Slashdot Mirror
Subscription-Based 'Hulu Plus' Is Now Official
itwbennett writes "After months of rumors, Hulu officially announced its $9.99/month Hulu Plus service. Invites will soon start rolling out in weekly batches. So what will you get for that $9.99? 'Full access to a bunch of current shows (Hulu lists 40 but adds 'and more' to that list) as well as complete series collections of some older titles such as The X-Files, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and the wonderful and mostly-ignored Eli Stone,' writes blogger Peter Smith. 'HD content sources will be streamed at 720P but Hulu mentions that the service is ad-supported.'"
So not only will I be paying $9.99 but I'll also be watching ads? Hmm... no.
So you pay 9.99, and then still have ads on top of it? Absurd.
Did I read that right? You pay for the privilege of the same ads you get by not paying? Ok... good luck with that.
Was nice knowing you.
I thought the point of paying for a service like this was to avoid the ad's.
Why would you charge Ten bucks a month and then still keep the advertising?
I mean aside from the if somebody is willing to pay it factor.
Sounds like Hulu is doing good advertising for NetFlix to me.
You mean to tell me you have to wait for an invitation to a paid for product that's ad-supported? What are they thinking?
Their collection of shows do not seem that impressive either. Where's Weeds/Big Love/True Blood, or whatever people are watching nowadays?
I have a hard time believing that this is going to go anywhere. My $10 a month stays with Netflix, color me unimpressed.
If you can't mod them join them.
Just don't forget Peerblock :P
Charge for it, put ads in it, charge a low price and put ads in it, but for crying out loud make Hulu available in Canada.
netflix is $8.99, is ad-free, has more content, has many client platforms (PC, mobile, wii, playstation, roku, etc), and includes DVD rentals by mail.
what are they thinking?
So lets see I still get A) Ads B) Stupid blocking so I can't watch it on different devices and C) I'd have to wait for an invite?
Count me out.
To all "media" executives take a few things in note, I can go to the pirate bay and get shows ad free that I can watch everywhere without stupid little geographic or device limitations. Oh and its free.
Look, we have no problems buying your crap, but when its easier to pirate it and you get a better product? Why not download it?
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
So, will this subscription Hulu be available to the rest of the planet, or just the US?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Depending on what provider and package you get. The price of Hulu and cable will converge at some point.
Now, if for the $10 there are no commercials, and there is not silly wait time, and the full season is available, then that might be an incentive. But then Hulu Plus is going to have ads, will likely have the same time delay as now, and will likely limit the number of shows, so I wonder what the $10 buys? The ability to watch shows on the iPad? I suspect that once again these people have missed a grand opportunity to stop unlicensed file sharing. I think for $10 many people would give up downloading files they could get for free anyway with a DVR. It is incomprehensible why the broadcasters would not take advantage of such an opportunity.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
$10/month to watch 720p TV instead of $100/month to watch 720p TV.
I don't actually have cable, but I miss commercial breaks. that's when I would pee, poop, make food, do dishes, laundry, roll a cigarette, find my lighter, and solve a rubiks cube and I could do it all before the show starts up again.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
My wife asserts that Hulu's back-season catalog is the same as Netflix. Has anyone done or seen a comparison of the two?
Hulu was great because it was this new, hip, free way to watch real shows on the internet. They had ads that weren't too intrusive which seemed like a fair trade off to me. But then they failed to move into the mobile market, in fact blocking access to devices that could show Hulu intentionally. Now they have a iPhone client but they lost part of that mojo from being free, and they kept the ads on top of it. They're well on there way to no longer being cool and that might be the end of them. Time to move on to the "next big thing".
It looks like what you get for 9.99 is access outside the browser. They mention Samsung tvs, and ipad/iphone.
no android love yet though.
Slackware: old school feel, new school gear.
I'm moving to Korea soon and I'd love to be able to keep up with Family Guy and House and some of those shows, and if I could pay $9.99 a month to be able to get nice easy access to that, that would be awesome.
the question is then, can I? if my billing address is still in the USA, will it work, or will it block me due to the fact that i'll be connecting through a foreign ISP?
I didn't see anything on the initial post on hulu about that...
ìì!
Hulu isn't entitled to my money!
If you think it's great, then by all means pay for it, but don't act surprised when not everyone thinks exactly like you do..
Ok, seriously, get your Hulu ass into Canada already please. I'm so tired of the _world wide_ web being regionally restricted...
Yes, I know there are ways to get around the regional restrictions but it'd be nice if these corporations could think globally...
Ok, maybe I'm a bit bitter that it's not available north of the border yet...
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=6dLdGHDR5v8#t=6m14s
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
What's the best software out there to use to capture the video streamed by this service so that it can be released on bittorrent? (I suppose skipping over the ads would be too much to ask for.)
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Oh you mean like I already pay for with netflix? That's neat I guess. I'll have Scully redundancy. Actually that started off as a burn but now.. I feel more comfortable... strangely.
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
Their collection of shows do not seem that impressive either. Where's Weeds/Big Love/True Blood...
... or Breaking Bad.
The problem with sites like this is that they cater to the popular shows. What's needed is on demand services for rare/not-popular shows. Where's Gentle Ben, Littlest Hobo, Space 1999, The Carol Burnett show?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
So you get more titles but you also get ads. They should do like a Pandora type thing better quality videos ad free. For additional titles you pay additional fees. I am not a huge fan of adds I subscribe to most sites just to get rid of the ads.
http://www.thetechnologygeek.org
What is Demonoid's business model? How do they pay for their bandwidth and hosting?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
...whatever people are watching nowadays? Uh, that would be YouTube
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I'm keeping with BitTorrent. It's fast, free, without ads, and has every conceivable show or film in a format displayable on every device/platform.
I agree, to a point, but...
Here's a brief comparison of the best price Cable has to offer in my area (the plan I'm on, in fact) versus Hulu+. I realize that Cable does offer different services like HD, on-demand programming, etc, but those all cost additional fees and I'm attempting to compare similarly-priced offerings in my area.
The cheapest offering around here is about $12.99 a month, Comcast's "Limited Basic" service. You get the major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX), a couple of national news/weather stations, local access, and of course the usual padding: shopping channels, foreign-language channels, Golf, and a couple of religious channels to pad it out to 14 to make it "Less than $1 per channel per month!!!". So basically the equivalent of about 5 useful channels depending on your preferences.
Ads: Both have 'em, no winner here.
Cost: $9.99 Hulu, $12.99 Cable (limited basic package). Hulu wins there, albeit not by much.
Content Available: Hard to compare this. Hulu wins on depth of entertainment content, certainly. Cable wins on hours of programming per week and local content such as news. Winner: Depends on what content you want. If you want to watch the local government meetings on Public Access and the local news, you're probably better off with Cable.
Scheduling: Hulu allows you to watch what you want when you want it, including old reruns. Cable is when they air it, and if you miss it or forget to record it you're screwed. Winner: Hulu.
Quality: Hulu=720p, Cable=Analog (480i, right?). Winner: Hulu.
Devices: Hulu works on computers, mobile devices, and your TV if you have specific devices. Cable works on TV at your home. The winner on this one depends on whether you want to plunk down in front of a $75 analog TV at home, or watch X-Files reruns at Starbucks on your $500 iPad while sipping your overpriced halfcaff moccachino.
I'd call these different services for different markets. Free Hulu is great if you want a somewhat Cable-like experience (you can watch from their list of shows, but only pretty recent episodes). Hulu+ seems to add mobility in the form of more devices, and of course a greater depth of older episodes available. Any one of the factors can quickly disqualify Hulu, especially the lack of truly local content. But if you want to watch the X-Files, you can spend over $200 for the DVD box set or $60 for 6 months of Hulu+ (which is enough time if you watch about an episode an evening), plus you'll have access to lots of other shows. Sure, you'll have to tolerate some ads, but you'll be paid over $140 to watch them. ;)
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
So when I blow hulu up to a 55" LCD with a DVI cable and gaming computer, it stutters like claymation. Doesn't buffer, etc, it's just not a smooth playback whatever the resolution. YouTube has no such problems even when watching 720p video.
Will that $9.99 give me decent performance?
For those of us who haven't had time to watch all of the series that have been out over the past 10 or 20 years, Netflix is a very nice service. It's fun to watch shows like Earth 2, Tripping The Rift, Farscape, and others shows that I've only seen bits and pieces of in the past. And we can sit down and watch a bunch of episodes at once on a weekend. :-)
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Where's Weeds/Big Love/True Blood, or whatever people are watching nowadays?
Those are all on $15/month channels. People who are willing to pay for quality shows are already doing that.
Hulu remains utterly broken. Apparently, even if you offer to pay their $9.95 (or whatever), it still won't work in most of the world. They won't even show you the spamvert ads.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
I'd pay 20/mo if I could have this service w/o ads.
Thanks,
Everyone
No sig for you!!
Where's Weeds/Big Love/True Blood, or whatever people are watching nowadays?
Those are all on $15/month channels. People who are willing to pay for quality shows are already doing that.
Weeds is on Netflix, I think up to season 5. My wife and I discovered and got hooked on it for a while, and being able to stream an entire season over a few days with no commercials or season interruptions is amazing.
Even with Cable, we record everything on our DVR and watch it whenever we get around to it.
The TV model is dead as far as I'm concerned, I just do not have the time to watch a 20 minutes show over a 45 minutes period because of all the commercials.
I won't pirate, so if it's not on Netflix or it's not recorded on my DVR then I won't bother watching it.
If you can't mod them join them.
Another bunch of greedmongers who don't get it. Look, you can either sell me out to the ad companies, or take my money to provide me with a service. You can not do both. Sooner or later, the interests of the parties involved will clash, and we know that it's seldom the customer who comes out on top.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
As much as I sympathize with people who would like to have completely ad-free content, Hulu has pretty much won the battle. People just don't seem to mind three or four 15-30 second breaks during a show, or the occasional 60 second ad. The ads which used to be low-budget fillers have been steadily getting better and better, an indication of real support from the industry. Hulu has also been able to slowly get more up-to-date content on a wider variety of shows, and has completely beaten out (as in destroyed) organization-specific content sites which only offer content specific to that organization.
All that is left to be seen now is whether there is room for another player or two in the space. Ultimately nearly all the content is going to wind up on some sort of Hulu-like service. Verizon, AT&T, COMCAST, and other providers are quickly pricing themselves out of the market. It will eventually all be internet-only.
-Matt
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'd pay if they let me use it Internationally.
What are they thinking?
I thought it was self-realized commercial suicide.
Om, nomnomnom...
The Carol Burnett show is on Netflix (I caught my mother watching it some time ago). I don't know about the others. I don't really watch much TV.
The irony in my area is that if I want unlimited data I have to purchase cable TV. Yes it sucks and I have to pay $160 for a 6MBS connection that comes with a free phone and cable. :(
6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
Getting your customers to pay $10 a month for the same ad-riddled service is perfectly logical...If you're hired as a suit at the networks. Remember, Hulu is owned by NBC - the same geniuses who thought hiring Jeff Zucker was a smart move.
Help feed homeless animals - Free! www.theanimalrescuesite.com
Every single episode of the current season will be available, not just a handful of trailing episodes.
While this is nice and all, I often find out about a show I might like after the first season finale, if not later. If I can't start at the beginning, I'll just wait until the show is over.
While I'm not saying cable doesn't double dip to an extent, the cost of cable itself is mostly transport. You pay the cable company to get you the channels, which includes maintaining all the infrastructure (which is considerable). Ads then pay for content, they go to the network to pay for the shows.
With the Internet, you are already paying for transport. You pay probably a similar fee you pay for cable TV to have data transported to your house. That covers all the cost of the routers and lines and so on. This is then a content charge. That's fine, but not if they also want ads.
Goes double since they have more competition. With cable you get what you get, there's only one company. However on the net, anyone can sell content (or give it away). So they have to compete with that. If they try and be stupid about it, they'll just have no customers and thus no fees and also nobody will advertise (since the advertisers can tell precisely how many people look at their ads).
If you recall correctly, it wasn't too long ago that hulu dropped support for 64bit flash on Linux out of the blue and left everyone in the dark. A couple of months later, after completely no replies and many ignored user questions, hulu finally managed to say that it was adobe's fault, with no plans of a fix. And just like that, a couple of months later, hulu starting working on 64bit Linux out of the blue.
Any sane person who went through this ordeal would refuse any kind of service this company would offer.
Poor Hulu. So very, very close to getting it right. And yet so very, very far off.
I understand that the major TV folks hate Hulu and sit there glowering at it, praying the internet would just dry the fuck up and go away. BUT . . . come the fuck on already, people! 720p + no ads, I'd pay $10 for. You throw in the ads, and frankly, fuck that. Especially when they're only offering the current full season of a handful of show, plus the full run of a bunch of shows I already get in HD on Netflix.
So close . . .
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
Of course, having ads on a PC is infinitely preferable to ads on TV. I can always do other things, like post on /. while an ad finishes up in a separate window.
Now you've gone and done it. You pointed out the workaround on Slashdot, and now the developers can block your workaround. Watch the next version of the player pause the ad when it is not focused.
I know what you mean. I dropped cable due to "paying for ads" and won't get satellite for the same reason.
So how do you get Internet access? Where I live, Comcast's "line fee" for getting cable Internet without cable TV costs the same as limited-basic cable TV.
Everyone here has got their panties in a bunch because Hulu is charging $10 to watch commercials but no one is interested in the bigger development: Hulu has abandoned Flash (in places, at least). They swore that they wouldn't but did.
If that's true, Hulu will just find dramatically fewer users using the service. When Hulu first launched, they had a lot of great stuff worth watching. Over the last year and a half, the content worth watching (at least for me, I suppose it all depends on your tastes) has dropped to almost nothing.
I would *maybe* consider paying 9.99 for access to the entire back catalog of shows from every series they carry, if it was ad-free, but I'm not sure that 9.99 for just the current season is worth it. Also, some shows on Hulu, I've noticed lately, don't show up until a week after they air - it used to be the next day. I sure wouldn't pay 9.99 to watch shows a week late.
I think I'd also want to see more programming from cable-only channels if I'm paying a premium. Right now, they have a couple things from SyFy, but I'd like to be able to get some of the programming from other cable networks, if I'm paying for TV anyhow. I could maybe see that being more expensive than 9.99/mo, though, seeing as Cable subscribers typically pay $30-$80/mo. But, if it gets as expensive as Cable, I might as well just get Cable, right?
That's the craziest part of this 'war'. I'd love to pay a fair price and not get jerked around for media, but that's just not a product they've managed to come up with yet, so until then it's plan B.
Quack, quack.
I can watch a torrented show on my laptop, desktop, HTPC, cell phone, Wii, Xbox, PS3, etc.
How do you watch a torrented show on a Wii? Do you open Internet Channel and use some sort of Flash video server to stream it from your desktop? Or do you use the technique I'm thinking of that no longer works on 4.3?
The invitation is for early testers. The service doesn't go live for the general public until 2011.
I have canceled cable TV service, and only use the cable for internet access.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
So you're saying that if not for Hulu he wouldn't have an internet connection?
If you cancel your cable TV, you cancel your Internet. A lot of cable companies bundle essentially free limited-basic cable TV with their home Internet plans, and that's not just a 6-month introductory offer. FiOS and 720p-capable DSL aren't available everywhere.
uhmm, all google services are ad supported too. I won't be paying for hulu any time soon either, but the invitation model for ad supported services has precedents. If anything the weird thing is being "invited" to sign up and pay a monthly fee.
Ok, let me try to re-highlight this:
You mean to tell me you have to wait for an invitation to a paid for product that's ad-supported? What are they thinking?
Better?
If you can't mod them join them.
Considering they'll be streaming larger amounts of data than they do now. I assume the invitation is so they can slowly roll out the service, working out the kinks and installing new servers as necessary with a very reduced customer population. Much easier than having to be *absolutely* sure that everything is *perfect* before setting the doors wide open...perfect and absolute are pretty damn hard, there's always unforeseen shit in rolling out gargantuan systems like that.
The blog post/invitation page wasn't really clear about if they will charge those "beta" users or not. They should spell it out clearly and not charge the people who will beta test this.
I would assume that they wouldn't need to do a whole lot of testing since all they're doing is giving the Plus users access to more content. Their main issue will be bandwidth, but that's what the subscription fee and ads are for, right?
Anyway, what I find outrageous is the pricing+ads, the invitation was really just the icing on the cake.
If you can't mod them join them.
If they were smart, they'd trickle in ads and store them in a local cache. Then when you start a new show, start buffering the stream in a thread and play an ad out of cache. When the commercial is done, start playing the stream. The same could even be done for pause, when everybody is sitting on the couch waiting for Uncle Ned to go pee (again).
Roku just shows me a progress bar when it's buffering. People hate buffering waits (remember Quick...buffering...Time?) and I'd venture would rather see an ad than a progress bar.
Be smart about it, kill two birds with one stone, profit.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
That show had religious metaphors about as subtle as a thong worn outside the pants.
That show had religious metaphors about as subtle as a Bella's hormones in Twilight.
That show had religious metaphors about as subtle as glow-in-the-dark condom.
That show had religious metaphors about as subtle as the politics in Chicago.
That show had religious metaphors about as subtle as the politics in Avatar.
That show had religious metaphors about as subtle as a vuvuzela horn.
That show had religious metaphors about as subtle as advertising during Saturday morning cartoons.
eh..sorry..got a bit carried away
More on topic: I'd probably pay for this if they expanded the shows/channels that they offered. Don't care so much about most of those shows.
FUNK!
Depending on where you live an antenna may be useless, now that we (in the U.S.) have transitioned to digital television. I live a little east of Poughkeepsie, NY, about an hour north of New York City. We get the New York City stations -- or did, prior to the switch. Digital signals don't make it over the mountain ranges the way analog signals did, so the NYC stations don't make it this far up the Hudson River Valley. It doesn't matter what kind of antenna I use. (Believe me, I looked into this.) To the north we have Albany, NY. We used to get a few stations from that direction, too. Alas, no more!
It's a terrible joke to make, but when Al Qaeda toppled the Twin Towers we only lost one station; it took the FCC to destroy all of them.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
You mean to tell me you have to wait for an invitation to a paid for product that's ad-supported? What are they thinking?
That they are Apple?
And if they offered that, you'd complain and say you'd totally buy it, if they offered 1080p feeds.
If you had said something thought out and not reflexive I would've talked shit on that, too.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
Where's Weeds/Big Love/True Blood, or whatever people are watching nowadays?
Every season of Weeds is on Netflix.
Make love, not reality television.
It takes 15 seconds to get through the commercials? My TiVo will skip to a frame about 28 seconds further on in about 125ms. I usually push the skip 5 times (2 seconds total) and that works for all the 2.5 minute breaks which are the most common length. For shows I watch regularly, I know how many pushes are necessary at each break. Even with an initial backup (for x.25 or x.75 minute breaks) of 2 -8 second pushes (1 second), followed by 2 seconds of skipping is a total of 3 seconds.
15 seconds? And you can actually SEE the commercials? Burn your DVR!
So I tried a phone company's DSL (I know, I know).
Some people who get a smartphone drop their POTS line in order to make the required service plan look affordable. But the phone company also charges a line fee for getting DSL without POTS.