get for free, I might as well either pirate the shows, or pay iTunes for ad-free content (which has the added bonus of providing an actual file that I don't have to stream which is very nice for plane trips, for example).

Re:I'd pay it

[Joe Snipe]

Hulu desktop does everything you want and has an Media Center extension.

Re:I'd pay it

[justin12345]

My only problem with Hulu is that they don't have enough ads. Or I suppose I should say enough advertisers. It gets very annoying seeing the same double-pits-to-chesty Axe ad 20 odd times over 5 episodes of something. I have to say they have been better about it lately, though it can still be a problem sometimes.

Re:I'd pay it

[thoth]

This is all anecdotal, but cable goes for about ~$80 in my area, and I can easily see it costing $100 with just a few extras. And that's with nothing extra, no internet, no phone, just TV channels.

The $80 is for "regular" cable - broadcast channels, typical cable channels (but no premium ones), plus an HDTV package of many of the typical cable channels. Not sure if a decoder is extra, if you don't have one. The cost prompted me to drop my cable TV subscription when I moved into this area. Instead I bought a TiVo HD, an antenna, and just deal with whatever I can pull in OTA. Netflix supplies me a steady stream of recent TV shows coming out a season at a time.

My cable is just under $65 a month, for 6 Mbit. There is a discount if you get TV and internet, so my total would be a little less if I got both. But I just can't wrap my mind around a TV + internet bill of $135 a month. I stepped off the pay TV merry-go-round and don't miss it enough to get back on. ;)

Re:I'd pay it

[billcopc]

No need to protect the guilty, Bell and Rogers are attempting to stop Hulu from entering the market, because they know the first thing that will happen is users will blow their unreasonably low caps and yell at CS reps until their useless little heads explode.

The last thing the Canadian Duopoly wants is a legitimate use for all the bandwidth they've been keeping from us.

Re:I'd pay it

[MBGMorden]

From my experience if you want TV, satellite is the way to go. Both DirecTV and DISH are a good deal cheaper than all the cable services I've seen, and typically have many more channels too. Yes, it goes out in a heavy rainstorm, but most people don't get those THAT often (mine typically take a pretty hefty cloud to go out - the technology must have gotten better over the years as my first small systems went out much easier).

Re:I'd pay it

[Mr. DOS]

In Canada, it sure does: $60 for 10Mb service, and $1.50/GB overage fees past 95GB (up to a maximum of $50). That looks like $90/mo to me.

Re:I'd pay it

[jopsen]

They way ads are created today... they are design to manipulate viewers... By principal do I not want to pay for anything infested with ads... But I am certainly willing to pay for content... If available outside the US, at the same prices as in the US and not twice as much as is the case with music...
By the way, why can't they just allow me to pay what I want... and fill in ads to cover the rest... I don't think a short ad shown to one viewer can't pay much...

Re:I'd pay it

[nine-times]

About a year ago I was paying $100/month for cable, just TV, not including Internet, phone, or anything else.

That $100 included basic cable plus HBO, in HD, with a DVR box. I don't remember how it broke down, but I think it was something like $50 for basic cable, $20 for HD, $15 for DVR, and $15 for HBO.

Since that time, I cancelled cable and I now rely exclusively on Netflix and Hulu, spending $12/month. If there's a show I *really* love that's not available through either of those, then I buy it on iTunes. Mostly, though, I just watch Netflix on my PS3.

Re:I'd pay it

[nine-times]

Bigger problem than the weather: if you live in a city and rent an apartment, a lot of landlords won't let you install a dish.

As much as people say that the problem with US's telecommunications infrastructure is caused by low population density, I live in NYC and I only have a single choice in Internet or cable. There's no FIOS, no DSL, and no satellite service available. The one and only option is Time Warner Cable, and they generally stink. Still, I guess I can't complain, since a lot of people are still stuck on dialup connections.

Re:I'd pay it

[swimin]

Some shows/episodes aren't available on Hulu Desktop, making it worthless if you're after those shows

Re:I'd pay it

[TheRaven64]

No it doesn't. I don't have a TV license, and I watch stuff on iPlayer. You only need the TV license for stuff that is streamed at the same time as it is broadcast.

Re:I'd pay it

[Dthief]

just skip the end credits and the intro/opening sequence/etc and watch the adds and you are set

Re:I'd pay it

[HazE_nMe]

but you need an HTPC setup and to navigate to Hulu via a browser

Actually I was pleased to find out about Hulu Desktop.

It works with my Media Center remote and you can even integrate it with Windows Media Center.

You still need an HTPC, but it is much better than having to use a keyboard and mouse to navigate the web page.

Re:I'd pay it

[Cjstone]

So, you're offering to set up an open VPN and post the connection details on the internet? Have fun talking to the FBI after the chans discover it and use your connection to download gigs of kiddie porn. Or, alternatively, when some hacker uses it to own a bunch of boxes. Seriously, handing out VPN connections to strangers is a really bad idea.

Re:I'd pay it

[mrmeval]

They're blocking the X86_64 version of flash now. Screw them I'll pay a torrent site before I'll give them squat.

Re:I'd pay it

[rdnetto]

Same here, with the caveat that they provide a means of downloading the content and watching it later (e.g. within 48 hours). The reason for this is that some people have separate peak & off-peak quotas, with off-peak occurring during the times when most people are asleep. Even if they did make it available where I live, I only have the quota to use it in off-peak.

Re:I'd pay it

[Anonymous Coward]

WHY? Why would you pay for something that is literally free in 50 others places, licensed and ready to go. www.spreety.com, www.fancast.com, their are many others.

Hulu is making a major mistake and while I actually dont mind this particular model over what was originally discussed (Fully fee driven) It, just like there marketing with a "$25,000 minimum monthly spend" per advertiser is presumptuous and shows there disconnect from their users.

I have been a business person for a very long time, I have run a couple companies the size of HULU, with many of the same advantages to the market. All of them turned an honest, long term profit without killing the user who is already broke.

The PAY For content method will not work. These companies are cutting their long term success short.

Re:I'd pay it

[chrish]

There's also the issue of how something like Hulu (or a service like the on-demand movie watching from NetFlicks) would show just how sad their speeds are. The "Up to" speed they advertise might look decent, but what you actually get is crap.

Rogers has been "upgrading" their network in my neighourhood (part of Pickering; 20 minutes East of Toronto, my area was built up in the 80s) by running cables from people's houses, out to trees, and down to their box by the side of the road. There are cables taped to trees and strung maybe 8' in the air. Very impressive.

Bell claims their "Up to" 20Mbit/sec Fibe (note, not fiber) service is available at my house. Oddly, I only get about 3Mbit/sec of the "up to" 5Mbit/sec I'm paying for... so if I upgraded and paid a lot more, would I still get 3Mbit/sec, or would I get 3/5 of 20Mbit? Would it matter at all, since I'd be stuck with their caps and throttling?

The state of home broadband and cellular service in Ontario really ticks me off.

Re:I'd pay it

[lilomar]

It makes alot of the pain go away:

http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/alot-is-better-than-you-at-everything.html

Re:I'd pay it

[Idbar]

I was thinking about this. I think a mechanism to vote for advertisements, will:
1. Show marketing departments how much their ads suck (such as the 5 hour energy or the pharmaceutical ones), and improve their quality.
2. People will get the ads they like to see (self targeted advertisement?)
The variety of ads is getting better and more people is jumping into the Hulu ads, and I need it will get there.

Re:I'd pay it

[Idbar]

sigh mouse!
s/I need/I think/

Re:I'd pay it

[billcopc]

Fibe would probably be faster as it uses ADSL2. I do not know the details, as I am a firm hater of ADSL, but my understanding is it uses a different modulation to achieve those speeds, so while your line is only delivering 60% of 5mbit, it might be able to provide close to 60% of 20Mbit using ADSL2... again I'm no expert on this, but unless you've got some funky bad wiring, I would expect the scaling to be linear.

Cheaper and better than cable

[Enderandrew]

For some people this really is a great alternative to cable.

It might even be better for networks. Fox said they make more money from Hulu on Simpsons episodes than they do from airing them on TV. And that was before this subscription revenue model existed.

If it wasn't for sports, I'd consider canceling cable/sattelite and just watching content via the internet.

Re:Cheaper and better than cable

[MightyMartian]

I've actually been fielding questions from quite a few coworkers over the last three or four months about plugging computers into their TVs. I know one co-worker who watched the entire 2010 Olympics online, and was able to view the events she and her husband wanted rather than having to put up with whatever the network decided to broadcast.

Frankly, I think if the networks could get their shit together, and if they charged a reasonable fee, they could probably kill cable in a few years. For ten or fifteen years people have been wanting to be able to watch what they want to watch, even if it means a fee. I'd give a lot to just be able to say "Remember that episode of Seinfeld where Jerry is screwing his made" or "Hey, wouldn't it be great to watch that Star Trek episode Doomsday Machine!"

Re:Cheaper and better than cable

[FieroEtnl]

I already cut my family's cable subscription. The only stations we were watching outside of the broadcast networks were sports stations, Comedy Central, Food Network, and HGTV. Hulu (and some other online sources) lets us see most of the shows we want to see, and the ad content is much easier to handle than on actual TV. And as for sports stations, if I really want to watch a game, I can make a trip to a sports bar for the day and still come out ahead.

Re:Cheaper and better than cable

[Nakor BlueRider]

I would love to be able to do that. Sports leagues are starting to offer their games online, but generally blacked out in any area where there's an existing regional television contract. If I could get local sports live and online without the blackouts, that would be the end of paying for cable for me.

Re:Cheaper and better than cable

[characterZer0]

You forget that the cable companies are the ISPs. They would either raise their ISP rates so it would be just as profitable for them for you to get your shows through the Internet band as through the cable TV band or they would block Hulu.

Re:Cheaper and better than cable

[The Moof]

If it wasn't for sports, I'd consider canceling cable/satelite and just watching content via the internet.

That's actually what I've done.

Anything on TV I want to watch is typically available on Hulu (or the network's site) for a few weeks after airing. For sports, I've resorted to either listening to/streaming radio or going to the bar with friends to watch. If you're concerned about sports coverage on non-local teams, You'd be surprised what Internet streams are available for radio stations... Usually, the teams' pages will have the link for the streaming audio.

Re:Cheaper and better than cable

[Enderandrew]

With MLB.TV you can get every MLB game online for $99 a year. I bought the audio package with my Red Sox Nation membership, so I can listen to every game on my phone/radio/computer. I believe the NBA has a similiar package for watching every NBA game over the internet.

My college football team allows me to watch Husker games online, but the broadcast isn't all that great.

I'm shocked the NFL is behind the times on this.

Re:Cheaper and better than cable

[Sir_Dill]

It might even be better for networks. Fox said they make more money from Hulu on Simpsons episodes than they do from airing them on TV.

Yes...so the content "owner" makes money by squeezing hulu, but how much does Hulu make airing said episode? I imagine simpsons episodes are relatively popular and probably garner higher ad-prices as well as viewership but it will be interesting to see how this plays out and also how net neutrality figures into this.

All its going to take is an ISP throttling bandwidth passing from Hulu because it is causing "Network Congestion" before its a lawsuit. Personally, I think its going to be a hell of a show when it happens.

Re:Cheaper and better than cable

[s73v3r]

This is a good start, but it needs to go further. I probably wouldn't be interested in paying for every baseball game, but I would be interested in paying less just to receive the games of the teams I care about. Same thing with football. I'd be interested in DirecTV Sunday Ticket, but not if I have to pay however much it is for every team, when I only really care about Green Bay.

Re:Cheaper and better than cable

[TheRaven64]

All its going to take is an ISP throttling bandwidth passing from Hulu because it is causing "Network Congestion" before its a lawsuit

It's a brave corporation that is willing to get between an American and his TV...

Re:Cheaper and better than cable

[geekoid]

not wuite correct.

The make more money per viewer on Hulu, not more money over all. The advertising dollars they get from Fox is a lot more in real dollars.

Re:Cheaper and better than cable

[FredFredrickson]

MLB has blackouts on live games though- can't watch your home team- home or away.

Re:Cheaper and better than cable

[Enderandrew]

I suspect that most people who buy the MLB.TV package are doing so to only watch their favorite team.

Re:Cheaper and better than cable

[bberens]

Fat chance of that happening. Try watching the Sabres from Florida. If you're lucky and they're in FL playing a FL team you *might* get the channel. You can buy the package from your cable provider, you can pay the $90/yr I think for the online package... or you can stream it at lower quality through other more nefarious methods which I would not condone.

Re:Cheaper and better than cable

[BobPaul]

MLB has an internet subscription service. NFL might, too. I'm not sure on the costs, but you might be able to dump your cable and keep your sports.

Re:Cheaper and better than cable

[Jer]

Or start dropping channels to cut costs. Something would give that's for sure.

Re:Cheaper and better than cable

[ojintoad]

Yeah, but Coffee Table Inc has somehow been doing well all this while.

Re:Cheaper and better than cable

[xeoron]

Doesn't Comcast now owns a controlling stake now that they are buying NBC? If so, don't think Comcast would let it hurt their cable business

Re:Cheaper and better than cable

[Enderandrew]

Unless the loss of cable customers just transforms to more people paying for higher tier internet from them, and buying Hulu subscriptions from Hulu/NBC/Comcast.

Other cable companies would suffer more, where as it wouldn't hurt Comcast so much.

Re:Cheaper and better than cable

[CottonThePirate]

The NFL has a package where you can watch all the games in "Stunning HD quality" (Actually not that bad, roughly netflix HD quality) . The big BUT is that you can't watch online when ANY other game is playing, which means no football til after midnight EST on Sunday and then blocked again for Mon night game. I got it this year but couldn't keep free of enough news/facebook updates/etc to watch it the next day.

Re:Cheaper and better than cable

[whtmarker]

If it wasn't for sports, I'd consider canceling cable/sattelite and just watching content via the internet.

What sports are you trying to watch? heard of http://mlb.tv?
https://mdl.mlssoccer.com/mlsmdl/secure
/registerform
http://nfl.com/live
http://www.nhl.com/gamecenter/
http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/hockeynight
http://justin.tv/
http://atdhe.net/

No money without TV support.

[John.P.Jones]

For free ad supported content I'll put up with the process of plugging in the laptop to the TV but if they want money they better open it up to set top boxes like Roku, PS3, X360 etc.

Meh.

[Anonymous Coward]

The pirate bay still has less rules, restrictions, and offers more. For a much lower price.

What is the value of something that can be replicated perfectly. Forever. For free?

Exactly...

Re:Meh.

[MightyMartian]

Because the odds of me getting a letter stating that I need to deliver my left nut to the MPAA's legal department or be run over by their legal team are considerably less likely going through something like Hulu than TPB.

Re:Meh.

[Anonymous Coward]

In today's America, the wants and desires of consumers are irrelevant. Consumers do not define value, either. Corporations dictate what the consumers want, and then provide it to the consumers at the prices that the corporations find desirable.

Re:Meh.

[PhreakOfTime]

I find it fascinating that after the business model that you just described, that you still want to give these people money.

Re:Meh.

[s73v3r]

For me, at least, its faster to watch something over Hulu than it is to wait however long for it to download from TPB or wherever. It may not be in pure HD, but its usually good enough for me. Now if I could pay $10, get access to the back catalog, and get higher quality streaming? I would be happy.

Re:Meh.

[kevinNCSU]

You seem to insinuate something you want has no monetary value while still expecting large amounts of people to spend time and money to produce it for you. I don't see how your theory works in the absence of freeloading off paying or ad-watching customers.

Re:Meh.

[MobyDisk]

It's funny, because back in the '90s I remember working at a CompUSA and my boss was telling me how the customer is the most powerful entity. A pissed-off customer can lead to more lost sales than just that one person. That if someone came-in and wanted to return something outside of the return limit, if they yelled and screamed enough, we would take it back. If they wanted a discount, they got it. If the item didn't work as desired, they got an upgrade.

What's funny is that I didn't see that happen in practice. It was really rare that someone got something for free unless the store did something dumb. I think what that boss meant was the 80's, and it had already swung the other way. Today, free speech is so much more limited because you can't start ThatStoreSucks.com without a crack-shot legal team. You can't call something "bogus" without getting sued, even if you have a 350 page book to back it up.

It is ironic because we are in an era of super-fast communications to anyone, any time. But corporations have a voice, and they will even pay people to be their voice. So no matter what mechanism comes out, the corporations can match what the consumer can do. Combine that with people being sheep, and the balance tilts.

This balance tips the other way in places like China, where people now have a voice where they did not have one before. Maybe it is a cycle from oppression... to freedom... to oppression.

Re:Meh.

[poopdeville]

Their business model is "letting people see their stuff, in ways they profit from". If you throw a cog in those works, illegally, you shouldn't be surprised to get sued.

Re:Meh.

[cmburns69]

Apparently, though, the consumers want it or they wouldn't watch it. They may complain, but they still consider what's provided as better than nothing.

When studios see their works pirated, they think it means that people still want that content. If you don't like it, don't watch it, and don't pirate it.

Re:Meh.

[Aut0mated]

I agree & would say that with the combination of Netflix and Hulu I hardly ever find myself lacking something to watch (e.g. '200 channels and nothing on'). I haven't missed using torrent one bit, and don't have to worry about the MAFIAA anymore :)

I cut the 'cable' 2 years ago & get 12 local digital channels, that with Netflix and Hulu = I'm set. However, I do realize that a lot of sports fans are left in the cold with the current options online.

Re:Meh.

[PhreakOfTime]

Who said anything about being surprised?

My fascination was the lengths people will go to to keep their drug.... I mean TV.

There's a world out there without TV ya know.

Re:Meh.

[ekhben]

Meh, the camera is held too steady in the real world. Without shaking and ULTRA CLOSE FACE ZOOMs it just doesn't feel like anything is really happening, ya know?

Re:Meh.

[poopdeville]

You mean viewing it legally? O M G!

Ads

[Varkrag]

Sorry, but if I became a paying subscriber I would expect ad free viewing on all content.

Re:Ads

[PhreakOfTime]

Like cable? Or like satellite?

Re:Ads

[characterZer0]

Sorry, but if I became a paying subscriber I would expect ad free viewing on all content.

Just like with Cable TV.

Re:Ads

[Anonymous Coward]

..and for $10/month how about the ability to download things for offline viewing?
..or the ability to view from mobile devices (ya know, like their advertising claims)?

Re:Ads

[Beelzebud]

Once upon a time the promise of cable TV was that there would be no commercials.

Too bad TV viewers are mostly lazy, because when they started airing commercials on paid TV, no one seemed to get outraged about it.

Re:Ads

[geekoid]

When? I remember hearing that from people back in the day, but I don't remember any company every saying that about multi channel cable.

I do believe 'ON' TV did that ('77), but they just showed movies. Man, it was a box on your tv with a knob in the middle with two selections "On' and 'Off'. That was it.

When we got cable TV it had commercial on your standard channels. That was in 78, when it was new.

Re:Ads

[PhreakOfTime]

Wow. OnTV. There's a flashback

My neighbor had that, except if I remember right, it had an 'A' 'B' and 'C' setting on it. But that might have been the way he had it setup to connect to the TV itself.

Re:Ads

[mcrbids]

Sorry, but if I became a paying subscriber I would expect ad free viewing on all content.

Remember when that was the deal with Cable TV? Maybe not, but I do. The more things change, the more they stay the same.... (sigh)

Re:Ads

[Srsen]

Where does this expectation come from? You pay for cable but still watch ads. You buy a movie ticket but still watch ads and previews. You buy magazines and newspapers that are mostly ads. Would you pay $30 per month with no ads instead of $10 per month with ads?

Re:Ads

[MattskEE]

Who says he has Cable TV? You know you can watch a lot of stuff for free (ad-supported) transmitted wirelessly straight to your home.

Re:Ads

[Sabathius]

Like Netflix.

Re:Ads

[BikeHelmet]

Keep in mind the delivery cost of these shows. It's not their backbone - unlike with Cable TV, they didn't have to deploy the network. Of course they can offer it cheaper or ad free.

Re:Ads

[Richard_at_work]

Why do people find it hard to understand the concept of partial subsidization - either have ads, or pay more. In this case, you are paying for an additional product, not the original without ads.

Lame that they

[siliconbits]

Are not coming to the United Kingdom Yet!

Re:Lame that they

[Rogerborg]

Lame and silly. Surely there's a market here? The longer they leave it, the more we'll get used to... "sharing"... content, sans money or ads, instead of them making money from our eyeballs.

Re:Lame that they

[siliconbits]

maybe they're afraid that Canvas and iPlayer kick their balls. JJ, seriously we need to get "family guy" and the likes on VoD

Re:Lame that they

[DaveGod]

Hulu are coming to the UK once they get the agreements sorted out, much of which appears to be the fault of our broadcasters.

Though, personally I think "exclusive content deals" are against the concept of internet distribution anyway. I'm not subscribing to anything unless I can get everything. If anyone has exclusive stuff then they all have exclusive stuff.

Online TV should be about the quality of service in the distribution. Soon as they start with the exclusivity crap they're making the whole industry less appealing for the consumer just so that their individual company can be relatively better than the competition. I can understand Hulu doing this, but for the TV companies it's folly. Their objective is long term, grow the market and do not above all let any distributor like Hulu take control. That means no exclusives.

Netflix has a better plan for only $8.99

[Anonymous Coward]

Netflix has streaming available with any of their plans including the $8.99 one disk at a time. Granted some series are only available on Hulu, but Netflix has a good selection of movies that Hulu doesn't.

Re:Netflix has a better plan for only $8.99

[space_jake]

And it works on your TV through all current gen consoles. I don't know of a way to use Hulu through a PS3.

Re:Netflix has a better plan for only $8.99

[keytoe]

By the very nature of how they acquire their content, Netflix on demand doesn't have the current season of shows. Hulu does.

Re:Netflix has a better plan for only $8.99

[BobPaul]

I consume more TV than movies, and Netflix only has TV that's already been released to DVD. My interests are current shows.

Truthfully, $18.99/mo for Hulu+Netflix wouldn't be bad. And with a cheap PC and Huludesktop, you can have it on your TV. With a remote. Better if it were on the game consoles and roku, but certainly not bad.

Re:About time!

[vcgodinich]

They will probably start adding in commercials to the paid content in a few years, just like they started adding in 2 minute commercials that you have to click to bypass, just as youtube started adding commercials, just as you pay for cable / satellite and they still have commercials. not saying $10/ month isn't worth it short term, but i have started looking for another site to watch shows from, this is the beginning of the end.

International Hulu?

[l2718]

The real news we are all waiting for is for Hulu to start offering world-wide viewing.

In the pre-internet world where movies and TV programs were received by radio or cable or seen in a theater or rented on a videocasette it made sense for the rights holder to subdivide the rights based on location -- to license separately in each country. But this makes no sense for internet broadcast. You would think that in the future rights owners would exclude internet rights from the licenses which are exclusive in a geographical region (thus allowing services like Hulu to license world-wide internet rights), but this doesn't seem to be happening. Instead, the internet broadcast rights are included in the country-specific deals, which generally means that potential viewers outside the US get no service.

By the way -- this is why I feel no compunction about downloading "pirated" versions of shows that are not available in my country. If the studio refuses to sell me a product, they can't complain when I don't pay for it ...

Re:International Hulu?

[s73v3r]

I'm guessing they feel the licensing fees they get from the regional station for rebroadcast is more than they project they'd get from Hulu ad viewing (and presumably paid subscriptions). If they were to exclude internet broadcast, and bring Hulu to those countries, the amount they'd get from those regional stations would go way down.

Re:International Hulu?

[geekoid]

That happens because of laws from difference country regarding contracts, 'moral codes' and what not. I said this when the introduced region codes, and I'll say it agin:

They shot them selves in the foot. no region codes means you can make you movie, sell it where ever it's allowed, and make it easier for people in countries that can't buy it to gain access. That drives the demand for more shows up. Plus when a populace ha a generation go by where people have been getting around movie rules, the movie rules don't matter. It also is a large driving factor behind what they don't want. People finding other ways to get movies.

Re:International Hulu?

[l2718]

You are assuming that the market itself is not subdivided, that is that Hulu and TV broadcast over radio or cable are alternatives. In my experience there are two very different audiences -- those that prefer to watch a traditional TV station and get a mix of shows, and those that prefer to choose their programs a-la-carte over the internet. My sense is that allowing a-la-carte internet broadcast will not significantly lessen the demand for traditional broadcast viewing of the same shows in the medium term (in the long term traditional TV stations are dead, but that isn't the issue). Moreover, the traditional stations are usually not set up to exploit the internet rights. Both of these indicate that a-la-carte internet rights aren't worth much to the traditional stations so excluding these from the license wouldn't reduce the fees much.

On the other hand, keeping the world-wide a-la-carte internet rights not divided would make them much more valuable. First, this will simplify the life of stations like Hulu (e.g. this would obviate the need for location-based filtering), thus reducing their costs. Second, it will improve their services, especially for people who travel. I can travel with my DVD collection -- I'd like to travel with a Hulu subscription too.

The only problem with world-wide license is a desire for price discrimination -- if the studios think they can get subscribers in "rich countries" to pay more for the same service. But this doesn't make sense for internet broadcast, which mainly targets those who are well-off.

Re:International Hulu?

[thetoadwarrior]

Good luck with that. They sell off the rights for local stations to show their content in other countries and then they can't even show it elsewhere if they want to. It's annoying. I don't see why the internet can't be classed as it's own region and screw those who bought the TV rights. If they stop shows to air on TV then it will only help Hulu grow.

Re:International Hulu?

[cdrguru]

It likely as not isn't available in your country because it is not licensed. A movie or TV show has to be permitted to be shown in most parts of the world. It is because of different standards and requirements.

For example, now Ireland has a law that is being enforced against blasphemy. Anyone with a brain knows this is for the support of Islam and nothing else. So you have a movie or TV show that has a half a second of a picture of Mohammed - that can't be shown in Ireland until that half second is cut. Whereas in the US (right now) it is legal if you have the courage to show it.

The same applies to lots of other things. For example, it is forbidden to show pubic hair in Japan. Anything else is pretty much OK, including full insertion but no pubic hair.

One big problem with any video stuff is the licensing - I suspect it costs a lot to get the license and then you have to make the editorial changes that are required. Nobody is going to do this until they have some reason to expect a big payoff which will more than cover the costs.

Re:International Hulu?

[s73v3r]

The other thing would be the delay of broadcast. Shows in the US often has their broadcast in other countries delayed by weeks or even months. I honestly don't know if this is dictated by the content creators, that a station can only air the program after X date, or if the station decides to delay it themselves. I don't care for either excuse, but if it is the broadcasters imposing it on themselves, then having the show available online way before makes the broadcast rights much less valuable.

Backwards

[Triv]

I don't care about getting episodes older than the last five. I care about getting current episodes without having to wait a week. That, I would probably pay for.

I also can't help but wonder if they're going to be including ads on the subscription model or if they think the access alone is worth 10 bucks.

Re:Backwards

[tonycheese]

All the shows I watch regularly on Hulu are up 3-5 hours after they air on television (Simpsons, Family Guy and in the past the Daily Show and Colbert Report).
The only shows I know of that are on a 7-day delay are anime which are sent over and subbed. If there are any shows on a 7-day delay, I don't know about them/watch them, and it's most likely the station's choice and not Hulu's.

I find it strange that there are still ads on the subscription model, though...

Re:Backwards

[Triv]

Some dramas aired on FOX, like "House," are on a one week delay.

Re:Backwards

[r_jensen11]

If you watch all the shows on Hulu instead of when they're broadcasted OTA, it all works out the same (you wait a week since the last episode.) The only difference may be when your coworkers start talking about the latest episode 6 days before you can watch it, but I figure it's a small price to pay.

Re:Backwards

[BobPaul]

3-5 hours? Simpsons airs at 7pm CST on Sundays but doesn't show up until after sometime at 5am CST Monday morning. That's 10 hours.

House shows up on Hulu somewhere 7-8 days after it aired. Doll House was the same way before it was canceled. I don't think any of the NBC or ABC content is delayed more than 12 hours, though. Some Fox content and, apparently, anime, though, makes you wait.

Re:Backwards

[kaizokuace]

why wait when its already released though? If they can't serve it to people fast enough guess what happens? Downloading and loss of ad revenue. There is no loyalty!

No more buffering???

[John Whitley]

Forget old episodes, the "killer" feature they need to offer is the ability to handle prime-time streaming volume. Netflix streaming seems to have this down cold, but Hulu is almost unwatchable at times.

Re:No more buffering???

[__aasqbs9791]

What time do you find the most difficult? I've yet to see a this buffering problem so I'm guess it must be the times I watch, but since I tend to watch in the morning and early afternoon. But I've watched at other times and haven't seen a problem then, either, so maybe it is regional?

Re:No more buffering???

[spire3661]

Hell, most nights im pulling down 2 HD netflix streams perfectly. Netflix has got their shit together. Its sad that The Office on netflix is 10 times better then the NBC.com experience.

Re:No more buffering???

[geekoid]

The killer feature would be streaming sports.

Re:No more buffering???

[viamptor]

Prime Time 8p-10p Eastern time "buffering" would pop up every few minutes in a show making it almost unwatchable especially if its a new release. I have a 10 mbps connection its definatly on hulus end.

Re:No more buffering???

[fermion]

I find Hulu to be nearly unwatchable about the time that California starts evening TV. I have some problems with netflix, but not as much as Hulu.

I think the problem with Hulu, and other services like it, is that it the maximum amount of show it will buffer is very short(maybe a minute or two) and so the trick of setting the show and waiting 10 or 20 minutes for the show to buffer will not work.

I think Hulu will improve over time and will cause TV and cable to become much less relevent, limited only to the often gender specific real time shows like sports events or pageants. Something like Apple tv with a custom web browser that can interface with Hulu or Netflix or maybe even blockbuster(if they don't go out of business before they realize that mac owners are few but have expendable incomes) could make what we do now obsolete. I suspect that sports will eventually have to adjust to what the next generation expects, which is video feed on their smart phones for little or no money, and settle for teams the teams will in the mid 8 figures instead of high 8 figures.

Re:No more buffering???

[viamptor]

Netflix is a FAR better service and before anyone says anything its NOT silverlight thats to thank for it because we have it on our wii and ps3 and service is near flawless. Plus netflix is only $8 Why pay more for less?

Re:No more buffering???

[__aasqbs9791]

All the time, or just occasionally? I'm west coast and for me that would be 5 to 7pm, which is quite common for me to watch things from the night before. I'm not defending them since I've heard this complaint from many sources before, I'm just wondering how wide spread it is since I've never seen it myself.

Pay for ADS ?

[viamptor]

The article says that the last five episodes will still be ad supported and that you get (more)older episodes if you pay. So it seems you have to watch ads EVEN IF YOU PAY on the newest episodes? If thats the case you can count me out. I will pay for completely ad free content or ill pay for my content by watching ads but i wont do both.

64-bit flash

[Kev Vance]

Meanwhile, Hulu hasn't worked with the 64-bit flash plugin since January...

Re:64-bit flash

[frnic]

Somehow this HAS to be Apples fault...

Re:64-bit flash

[Rockoon]

Why are you running a 64-bit browser? Do you often have over 4 gigs of web pages loaded?

Re:64-bit flash

[Kev Vance]

No*, but I do like my flash videos to have sound. I use JACK for low-latency audio mixing, and JACK's wire protocol is not compatible over different architectures.

* I use development builds of Chrome, and the bad ones sometimes DO use >4 GB RAM. But not often ;)

Needs to support mroedevices and HD

[postmortem]

720P or similar should be given to paid subscriptions, it does look a lot better on HD boxes.
Amazon and iTunes do it.

Any internet capable device that can do Netflix (blue-ray players, all gaming consoles) should be able to play Hulu too, cuz you do want to watch this on TB, not on computer screen (yes, we geeks connect laptops/HTPC to TVs, but not everybody does).

Hulu Desktop, anyone?

[RulerOf]

If they can't integrate it into something I can use with a remote

Uhhhh, dude... Hulu Desktop was created explicitly for use on Media Center computers, complete with support for Media Center remotes.

And it's been available for some time now.

AND it runs on Linux!

....Personally speaking, I just wish that Hulu (or... anything that can offer a reasonable flat rate per month for that matter) would give better user experience and picture quality than the scene releases have for the last decade or so. We'll get progress some day.

Re:Hulu Desktop, anyone?

[poopdeville]

Try Netflix. Good quality, 17,000 streaming titles, including thousands of seasons of television.

Re:Hulu Desktop, anyone?

[RulerOf]

Good quality, 17,000 streaming titles, including thousands of seasons of television.

Current seasons and episodes? From all OTA broadcast networks? Without commercials?

Re:Hulu Desktop, anyone?

[poopdeville]

Did you ask for any of that? No, I just made a suggestion that fit the constraints you stated.

Re:Hulu Desktop, anyone?

[BobPaul]

I think most of that would fall under the blanket of "User Experience".

Re:Hulu Desktop, anyone?

[quercus.aeternam]

seconded.

I have buttons on my remote mapped to 'close current window' as well as 'start boxee', 'start xbmc' and 'start hulu desktop'.

Unfortunately the remote control mappings are not consistent between apps, but they /do/ work.

Re:Hulu Desktop, anyone?

[StupidKatz]

Currency has nothing to do with "user experience".

Re:Hulu Desktop, anyone?

[BobPaul]

Content available vs content desired is part of context, and context is a major part of "User Experience".

I told you so

[c0d3g33k]

Here's to all the folks over the last several years that gleefully announced they were ditching their services (cable, satellite, whatever) and just getting it for free online. My usual response was that once they get you on board, they will start charging for it at some point. No more free tv and flipping a bird to the 'man'. I guess I was right.

Re:I told you so

[potat0man]

I know, those losers who saved $3,000 over the past 3 years! What are they gonna do! It's not like they can just call at any time and have their cable or satellite hooked back up!

Pay? only if

[geekoid]

they offer 720p or better, improve streaming, show all the episodes in a series, open up the front end so anyone can create an interface.

Hulu + Netflix = no need for tv

[Azureflare]

When will the broadcast industry get a clue and realize that broadcast television is dead? (tivo style devices already prove this)

When that happens are we going to see increases in our internet connection price? I'm worried that the current price we see is subsidized by TV lines.

Re:Hulu + Netflix = no need for tv

[Jer]

Broadcast TV is only dead for people who can afford cable/high speed internet and have access to it in there area.

There are a LOT of people out there still served by rabbit ears over the air - especially in rural areas.

ITMS really

[DarkOx]

I think it puts HULU more against Netflix than ITMS.

Until their service is better ...

[Kostya]

Until they improve their service, forget it. Even on low, I have a hard time getting non-choppy feeds at time.

Compare this to Netflix On Demand which has better quality all around--and doesn't have any commercials.

I wish Apple would start to compete on price here--it's about the same to buy some of these shows on DVD. Granted, iTunes is available right then during the series airing, but I shouldn't have to pay $50-60 to watch something in high def. If they lowered the prices, I would buy a ton of series just for the convenience. As it is, I'm skipping the series all over--and usually remembering I might have liked them when I see it on Netflix.

Which means everyone just missed out on a chance to make me part with my money. iTunes worked because of the magic $0.99/$9.99 price point (which has fluxed a little, but is still around there). They never found the right price point for TV (or movies), and neither of those has taken off quite as well as music.

And for those wondering:
  * Movies: $4.99 - $6.99 (not $9.99 - $14.99)
  * TV Series: $15.99 - $25.99

Yes, yes, I'm sure someone is going to scream robbery, but these are *digital* goods. Make them once, sell them over and over and over again. You still have advertising on TV (and Hulu). Give people a reason to buy the digital forms and they would buy them (and probably not pirate as much--convenience is an amazing motivator, and say what you want about iTunes it is unbelievably convenient).

And while I'm ranting, Yo, Apple ... what's up with AppleTV being such a freaking wasted opportunity? Here's a clue:
  * Streaming like Netflix. You already have the infrastructure for rentals, why not get in on the action?
  * Or some subscription model around the price of a cable/satellite bill ($60/month?)
  * And what about Apps? The thing runs Mac OS X (more or less)--make an App market for it.

Oh well.

I guess we're in the minority here, then...

[sdnoob]

We wouldn't pay for Hulu if the only perk was being able to watch episodes that would've fallen off the regular rotation due to newer airings (older than 'last 5 to air')

There's still no guarantee that they (Hulu or content owners) won't pull a series or episode before you get a chance to watch it, or that they'll include captions for everything (like we get with anything we record on our Tivo).

Information wants to be free!

[wiredog]

But entertainment wants to be paid. If enough pepole decide not to pay for it it will go away. Then you stuck watching stuff that is valuable today, but not next week. "American Idol" and the like...

Re:Information wants to be free!

[cdrguru]

The problem is that the catalog from around 1930 until today will last the average person their lifetime. So even if new stuff stops being made, there will be 80+ years of content that is free forever.

This is the end result of piracy - everything for free but nothing new of any quality. Today, there is no solution except maybe hurrying this end result so people can see what it is like. The thing is, free is so damned attractive that it may be 50 years before people decide it might be nice to have something to pay for once again. I do think it might take that long.

We are teaching children in most schools about how everything on the Internet is there for the taking. Teachers download software for the classroom. Students show other students how and they go home and download Mom's favorite song - she is so happy that she just can't contain herself. And it is FREE!

So for now, downloading stuff for free is certainly the way to go. Anyone paying doesn't understand the "new digital economy", and some idiots are paying crooks for pseudo-legitimate stuff, like allofmp3.com. I'm sure there are plenty of others as well.

Praying for a dead cat bounce

[ThatsNotPudding]

$10 a month? Insane. $2 a month with the ability to watch shows sans ads on my actual TV? Yes, please.

I'd pay if:

[kimvette]

1. They release a "widget" for my Samsung televisions and blu-ray player
2. They release an iPhone client
3. The shows and movies are ad-free. Don't charge me AND expect me to watch ads!

Note; for #1, in the case where users (potential customers) have $OTHER_BRAND television or blu-ray player, substitute $OTHER_BRAND in place of Samsung, while ignoring their stupidity of choosing a non-Samsung television. Yes, I will be mocking them along with you. ;)

Re:I'd pay if:

[DogDude]

"3. The shows and movies are ad-free. Don't charge me AND expect me to watch ads!"

Suckers have been paying to watch ads via cable for 20+ years. As long as these same people are willing to pay to watch ads, I don't see any reason why Hulu would do anything different.

Cheaper and WAY Better than cable

[ukemike]

My home PC is now 9.5 years old and it was trivial for me to setup Hulu, and Netflix Instant so I watch it on the TV (that ati all-in-wonder card is still amazing). I usually browse with FF, but I have Crome set up to open on the TV screen part of my desktop and I get to watch what I want when I want (almost). I don't have a digital tuner for local broadcast. I don't get pay tv. I don't care about most sports so none of that matters to me. I did want to watch some winter Olympics but you could not get the Olympics online w/out proving that you had a cable/sat subscription. That pissed me off.

It's funny because if it isn't on hulu or netflix, I usually don't even know about it. My son and I just watched our way through all 10 seasons of Stargate sg-1 over the last year. That was pretty cheesy but fun. Other programs I am happy to wait for "TV on DVD" or use other means. The advantage of watching when I want is huge. I'm watching the Wire on DVD. It's great. We've been getting Doctor Who via the Pirate Bay since it won't be available to us any other way, and we can't wait for the DVDs. I'm looking forward to the next season of Spooks.

People keep predicting the death of TV. To quote Scotty, "He's dead already!" My life is so much better w/ out the constant barrage of TV ads, that when I visit family and they sit watching 20 minutes of commercials every hour it boggles my mind.

Submitter Doesn't Get It

[gyrogeerloose]

As usual.

This starts pitting Hulu even more squarely against iTunes for anyone who watches more than a few shows a month.

It's not like Apple cares if Hulu competes since the company makes relatively little off of the iTMS. It exists solely to create an ecosystem that encourages the sale of Apple hardware. If the owners of other products want to buy from them as well, that's just a bit of gravy for them. If iPod/iPhone/iPad users buy from some other site, that's fine too--Apple has already made money off of them when they sold the hardware.

Get back to me

[SCHecklerX]

... When they properly support my phone and my 64 bit linux box. Oh, and allow boxee clients. Then we will talk about me paying them for a service that I can actually use.

Re:Get back to me

[Spykk]

Not that I am defending them, but you can still watch hulu with 64 bit flash in linux if you use hulu desktop. If, like me, you had to compile a firefox plugin to keep flash from crashing all the time because your cpu doesn't support the lahf instruction you will need to preload the plugin to get hulu desktop to work. Something like this should do the trick:

LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/flashplugin-lahf-fix.so huludesktop

Your paths may vary.

What's wrong with more advertising?

[poorbot]

I think I would be just as happy if we got a model closer to actual commercial breaks with more commercials per break like on television. I really just like that I can watch programs on my own time (instead of what television dictates) and that it's relatively free (I do have to pay for the internet after all). To keep that, I'd rather have more ads.

No value for me

[WRX SKy]

I get the same value from my DVR and Time Warner's "watch on demand" feature (with the exception of commercials obviously). What Hulu offers me is convenience (watch on my PC)... but not $10 worth of convenience.

I would think the opposite would work better.

[Kadoo]

Pay to get the most recent content, the archive for free.

url correction

[whtmarker]

correction on above: https://mdl.mlssoccer.com/ points to https://mdl.mlssoccer.com/mlsmdl/secure/registerform

Re:About time!

[mcgrew]

just as you pay for cable / satellite and they still have commercials.

I first got cable in 1980 when I moved to Florida, and it was great. Ten channels including Discovery (which didn't suck back then, they actually had shows about science), CNN, A&E, empty-v, ESPN, etc. plus the local channels. HBO was included, and it only cost ten bucks a month, and the only commercials were on the local channels, none on the cable channels. They didn't censor movies. There was no annoying network logo at the bottom right of the screen.

I see Hulu and NetFlix being the same as cable is now in another 30 years' time; that is, if they survive.

IP Television is a joke

[cdrguru]

It is a cruel joke - mostly on the people that think as early adopters they are getting something.

The problem is that the bandwidth required on a per-household level is no problem, but the bandwidth required at a per-neighborhood level is way, way beyond anything that is even remotely possible today. It doesn't really matter if you are on DSL, cable or even fiber. Your bandwidth to your house is shared with the rest of the neighborhood from a node. With DSL this is the DSLAM at the CO. With cable it is a "neighborhood node" box not too far away. I don't know what it is called with fiber, but it is there. All of these boxes are fed by a fiber link from somewhere else that actually has the backbone connection - and the aggregate bandwidth for the neighborhood is limited by the capacity of this link.

Relatively speaking, this link is very fast. So today when you are downloading something on your 70Mbit connection you might actually get 70Mbit a lot of the time. However, that is assuming that only a small fraction of the homes connected to your node are actually very busy.

Say it requires 5Mbit/sec for HD television. You can probably assume that the fiber link to the node is at least 500Mbit/sec. Assuming all of that 500Mbit/sec is available for data (it isn't on cable systems or most fiber implementations, but that is another problem entirely), you can support a maximum of 100 simultaneous HD television streams at one time. When someone tries to start up the 101st stream, they aren't going to have very good performance at all.

The real problem is that should IP TV ever acquire any real market penetration you would likely have 500 homes out of the 1000 connected to that node trying to get a stream. Not going to happen. And the performance would be so incredibly bad that it would be completely unusable.

The infrastructure for even 10% market penetration of IP TV simply doesn't exist. And until someone figures out how to upgrade the fiber link to the node to 100GB/sec for a reasonable cost, it isn't going to be possible. All of the early adopters are simply going to get screwed in the end.

Video-Console Services

[JamesPr]

I think Hulu as well as other video services are hurting themselves by not getting involved in the console market. I imagine Netflix although requiring a disc is doing well by joining the WII. In a world with increasingly multi-faceted use machines, I'm starting to think consoles may need to take a stronger route of video/show streaming.