Hulu Plus Now Available To All — But Be Warned

itwbennett writes "Peter Smith outlines some of the things you need to know before plunking down your $10 subscription fee for Hulu Plus, which yesterday came out of its invitation-only phase and is now open to everyone. First off, don't assume that paying $10 gets you out of viewing ads like it does on Netflix — and there's no way to skip them. Second, yes, there's tons of content available on Hulu Plus, but it's not necessarily the same content as hulu.com. 'So if you've been watching a show on hulu.com and can't wait to watch it on the big screen via your PS3, stop a moment and check the Hulu Plus listings,' advises Smith. And then there's the issue of performance, which at least in the preview version has been less than perfect."

Comments

All?

[meza]

What is the definition of all here? Does it for instance include Europe or anything outside of the US? Before we haven't been able to watch anything on Hulu.

Re:All?

[Yvan256]

It seems it still applies to the USA only. You can probably blame region-based content licensing for all these artificial limitations.

Re:All?

[Anonymous Coward]

All the nations that participate in the World Series are included.

Re:All?

[TheCycoONE]

That's not true, The Blue Jays participate in the World Series but Canada can't access.

Re:All?

[somersault]

Exactly what I was thinking. Hardly "everyone"..

Re:All?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Blue Jays used to participate in the World Series.

Re:All?

[Nadaka]

So did cuba.

Re:All?

[jo_ham]

Ah, so much like the definition of "world" when the US talks about the "World Series".

All generally does imply everyone. "All in the US" has a different meaning, because it adds specificity.

The summary doesn't specify one way or the other, and having not researched Hulu Plus fully, I didn't actually know if "All" meant "the world" or not - they have been showing me "we are trying to bring content to your region, please be patient with us" messages every time I see an embedded player on a webpage that tries to show me a Hulu video in the UK. For all I know, that's what Hulu Plus is about. I guess not.

Re:All?

[camperdave]

Ah, so much like the definition of "world" when the US talks about the "World Series".

Reminds me of the sports broadcast in Total Recall where the World Series finalists are the Tokyo Samurai and the Toronto Blue Jays.

Re:All?

[SirWhoopass]

You are quite correct that the headline, summary are misleading. They take the phrasing "all" from the article, which is also misleading. Unless IT World is a US-only publication. Which would be funny in itself.

Speaking as a US citizen, however, please know that many of us don't give a damn about baseball. There was no national referendum where we decided to let Major League Baseball declare a "world" series. The Tokyo little league champions may well be better than the San Francisco Giants. To be fair, however, when they started calling it the "World Series" no other nations had professional baseball teams.

Re:All?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is patently ridiculous, because everyone knows that the Blue Jays will never make it to another World Series.

Re:All?

[Friggo]

To be fair, "The World" in The World Series doesn't mean what you probably think it means. As I understand it it refers to a newspaper that sponsored the first World Series which was named "The World".

Re:All?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

What is the definition of all here? Does it for instance include Europe or anything outside of the US? Before we haven't been able to watch anything on Hulu.

Look, the broadcast of television shows is affected by agreements with other countries, localization of said TV shows into that country, and advertisers that will pay to advertise in that country. So no, it's not ever going to be open to the world. Please file that away in your common-sense-memory-bank.

Re:All?

[SirWhoopass]

Ummm... no.

World series origin

Re:All?

[thetoadwarrior]

Everyone = the US.

Re:All?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you. Score 1 for reality.

Re:All?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can watch Hulu from anywhere in the world using a proxy located in the US. In addition, if you are annoyed by ads, use a tool to download the videos from Hulu to your computer and play them ad-free with your favorite media player.

Re:All?

[geekoid]

Nothing is stopping you from starting a baseball team in another country. well, nothing but money.

Re:All?

[thomst]

Nothing is stopping you from starting a baseball team in another country. well, nothing but money.

Well ...that. And massive disinterest on the part of European, African, and Asian nations (other than Japan, of course).

But I wouldn't let a little detail like having no audience or fanbase stop you ...

Re:All?

[forsey]

World series isn't as bad, at least teams from Canada can participate! Not so much with Hulu.

Re:All?

[badboy_tw2002]

http://entertainment.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1856132&cid=34140192

It was clear enough that the freaking first post made a joke about it. Maybe if you weren't a native Americish speaker I could see that, but last time I checked the UK spoke our language.

Re:All?

[jo_ham]

I don't read AC. My filter is set above them, unless they get modded up. The contents of that linked post reminded me why.

As for speaking our language, I'd possibly take issue with. I mean, if your understanding of science is anything like it is depicted in hollywood movies, then I doubt you have the cognitive abilities to even parse English, let alone speak it.

Re:All?

[geekoid]

My point is all the American league and National league teams in the world have an opportunity to be in the world series.

Assuming they win enough. There is no rules that only teams int he US can compete.

And considering Nintendo owns one of the teams, Ii is a world series.

Re:All?

[badboy_tw2002]

"As for speaking our language, I'd possibly take issue with. ... I doubt you have the cognitive abilities to even parse English, let alone speak it."

And apparently all the houses across the pond are made of glass.

Re:All?

[Heed00]

Hmm, maybe not, but they won two back to back in 92-93 -- not many clubs have one World Series win, let alone two back to back. Maybe you should have trash talked the Tokyo Samurai.

Re:All?

[jo_ham]

Selective editing, the goto-tool of the Fox "journalism" team.

Although ending a sentence with a preposition is accepted to be correct but poor form, it is something up with which most people will not put.

(I was also being sarcastic, which is another thing seemingly lost in translation.)

Re:All?

[thomst]

My point is all the American league and National league teams in the world have an opportunity to be in the world series. There is no rules that only teams int he US can compete.

Including the Toronto Blue Jays?

Re:All?

[badboy_tw2002]

Since we're going all the way down the pedantic rabbit hole, how about you explain to me how the above took you out of context, as I did leave the pertinent part of the insult in there. You weren't trying to insult me? Or did you just need to see the whole brilliant thing again?

Sounds....great??

[Sprouticus]

So I pay the same as netflix just for the chance to watch crappy network TV? Ill opt to take my $10 elsewhere.

I bet this fails. Miserably. People will pay or watch commercials, but not both. They learned their lessons from the move to cable TV. Plus they expect more now.

Re:Sounds....great??

[santax]

I am afraid that you're wrong. People expect less for more money these days. And they take it. Seems like somewhere along the line we got a whole civilization with a masochist-gen activated. It's the only way to explain the success of T-Mobile, Microsoft Windows, and Dr. Phill.

Re:Sounds....great??

[tverbeek]

People will pay or watch commercials, but not both. They learned their lessons from the move to cable TV.

Except that they still pay for cable TV and they still watch commercials on it. If anyone's learned a lesson from the move to cable TV it's the networks learning that people will do both.

Re:Sounds....great??

[0100010001010011]

$10/month will get you unlimited Astraweb. Or a 180GB chunk for $25 should last you at least a year if all you want it for is TV shows.

SickBeard +
SABnzbd +
XBMC

Is damn near the best DVR solution I've ever seen or used. Only downside is you can't watch stuff "live" or catch up like you can with current DVRs.

And depending on your ethics and federal law you can:
feel bad about it, even though it's legal.
not feel bad about it because it's legal.
feel bad about it, because it's illegal.
not feel bad about it, even though it's illegal.

$10 one time payment to NZBMatrix has suited me well over a year. There are also other free providers. And if you're a risk taker (in the US) then you can also use it for torrents. But Torrents don't give me near the speed, plus you're technically uploading with them, so you could get nasty grams.

Re:Sounds....great??

[robot256]

They pay for cable because they are old fogies who don't want the intertubes to interfere with their TV. I think the market of people who will pay for internet, pay for Hulu, deal with getting a PC hooked up and browser open every time they watch, *and* sit through ads when all that is done will be much smaller than the market for cable TV with ads.

Re:Sounds....great??

[Obfuscant]

I bet this fails. Miserably. People will pay or watch commercials, but not both. They learned their lessons from the move to cable TV. Plus they expect more now.

How many people complain when they pay their ISP for network access to watch Hulu which has ads? Do you think Hulu should not play ads because you pay the ISP for access to it?

Re:Sounds....great??

[irondonkey]

Except that they still pay for cable TV and they still watch commercials on it. If anyone's learned a lesson from the move to cable TV it's the networks learning that people will do both.

My DVR says hi.

Re:Sounds....great??

[MoonBuggy]

You're paying the ISP to transfer the data, Hulu is providing the content which is supported by the ads. If you're paying the ISP for data, and paying Hulu for the content, then having to watch the ads seem to be a pretty poor deal.

Re:Sounds....great??

[farble1670]

If anyone's learned a lesson from the move to cable TV it's the networks learning that people will do both.

they'll do both when there 's no other option. with netflix and itunes and amazon VOD there are other options.

Re:Sounds....great??

[Kjella]

My DVR says hi.

Marketing may involve a lot of crystal balls and tea leaves, but if they ran huge ad campaigns with no sales response we'd know. So at least a good share of the viewers do watch ads...

Re:Sounds....great??

[Airborne-ng]

My DVR says hi.

My nonexistent cable bill says hi.

Re:Sounds....great??

[hairyfeet]

Or they could be on what you may soon be on if you don't have FOIS, which is REALLY shitty caps! See how much Hulu you do when you have a 36GB! monthly cap. Of course the local duopolies content don't count, so I hope you like HBO and TBS. Gotta loove the fact that Net Neutrality is dead. It is gonna be a merry Xmas...if you own a duopoly or have stock in one. For the rest of us? welcome to the suck!

As for TFA, if I wanted to pay for commercials I already have basic cable. Thanks anyway.

Re:Sounds....great??

[DragonWriter]

They pay for cable because they are old fogies who don't want the intertubes to interfere with their TV.

I pay for cable, and I also have both a PS3 and PC that can display on the TV in my livingroom, and regularly use the TV for internet delivered video. I also have Netflix. I'm not sure that mid-30s makes me an "old fogie", but whatever.

I prefer not to pay for access and have commercials, given the option, but there is enough content that I (or, at least, the people living in my house collectively) want that is on cable that isn't easy enough to get without commercials some other way that its (for now) worth having.

Re:Sounds....great??

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you forget about the first rule of usenet? It has already been declared dead and is good thing but thanks to you now the MPAA will know still alive :)

$10/month will get you unlimited Astraweb. Or a 180GB chunk for $25 should last you at least a year if all you want it for is TV shows.

SickBeard +
SABnzbd +
XBMC

Is damn near the best DVR solution I've ever seen or used. Only downside is you can't watch stuff "live" or catch up like you can with current DVRs.

And depending on your ethics and federal law you can:
feel bad about it, even though it's legal.
not feel bad about it because it's legal.
feel bad about it, because it's illegal.
not feel bad about it, even though it's illegal.

$10 one time payment to NZBMatrix has suited me well over a year. There are also other free providers. And if you're a risk taker (in the US) then you can also use it for torrents. But Torrents don't give me near the speed, plus you're technically uploading with them, so you could get nasty grams.

Re:Sounds....great??

[Joe Tie.]

It really is an awesome combination. Personally, I prefer boxee over xbmc. But I have that all on an old netbook using an external drive, and it's been a terrific media center. And boxee is a surprisingly good frontend for games and emulators as well.

Re:Sounds....great??

[BobMcD]

I have both, and in many ways HuluPlus is superior to Netflix. I'm probably overpaying by about half, and I do want them to take my dollars and reinvest them, but for the completely-TV-free household, we do appreciate having both.

Some examples:

Law and Order - Netflix has them all, and so does Plus. On Plus they'll play back-to-back-to-back. On Netflix you have to press play on each and every one. If you just want something on in the background while, say, playing WoW - go Hulu. If you're looking for one specific show, or just want one to play out while you go to bed (my wife does this, don't ask), then clearly, Netflix.

Simpsons - Netflix doesn't have it. Plus still only has five. So Hulu here, but not necessarily Plus. Family Guy, OTOH, has all 190-or-so episodes up there on Plus. And, as I said above, it will play them one after another until your brain oozes out your ears.

Movies - Plus is a joke. Forget about it. Netflix doesn't have as many as I'd like to see, but there are several good ones if you're willing to settle.

There are other examples as well, but the best experience is found in blending them both.

Re:Sounds....great??

[Obfuscant]

You're paying the ISP to transfer the data, Hulu is providing the content which is supported by the ads.

You're paying the cable company to transfer the data, the networks are providing the content supported by ads.

The OP was saying that "people learned their lesson from cable TV" and wouldn't pay and watch ads. And yet they don't complain when they pay and watch ads with hulu now. If it's a lesson learned from cable, then more people would complain that they're paying and watching ads on the current hulu.

Re:Sounds....great??

[timeOday]

Caveat, you don't need a PC or browser to watch Hulu Plus. Newer TV's (certainly Sony, I'm sure others too) have Internet connectivity and Hulu Plus "Coming Soon!" has been on the menu for months.

The ads kill it for me though. They're almost the only thing justifying my continued use of a PVR. Then again, they're the only thing justifying the broadcast of the programming in the first place, so, my thanks go out to all those sitting through them.

Re:Sounds....great??

[tverbeek]

You vastly overestimate the extent to which most viewers are willing to deal with a computer to watch TV programs. Granted, there's a growing segment of the population (mostly young and/or geeks, i.e. the all-lower-case-typing crowd) who will deal with those services just to avoid paying to watch ads, but they are far from the norm.

Re:Sounds....great??

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever I watch something on Hulu, I get a message that an error has occurred because they could not display any ads, and I should contact them to let them know. Why would I ask for them to fix that wonderful glitch in their system-- a black screen with white text and complete quiet pause for 30 seconds or so? I would say how this happens, but I don't want them to try and fix this wonderful dns feature ("problem").

Re:Sounds....great??

[farble1670]

you don't need a "computer" to use netflix, itunes, or amazon VOD. the interfaces for them aren't any more complicated than your cable box.

of course that depends on your definition of a computer. is apple TV a computer? is your cable box a computer? your TV? is a modern TV's interface less complicated than apple TV? is your TV just a monitor + TV tuner + computer?

Re:Sounds....great??

[OverlordQ]

My DVR says hi.

Which you paid/pay for.

Re:Sounds....great??

[MattW]

Isn't this supposed to compete with TV, where you pay $60 a month for access to shows with Ads that are only shown at specific times where you have to be watching, and generally come in bad resolution?

Re:Sounds....great??

[MattW]

Is your DVR the pay-an-additional-monthly fee to your cable type, or pay-a-monthly-fee-for-programming-data type? Either way, DVRs are a shitty solution to a shitty system of content delivery.

Re:Sounds....great??

[ma1wrbu5tr]

I was tired of poor service, craploads of commercials, half of my "250 top channels" being nothing but paid programming, and egregious rate hikes. Told Direct TV what they could do with their contract. I would rather pay to NOT have them.

No! I WILL NOT pay hulu a dime until they ditch the commercials. If I pay a premium for a service, I expect to get PREMIUM SERVICE.

Re:Sounds....great??

[ma1wrbu5tr]

Did I mention that I am a person, not a commodity?

Re:Sounds....great??

[Anonymous Coward]

They pay for cable because they are old fogies

Let me guess: You define that as "people over 30". Which is still a majority.

Re:Sounds....great??

[Scrameustache]

You're paying the ISP to transfer the data, Hulu is providing the content which is supported by the ads. If you're paying the ISP for data, and paying Hulu for the content, then having to watch the ads seem to be a pretty poor deal.

Ads crept up in cable content, and now they're even include inside the story lines ("this new [brand name] has this feature which will help us solve the case!"), and they intend to have you paying to watch ads again soon.

Re:Sounds....great??

[tepples]

If you're paying the ISP for data, and paying Hulu for the content, then having to watch the ads seem to be a pretty poor deal.

The advertisers subsidize part but not all of the cost. Would you rather pay $10/mo for Hulu with ads or $40/mo for Hulu with no ads?

Re:Sounds....great??

[geekoid]

There was never a promise from any multichannel cable company of no commercials.

No commercials during some movies on certain channels, no need for an antenna, great quality, more channels. Those were the selling points.

Re:Sounds....great??

[geekoid]

Actually market involves a lot of 8-balls and martinis.

Re:Sounds....great??

[Tharsman]

Mine says SKIP :P

Re:Sounds....great??

[Roogna]

Exactly! My household did the same. Got absolutely sick of paying their monthly fees and then their box "rentals", just to watch commercials. So we told them to shove it. A year now the household hasn't noticed. If something is on Hulu or Netflix we'll watch it. If it's not... *shrug*, if they want our eyes watching their content, then it's up to them to make it available to us. If they don't want to, it's not our loss, there's not a lick of it we can't live without. Plus it means we have complete control over what our 3 year old watches and don't end up with her being bombarded with ads constantly for toys and crap she doesn't need.

I have no problems paying for services, but you have to provide a service! If you want to show me ads, then charge the advertiser not me.

Re:Sounds....great??

[No. 24601]

You're paying the ISP to transfer the data, Hulu is providing the content which is supported by the ads. If you're paying the ISP for data, and paying Hulu for the content, then having to watch the ads seem to be a pretty poor deal.

Yet no one seems to mind watching trailers (and now ads for new gadgets or deals at local businesses) before a movie at the theatre.

oh wait, on second thought... that's probably why attendance is down at the theatre (despite this new rage called 3D :p)

It's an oversimplification, but people do vote with their wallet.

Re:Sounds....great??

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, or not, id bet more than half of all cable subscribers now have dvr boxes and skip all commercials, and for the other half, they never watched them to begin with .... channel surfers, beer/bathroom breaks etc etc, I know noone who actually sits there and watches commercials ... even my great aunt skips around the channels and shes like 96 lmao.

Re:Sounds....great??

[bryan314]

Except cable companies are government sponsored monopolies. At the time of their creation there were no alternatives. This was especially true in rural areas where even broadcast tv didn't reach. Luckily for us Hulu isn't so lucky. At the end of the day they have to offer something better than, cable, broadcast tv, satellite, networks own websites, itunes, amazon video on demand, dvds, netflix, and finally bittorrent.

Re:Sounds....great??

[bhiestand]

Yet no one seems to mind watching trailers (and now ads for new gadgets or deals at local businesses) before a movie at the theatre.

oh wait, on second thought... that's probably why attendance is down at the theatre (despite this new rage called 3D :p)

It's an oversimplification, but people do vote with their wallet.

Well, that and the fact that "dinner and a movie" is now about as expensive as "three dinners". Seriously, it's nearly $20/person if you watch the 3D movies and split a popcorn.

All for the privilege of being told that you "wouldn't steal a car", watching a few other moral lessons and half a dozen previews, then sitting through an overly-loud movie while teenagers talk and giggle behind you. ... or, for the price of 5-10 movie tickets you could just buy a blu-ray player and enjoy a movie on the couch.

I'd say the advancements in home theater are also a big factor here.

Europe

[santax]

Since I am from Europe that whole netflix and hulu-thing is beyond me. Why do you guys want to pay for this? You have torrents, youtube etc. What's on netflix or hulu that you just have to see? This is just a question from someone not familiar with these products and not intended as a troll or whatever. Just want to make that clear ;)

Re:Europe

[rotide]

For one, I'm just finishing Battlestar Galactica. I never saw it on tv so this is my first run through. I have watched the whole series (new one, minus the first 2 episodes that are disc only, go figure) on Netflix in HD. It's also a great way to watch random movies without having to sort through torrents, wait for them to finish, upload them to my htpc, etc. Also helps that I only get OTA programming. I also refuse to pay $80+/mo for TV.

Re:Europe

[sockman]

Legal movies?

It's great that Netflix bears the cost of buying the crap from Hollywood, and I don't have to spend more than $10/month to see some of it. I've watched some pretty awful movies, and been able to turn them off or return them at no additional cost for the next movie.

Re:Europe

[bluefoxlucid]

It has to do with the people making the content trying to figure out how to get money for it. See they make movies, but the product they produce is effectively worthless: it can be copied with almost zero cost. So they spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to actually leverage their products to make money, when their products are by definition competing with a distribution service that comes well below their costs and thus has perfect position in a price war.

On the other hand, consumers also want those businesses to remain solvent not for any direct reason but rather for the simple fact that they want new movies and new seasons of the shows they watch. Consumers however don't want to pay; they also don't want to watch advertisements. Commercials are tolerable if they're long enough but not too long, because they're piss breaks or a couple minutes to go microwave something; unfortunately, businesses rely on revenue from selling advertising, and advertisers want you to stay and watch their advertisements.

It comes down to consumers wanting production but not wanting to supply consumption.

Re:Europe

[Yvan256]

First of all, what is know as "high-speed" in north america (both Canada and USA) is far slower than what is known as "high-speed" in europe. You might be able to download a movie in a few minutes, but when you have to wait from 2 to 12 hours before you can start watching a movie, you'll choose legal streams instead.

Unfortunately, the selection of Netflix Canada is so bad that so far it's not even worth the 7.99$CAD they're asking for. Hopefully, the selection will get better in a while. I hate these limited licensing deals, our internet providers are also our content providers so they do everything they can to block any kind of competition. Free markets at work? I wish. Time for the CRTC to disappear.

Re:Europe

[cforciea]

The benefit to Netflix or Hulu over a torrent or youtube is that you get material that you'd have to break copyright law to obtain through these other venues. We pay for it because it is convenient and legal.

Re:Europe

[BarryJacobsen]

The first two episodes are actually a mini-series (about 3 hours in total for the two "episodes"), presumably they have different licensing rights and that's why you can't watch them.

Re:Europe

[santax]

I didn't realize you had to pay 80/month for tv. That's about whay I pay for a year. But I don't have a decoder so I have like 40 channels with crap instead of 400 channels with crap. I can understand the added value now btw of netflix, but I'm not concerned about torrents because I have a fast connection and in the Netherlands it is legal to download movies and/or music.

Re:Europe

[santax]

Ah ok, that's not added value to me because here in the Netherlands it is legal to download movies and/or music. If it was illegal that could be a good reason to buy their services. True.

Re:Europe

[Sepodati]

This allows the masses to watch Hulu on their TV through a PS3, Roku or whatever else adds the option. I know that's trivial to computer geeks that have a computer hooked up to their TV already, but the geeks are in the minority. It's also easier for the masses versus downloading via torrent (ignoring the legal issues for now). Some things are worth paying a little for.

I already pay for cable and a DVR, so I don't see any need for this. It makes it slightly more plausible to cut cable entirely and just go with Hulu/Netflix/Internet for "TV" watching, though.

I also imagine that content will start to be exclusive to Hulu Plus as an enticement to getting people to sign up.

Re:Europe

[tivoKlr]

Once again, The Netherlands for the win!

Re:Europe

[santax]

Didn't knew about the internetspeeds. I do have 5mb available so a dvd is here in about 12 minutens, a iso rip about 5/6 minutes. And as I said earlier, it's legal here to download movies. But those are all valid points you mention. Combined with other peoples awnsers here, I'm starting to see why you like these services.

Re:Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just finishing Battlestar Galactica.

Stop halfway through the finale.

Trust me.

Re:Europe

[Rifter13]

It is more about doing things legally. Yes, I could torrent the shows I want to watch, but I would rather royalties go back to the studios that brought the shows to me, so they can go back and make more of that show. If you steal the shows you love, you kind of shoot yourself in the foot.

Re:Europe

[mlts]

I will be more than happy to trade you Hulu for Spotify. Having the ability to listen and queue up any songs with a small subscription fee for no ads (even if I wanted to listen to the same song until my mind shut down), is far more useful than paying for ad-filled Flash content that I rarely have time to watch.

There is nothing like Spotify in the US, and it would be great to just stream stuff from my phone, rather than have to find the songs I want to hear and make sure they are loaded beforehand.

Re:Europe

[h4rr4r]

Yes, plugging in an HDMI cable from the computer to the TV is much harder than plugging an HDMI cable from the PS3 to the TV.

Re:Europe

[santax]

If only they would say that on the European Songfestival :( No wonder we need all that marijuana here ;)

Re:Europe

[spire3661]

That is not the issue at all. First of all your PC might not recognize your TV, you might need drivers, sound might not work over PC HDMI, or you have to go to sound properties and change things to get it to pump sound via HDMI. Then you get to the whole mess of how to control it (keyboard in the living room is unsightly), updates pestering you in the middle of a movie, need a new codec, it goes on and on. So NO it not just as easy as snaking a cable from your PC. I know all this becasue i spent the last decade trying to make a HTPC that is as easy to use as a plug-in piece of hardware.

Re:Europe

[Nemesisghost]

Since I am from Europe that whole netflix and hulu-thing is beyond me. Why do you guys want to pay for this? You have torrents, youtube etc. What's on netflix or hulu that you just have to see? This is just a question from someone not familiar with these products and not intended as a troll or whatever. Just want to make that clear ;)

Because unless you do, you run the risk of severe copyright punishments, which can include removing your access to the internet. I know from personal experience the trouble that pirated TV shows can cause. There were several TV shows that had stupid delays on Hulu & I was not able to watch when they aired, so I decided to torrent them. I got a DMCA take down notice sent to my ISP, who promptly disabled my internet connection & refused to turn it back on for over a week while they made sure I knew what was happening(and because they are bonehead idiots who didn't know how to use their new DMCA walled garden). Until copyright laws are relaxed a bit we are stuck using crappy service that we have to be double billed for.

Re:Europe

[santax]

Well I can follow your reasoning. However I want to state this once and for all. In the Netherlands we pay 25cent on every blanco cdrom/dvd. In return we can fill them with music or movies. We already payed for it, even when not actually watching the movies. Besides, it's not stealing when you just open your eyes and watch something. You don't take anything away from anyone. So it's never stealing to watch a movie. Only when you make up a law that says: you cannot use your body the way it's meant to be, it can become stealing. From a law-point of view, because in the end the law is wrong and it still isn't stealing. You are just led to believe it is stealing. Now please pay 20 bucks to see this movie. Talk about stealing :) It's idiotic that 1 movie should have profits in the millions. About 2000, 3000 bucks pure profit would be more than enough to keep movies being made ;)

Re:Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

Even though it may be legal, it is not morally right. The creators should be compensated.

If Hulu were available here, I would use it, watching the commercials and possibly even paying for Hulu Plus.

Re:Europe

[farble1670]

youtube has at most clips.

besides being illegal, torrents are not as convenient as going to a page and pressing "play".

Re:Europe

[SaDan]

You can watch them, you just have to watch them from DVD (available via mail from Netflix). They aren't available via streaming at this time.

Re:Europe

[santax]

Bullshit. I can define my own morals just fine. Thank you very much. Besides I have in this house over 10.000 cdroms I bought. With mostly (but not all) my own data on it. Millions of photographs I took over the years and hundreds of songs I wrote. On everyone of those blanco cdroms I had to pay 25 cent.... To go to the music and movie-studios. No sir, this is not morally wrong. It is morally wrong from THEM to ask for even MORE...

Re:Europe

[cheekyjohnson]

"Legal movies?"

Considering the fact that you have to be technologically inept to get caught in the first place, how does this add value to the subscriptions?

Re:Europe

[NFN_NLN]

So NO it not just as easy as snaking a cable from your PC.

I know all this becasue i spent the last decade trying to make a HTPC that is as easy to use as a plug-in piece of hardware.

Hahahah FAIL.

1) Buy a small quite box that can sit near your TV w/ HDMI and hi-def capabilities
  a) Acer Revo
  b) Zotac Mag
  c) ....
2) Install XBMC

Re:Europe

[Yvan256]

A speed of 5 mbps is probably the average high-speed connection, at least in a lot of rural areas of Canada. However, at around 500 kilobytes per second, assuming a DivX file of 700 megabytes, it means 1400 seconds (about 24 minutes) if your connection is peaking 100% of the time. A lot of ISPs throttle P2P and torrents, some inject "disconnection" packets to disrupt the transfers, some lower the non-standard-ports connection speeds during the day.

In short, most people won't be able to get a movie in 6 to 12 minutes. However, commercial services such as iTunes and Netflix allow for real-time streaming since you get the data in progressive order instead of out-of-order like P2P/torrents. ISPs also don't throttle the commercial services because then we can complain. I usually get near 600 kilobytes per second downloads from the iTunes Store.

Re:Europe

[kent_eh]

It ain't the CRTC doing this, it's the content producers and their wanting to license their stuff under a separate deal for every country.
That's why Netflix took so long to get here, and why Hulu still isn't (AFAIK) available in Canada.
That's also why we will sometimes see "due to licensing restrictions, this content is not available in your region" on some Youtube/dailymotion, etc videos.
Ad why DVDs have region codes.

It's all the corporations who made the show wanting to maintain control of it after it's out of their hands.

Re:Europe

[Rifter13]

I know Canada has a similar law. I would be HARD PRESSED to have the same view, if I was already being charged for each blank CD/DVD... assuming that I would be downloading and loading them up with movies/music. If I am being charged for it anyway, might as well use it. I am completely with you there.

As for stealing... I disagree. Different basic views there. We won't see eye to eye on that. :-) You are stealing the time that goes into producing it. Not exactly the final product... but it is splitting hairs.

As for the $2000-3000 pure profit... again, I disagree. It is a matter of investment. You ARE probably right, that a movie that pays for itself is good, but a movie has to pay for itself, and it's cousins that all failed. I am sure that studios do everything they can to remain profitable, but not every movie is a success. Some are a HUGE bomb. The BIG earners, are the ones that float the money for the ones that bomb horribly. Also, movies are an investment, and if you don't see a certain return on investment (ROI) your money can be placed elsewhere with a better ROI. That is more simple economics.

Re:Europe

[antdude]

Because torrents, YouTube, etc. are usually illegal.

Re:Europe

[Maxo-Texas]

Torrents are not always available.
Torrents have a tiny risk of virii & trojans
Torrents have a small risk of big legal problems.

Netflix is instant, $10 is cheap (heck $15 is cheap).

Cable has gotten ridiculously expensive. Pricing itself out of the market for many. But they don't care if they lose 3 customers and keep 1 at the higher rate as long as their net profit is $.01 higher. Yield management.

Re:Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

Something doesn't add up. Given a 4.3GB DVD, if you have it in 12 minutes, that's 367 megabytes per second. You really get that sort of speed consistently? I don't know you mean by "5mb available."

In my corner of the US, the standard package from the cable company (Comcast) is 10 Megabit, which can run pretty stable with a good download source (1.25 Megabytes per second). And so, a full DVD usually takes around an hour.

Re:Europe

[Ephemeriis]

Since I am from Europe that whole netflix and hulu-thing is beyond me. Why do you guys want to pay for this? You have torrents, youtube etc. What's on netflix or hulu that you just have to see? This is just a question from someone not familiar with these products and not intended as a troll or whatever. Just want to make that clear ;)

I've got a Netflix subscription. I generally use it for movies that I can't find elsewhere.

If I just want to see whatever big budget Hollywood thing is out on video I can pick it up pretty much anywhere. We've got a locally-owned rental store... We've got a Blockbuster... We've got a few of those Redbox kiosks... I can get the big budget stuff pretty much anywhere.

But if I want to watch something older or less mainstream, I've got a serious problem getting my hands on it. None of my local options carry much besides the big Hollywood stuff.

I might be able to find a torrent of it... Maybe. Or I might be able to find a DVD for sale somewhere... Possibly.

Or I can throw it in my Netflix queue. They've got a huge selection of movies and television. They've got an awful lot of it available for streaming. I can watch it on my computer or on my TV, since my bluray player does Netflix too. Or, worst-case, I just wait for it to show up in the mail.

Re:Europe

[Xtifr]

The fact that something's not illegal doesn't necessarily mean it's right. I'd rather pay a minimal sum (and the $12/mo I give to Netflix is pretty minimal) and know that at least some money is trickling back to the creators. It's like buying from iTunes or Amazon instead of downloading my music from a rip-and-post site. Plus I get a minimum quality guarantee, and I know that I'm going to get what it says on the tin, and don't have to worry (much) about viruses and trojans, and (in the case of Netflix) get to have two physical DVDs, with all the extras and whatnots, in my possession at any given time, along with the unlimited streaming.

I'm a little dubious about Hulu Plus, but that's mainly because I already have Netflix, and because, as this story reports, I wouldn't even get freedom from ads as a benefit like I do with Netflix. Netflix may have a more limited catalog for streaming, but I also get those two-DVDs-at-a-time to help me catch the stuff that isn't streamable.

Re:Europe

[santax]

I have a steady 5 Megabytes per second here. Not sure if that's 12 minutes or 15. But about 15 minutes is the time it takes to get a well seeded (max of my line) 4.7 gig dvd. Sometimes 27, if there is less seeding. But it's really that fast. It's come to a point I tell to my other tech-friends that I am no longer in need of faster internet. And they tend to agree.

Re:Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get Hulu Plus either, but for 7.99 a month you get Netflix which includes unlimited streaming (and they have a very nice selection at this point, I'm finishing up the full series of Buffy and will move on the full series of Battlestar Galactica next), no commercials, and 1 DVD shipped to your house at a time (so you can still watch the stuff that's not available on their streaming, just more slowly). If you're good about sending things back in quickly you can usually get at least 2 DVD's a week this way. The only thing you lack with Netflix are shows that are currently running, and I rectify this by doing what I did before Netflix, downloading them "illegally". I don't need Cable, oh and did I mention I can stream to my Wii, (or PS3/360 if I ever get one of either) included in the low 7.99 price? Bonus of Netflix: it saves your place in the cloud across all devices. So if you watch something on your computer, pause it, then load it up on your console, you'll continue from where you left off on your computer.

I was never a big advocate of Netflix back when it was like 30 bucks from 3 DVD's out at a time and no streaming. It was too expensive and I'd much rather buy the DVD's I like than rent them. But now that it's under 10 dollars for unlimited streaming with no commercials? It's awesome.

Re:Europe

[Joe Tie.]

It gives money to the creators, and most importantly to me it offers at least a small chance that I get to vote for a tv show I like to stay on the air.

Re:Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up.
This is exactly the reason. I'm happy to support those who make content I like so that they make more of it.

Re:Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

Because torrents of movies and tv shows are illegal. Not that it stops a lot of us, but that's what it is.

Re:Europe

[Joe Tie.]

Have you tried grooveshark? I think it's only about $3 a month, and they have clients at least for the iphone and android.

Re:Europe

[yelvington]

Since I am from Europe that whole netflix and hulu-thing is beyond me. Why do you guys want to pay for this? You have torrents, youtube etc. What's on netflix or hulu that you just have to see

There are several big downsides to torrents:

* There's that nasty legality thing.
* You have to dig through search engines, piles of spam, fake files, trojan-infected downloads and all sorts of crap to find anything.
* It takes damned near forever to download.
* Once it's downloaded it's on a computer, which means you have to hook up your computer to your TV set to watch it on the big screen.
* After you download, your router is so slammed with torrent requests that you can't use the Internet for a week.

Or so I'm told.

With Netflix on my Roku, I just search or scroll through a library, click a selection, and seconds later it's on the HDTV. I can stop, back up, watch again, etc., as if it were local. The convenience is really impressive. And I got my laptop back. :-)

The library doesn't include everything under the sun, but it has some unusual stuff. The other day I watched a Thai-language martial arts film ("Chocolate.") And it's not just movies; there's a lot of TV. Last night I watched the old "Three Doctors" episode of Dr. Who, something I hadn't seen since the 1980s. Entire seasons of TV shows are neatly packaged.

My only real gripe against Netflix is that I can't watch it on my Ubuntu laptop when I'm traveling.

Hulu Plus works on Ubuntu, as does the free version. And Hulu Plus runs on Roku ... but regular Hulu doesn't! This is a complete mess. And I'm not motivated to chuck in another $10/month when I already have more than I can watch with Netflix.

Re:Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

Some very gray areas there. First, technically, I believe, it is illegal to upload, so torrents exist in something of a technical gray zone. You are also in something of an ethically gray zone. Films and music do take money to produce, and the legality of downloading them for free doesn't change that fact. The problem is that this gets all mixed up with other issues such as quality (well I wouldn't have paid for that crap anyway), ease of copying (they lose nothing by me copying it), price (I couldn't have paid for that but I so wanted to see/hear it), revenue streams (it isn't like the actual artist makes any money off of this), drm (why can't I play the contents of this DVD I bought on my iPod), and draconian copyright laws. I'm not taking a stand on either side, but I will say that some of those reasons don't stand up very well under scrutiny. Sure, I download some things (e.g., I lack patience and will sometimes download shows that haven't made it to my country yet, knowing I'll watch them again when they do and probably buy the DVDs as well). I also feel little qualms about things that should be long out of copyright (e.g., 'The Thin Man': yes, 'Avatar': no). My point is that the law of the land should not determine your ethics. Frequently, we are asked to ask of ourselves if our ethics are such that we should break (or at least protest against) laws, but you are in the simultaneously easier and harder position of deciding if your ethics stop you before the law does (and cynic that I am, I'm willing to bet that there is a large majority sees this as the easier position...). For myself, living in a country where downloading is technically illegal (a position still subject to legal battles), but so widespread as to make actually getting "busted" of little practical concern for light usage, I am essentially governed by my personal ethics and appreciate services like Netflix and Hulu because they allow me to cheaply watch things when I want that I otherwise "couldn't".

Re:Europe

[Sepodati]

Yeah, I'm going to walk mom and dad through that and any issues that pop up or get a $99 Roku box.

Re:Europe

[Yvan256]

But 5 mbps means 5 megabits per second, not 5 megabytes per second. What you have is probably a 40 mbps connection, which is 8 times faster than what passes for "high-speed" in north america.

Re:Europe

[geekoid]

A) most people realize that they should pay something for services other people do.
B) If the Hulu offering is better then sat. TV. I will drop sat. TV and go with just Hulu.

Re:Europe

[santax]

Fair enough mate. Always brings a smile to my face when I see an AC contribute to a discussion. You are right btw, it is illegal in the Netherlands to upload the movies or music. Downloading however is legal. You have some valid points there.

Re:Europe

[spire3661]

Those options only became available relatively recently. Not to mention be cheap enough to justify. And then you have to bend windows to your will so that its not bugging people all the time as well as make sure your target customer doesnt have unrealistic expectations of what it can do. HTPC using windows is unreliable( in this context as compared to dedicated hardware) unless you are a techie, period.

Re:Europe

[santax]

Ah ok, I always found it sort of not telling the truth to speak in bits instead of bytes. But you are right, it's 5 megabytes a second. I can upload a screen if someone really wants prove. I didn't realize that the connections over there are so much slower. I was thinking you would be leading on this field.

Re:Europe

[mlts]

The difference between last.fm/Pandora/Grooveshark and Spotify is that Spotify allows you to play what songs you want. If someone wants to play "Oops I did it again" 400 times in a row, Spotify will queue it and allow them to do this.

Re:Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

Two wrongs -- or 10,000 -- don't make a right.

Re:Europe

[Yvan256]

Canada was leading, about a decade ago. Then companies stopped investing in new infrastructure and let things stagnate... And we still pay probably more than you do. And we have monthly caps too, which accounts for both download+upload added up together.

Re:Europe

[tepples]

here in the Netherlands it is legal to download movies and/or music

How much does immigration cost?

Re:Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

Even though it may be legal, it is not morally right. The creators should be compensated.

Cable TV has DRM. DVDs and Blurays have DRM. Hulu and Netflix streaming too. It is illegal in certain countries for anyone to make players that are compatible with any of these things.

While I understand that you feel it is immoral for the cable companies, and the disc publishing companies, and Hulu, to deny the creators compensation (telling customers like me to keep our money) your complaints are falling on deaf ears. They don't care if they put TV/movie-making out of business. They just want their fucking DRM and all other considerations are secondary. Why they initiate this conflict, no one will say.

But anyway, considering the content isn't on the market for sale at any price, there isn't any mechanism whereby the creators will be compensated. Until their publishers decide to open for business, how can anyone pay for it? Given that situation, and given that the creators consent to use such shitty publishers, there is no harm caused by torrenting it. The torrents would only be harmful if the content were for sale.

If you were talking about books (paper books, not the atrocity of modern e-books) or even music (DRM is a memory there) then "it's not morally right" would make sense. I don't ever need to torrent music, because unlike movies and TV, playable music is actually for sale. So I spend money on that.

But this is video, a market that is totally FUBAR and where the people who are whining that they are entitled to other people's money, are acting without any good faith at all. Think about how arrogant you're being, to tell people "it's not morally right" when talking about abstaining from doing business with entities which are so fully and unmitigatedly consumer-hostile. This is not a normal situation, and you're pretending that is. Be honest before you start throwing words like "moral" around.

Re:Europe

[DarkMagician07]

The other major difference is that Hulu on PS3 will play at 720 & 1080, on the PC it's capped at 480 for the majority of programs. It's much nicer to be able to watch some of the shows on Hulu in full HD that I have until recently missed because I won't pay almost $100/mo for cable.

Re:Europe

[DarkMagician07]

Actually, it's not that bad. I use Windows as my HTPC box because I can't get reliable Blu-Ray support on Linux. I turned off UAC, set every notification icon to minimize and not display notifications, and pretty much leave Windows Media Center up on the screen or switch to VLC. In the rare instance I have to use a webbrowser to watch a show (CBS... I'm looking at you), I have the option available, and can still get pretty good quality out of it.

Now if only I could get a better video card that has an intel chipset on it (nvidia and ati suck for this), so it would fit my screen without requiring me to change the zoom settings and HD audio. As it sits right now, the older intel chipset only supports 2 channel audio over HDMI.

Re:Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

That's so weird. I've had two HTPCs running Ubuntu that worked perfectly. So easy in fact, I can't believe you are having trouble with it? I can't remember the last time I had to worry about drivers or codecs.

I keep a keyboard in the cabinet underneath, but it rarely comes out. I'm no PC genius either. I switched to Ubuntu when it was less hassle than XP.

Re:Europe

[h4rr4r]

I used ubuntu, all I had to do was plug in the cable.

My smartphone is the keyboard.

Re:Europe

[levicivita]

I am afraid you're exposing yourself somewhat to potential ridicule with your emphatic statement that you've 'been trying to build an HTPC for a decade'. As other posters have mentioned, it's quite easy to either buy or build an HTPC these days. Most TVs have HDMI inputs for years now, and that is generally a plug and play affair. The only point I will grant is the remote control - you need a smart one that knows to power off when unused. In Linux that can be a bit challenging - Bluetooth in Linux is an exercise in self-flagellation. I for one found ended up using a wireless keyboard that looks very sleek has a high WAF (wife acceptance factor). Either way, all in, an HTPC is borderline mainstream these days, far from an adventure into the unknown.

Re:Europe

[h4rr4r]

Don't use windows. No one ever mentioned windows was a good idea.

Re:Europe

[RaySt]

So NO it not just as easy as snaking a cable from your PC.

Why, yes it is. Hulu has a nice desktop app. You do need a keyboard (unless you have a full- blown HTPC with infrared), but no mouse. Even with my geriatric Win Xp, it routes sound through my onboard- HDMI once the TV is on and set as a 2nd monitor. I don't think that's geek territory but I'll concede that an extra device would be even easier.

Re:Europe

[santax]

Stop raining on my parade you insensitive anonymous clod! Neh but seriously, I do make my money with music. It's called a performing art for nothing. Wanna make money with music? Do as I do and many many others have done before. Go out, sell tickets and play! That's how you make money :) And for movie-actors: you cheesy son of a bitches... try it on a stage! You'll only get 1 take there! I'll pay you to come see it! And I'll take my wife.

Re:Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

Europeans in general seem to think that content on torrentz was created by the artists involved for the fun of it. What you guys don't realize, is that in the end, if we keep not paying for great content, either by not looking at ads or by not paying for content without ads, we will have content like they have in China by Chinese artists. Chinese artists can't be paid by selling records. Instead, they get paid to right music by commercial companies. Jingles, in a word. You really want to live in a world where all you hear are jingles. Your call. I pay for my content. Gladly. I love the "Mad Men" and the "In Treatment" of this world. Real artistic television. Real authors. Yeah, a few product placement, but so obvious, you forget them while you hear the brightly written dialogs. I love "The Wire". If everybody keeps stealing this work, it will disappear ...
My 0.02$.

Re:Europe

[santax]

As a musician I assure you, as long as I am alive, you'll get some music. Not a Jingle. And there are more like me ;) making music is for the most of us, even the once that make some money with it, something we enjoy so much that we would pay for it ;)

Re:Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

"your PC might not recognize your TV"
Interesting concept. I always thought that the RCA composite video was standardised.

Re:Europe

[tepples]

I always thought that the RCA composite video was standardised.

NTSC or PAL? Worse, the integrated video in most off-the-shelf PCs tends not to have SDTV output, only HDTV output as VGA and possibly either DVI or HDMI. Having to learn that VGA-to-composite adapter cables exist lowers the HTPC value proposition for the one-third of American households still using an SDTV in the living room

Re:Europe

[tepples]

If you're considering buying a Linux HTPC instead of a PS3, you need something that has a library of compatible games. Wine is still hit and miss as I understand it.

Re:Europe

[h4rr4r]

Who said instead of PS3?

Wine is hit and miss, if you needed those games you would use codeweavers and only do supported ones. Or go for the app model and use android games running on the emulator. All hidden to the user of course.

Re:Europe

[tepples]

Sepodati wrote:

This allows the masses to watch Hulu on their TV through a PS3, Roku or whatever else adds the option. I know that's trivial to computer geeks that have a computer hooked up to their TV already, but the geeks are in the minority.

tepples wrote:

If you're considering buying a Linux HTPC instead of a PS3, you need something that has a library of compatible games.

h4rr4r wrote:

Who said instead of PS3?

As I understood Sepodati's post, it implied that the choice was between a PS3 and a PC.

you would use codeweavers and only do supported ones.

CrossOver Games costs $40 per year, and the list of supported games linked from the CrossOver Games page is a broken link.

Re:Europe

[sponga]

So when are the Netherlands gonna start producing some good entertainment for the world that is in *actual* demand?

A nation of leechers sucking on the tit of America?

Re:Europe

[sponga]

bullshit...

Blank CD's are cheap and have been forever and so are DVD-R's.
9.99 for a 50 pack of DVD-R's at the Fry's,

  so you must be paying like what .25x10,009.99= $2,502.50.

What were they made in America? ooooooohhhhh

Besides get over it, at least in your country you are not being sued for it and getting the ok by the authorities for small chickenshit trading of the music/movies.
You might want to direct your anger to all the music/movie downloaders in your country who brought on the demand for American entertainment and forced the countries hands.

I feel for those caught up in the middle of it but please, just search around before you buy blank cd/dvd's.

Re:Europe

[adolf]

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that in the US, it is also legal to download movies and/or music.

The problem is simply that, in these modern times, "downloading" means the same as "uploading." In order to successfully and expediently torrent a movie, one must make it available to others.

Is this legal in the Netherlands?

Re:Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

The link on the front of the CrossOver Games page is indeed broken. However, it does have a second link to the 'compatibility centre', which has a Games section. You can reach it directly by the following link

http://www.codeweavers.com/compatibility/browse/cat/?cat_id=2

Re:Europe

[evilviper]

Since I am from Europe that whole netflix and hulu-thing is beyond me. Why do you guys want to pay for this? You have torrents, youtube etc. What's on netflix or hulu that you just have to see? This is just a question from someone not familiar with these products and not intended as a troll or whatever. Just want to make that clear ;)

That's a bit like asking why anyone would rent or buy DVDs when they have 500+ channels, with movies on every day.

The answer is about the same. Torrents work great for popular content, while it's still insanely popular. Looking for a torrent of some old cult film that not many people know about, is a challenge. And if you do find it, expect that the tracker has been down for 6 months, and you aren't getting it anyhow...

Netflix and Hulu is great because of the huge, huge selection of off-beat titles. Think you'll find a working torrent of the 1990s Flipper TV series, that introduced Jessica Alba? Possible, but a slim chance. Meanwhile it's definitely on Hulu, and will take all of 30 seconds to start watching. How about The Ice Pirates? Rocky and Bullwinkle? It's possible you'll find a torrent that works, but why not head over to Netflix and start watching them now (not in a couple days)?

It's video on-demand with a vastly wider selection than can be found from your cable/satellite provider, legally, and without the hassle of torrents. Youtube isn't even in the same league.

Re:Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in Canada and I'm paying for the rudimentary version of Netflix (a.k.a. Netflix.ca); I do watch some older movies on it but mainly I want to put my money where my mouth is. I want unlimited streaming for a fixed, reasonable dollar amount per month. Now they have to expand their library to US size, even if that means they add a dollar to the subscription rate.

Re:Europe

[bhiestand]

So NO it not just as easy as snaking a cable from your PC.

I know all this becasue i spent the last decade trying to make a HTPC that is as easy to use as a plug-in piece of hardware.

Hahahah FAIL.

1) Buy a small quite box that can sit near your TV w/ HDMI and hi-def capabilities

  a) Acer Revo

  b) Zotac Mag

  c) ....
2) Install XBMC

Speaking of "hahaha FAIL"...

your steps vs. just using the PS3/xbox/Wii that's already hooked up to the TV... hmm... which is cheaper, easier, and gives the same results as far as the average user is concerned?

Re:Europe

[Yer Mom]

Better to use XBMC Live, which installs a stripped-down version of Ubuntu. Bonus then is that you can buy the Revo with Linpus rather than Windows 7, and avoid paying the Windows Tax.

Still not parent-proof, though, even if you set it up for them (for example, I'd like to know what reset my modelines the other day so I only had 60Hz modes available - all the PAL content got very juddery...)

Make it $5/month

[stun]

Make it $5/month and I'll get it.

Re:Make it $5/month

[Junta]

So long as hulu 'plus' doesn't have all of 'hulu' content, non starter.

If hulu plus is a strict superset and ad-free or much cheaper, then I'll think about it.

My preference is that netflix get all the content and I'll happily ignore hulu altogether.

Re:Make it $5/month

[hedwards]

That was what I was expecting. Pay a fee and get Hulu plus some other stuff that they couldn't afford to give you for free. But taking away things makes it a much worse deal.

Hulu and Netflix only now for 2 months

[Eric_ColonSlashSlash]

I stopped my cable last month and have been happily using netflix and hulu plus for 2 months now.

netflix for all the old shows and movies. hulu plus to fill in for new episodes of shows.
no great solution for john stewart show, colbert, and bill maher yet... torrents?

sports is also a problem. I will miss HD Discovery and Nat Geographic as well.

I am so happy i am not supporting FOX and all the [STUFF] they force feed you in cable tv. Lets bleed that stuff out of money.
It feels good to ween off of cable tv.

Re:Hulu and Netflix only now for 2 months

[Purpleslog]

"...have been happily using netflix and hulu plus for 2 months now..." - and - "...I am so happy i am not supporting FOX and..." Who do you think partially owns Hulu?

Re:Hulu and Netflix only now for 2 months

[Anonymous Coward]

rss feed for torrent here:
http://eztv.it/shows/67/the-daily-show/
http://eztv.it/shows/53/the-colbert-report/

Or perhaps you rather want them in HD from newsgroups?
1) set up a free acount with a throwaway email here: http://www.nzbs.org/
2) Subscribe to a newsgroup service
3) download and install sabnzbd+ http://sabnzbd.org/
4) Configure sabnzbd+ to fetch rss feed from step one, and make wildcard search to get the shows you want.
It is actually a low maintainance solution after having configured it and tweaked your wildcard searches.

Re:Hulu and Netflix only now for 2 months

[Eric_ColonSlashSlash]

Its the best i can do so far - I can't selectively support the NON-FOX networks (yet).
I would even stop watching the Simpsons if i could cut off all support to FOX (giving them money really pisses me off and disturbs me and my moral code).

Re:Hulu and Netflix only now for 2 months

[AndrewNeo]

I'm pretty sure (The Daily Show) and Cobert are available on Comedy Central's site within a day.

Re:Hulu and Netflix only now for 2 months

[RapmasterT]

I stopped my cable last month and have been happily using netflix and hulu plus for 2 months now. .

So except for all the stuff you miss, you don't miss having cable? That doesn't sound like like a perfect solution.

Re:Hulu and Netflix only now for 2 months

[Anonymous Coward]

At first when I ditched it I was like that. 'Oh my shows' ...

But as time went 'my shows' stopped showing new stuff. I was not keeping up with new stuff so I dont care about it. I think the only 'killer' show that I missed was big bang theory. Now picking them up slowly as they go on sale.

After about 2 years I realized I have a *VERY* low tolerance for crap now. I didnt realize how bad it was until I was out of the boiling water for a few years. I miss seeing things being blown up by mythbusters. But I also know I will be able to pick up all the seasons on clearance in the future for probably a lot less than I was paying every month in cable.

At first I was buying a large amount of DVDs for my 60-70 a month. But that has slowed as now I have a pretty good 'stock' of stuff I can watch. Entire seasons sets of b5, star trek, married with children, Kids in the hall, magnum pi, looney toons, 1000+ movies, etc... Watch 1 or 2 shows a night and you will be entertained for years...

Re:Hulu and Netflix only now for 2 months

[RapmasterT]

But as time went 'my shows' stopped showing new stuff. I was not keeping up with new stuff so I dont care about it.

That's how I found my TV viewing changing after I got Tivo. I recorded the shows I like, but due to skipping all commercials and not watching stuff "just because it was on", I wasn't getting into any NEW shows. The only new shows I'd start watching were ones that other people said were really good, and then I'd pick up the DVD's from Netflix after the season was over.

My tolerance for watching actual live TV is almost non-existent now. Both due to commercials, and not being able to watch 2-3 episodes in a row (or half of one) if I feel like it.

Re:Hulu and Netflix only now for 2 months

[Eric_ColonSlashSlash]

That's why i listed the pluses and minuses - it's not perfect - but it's not like having cable is always a fantastic solution either.

I get most of what i want and save lots of money every month. If more people do this it might help evolve the landscape of how things are offered.

CAVEAT: I don't like supporting the structure of rented (instead of owned) forced-commercialized (ie proprietary players that force viewing habits and DRM) stuff and that probably shouldn't be supported either... life is so complicated isn't it :P

huluPLUS should be huluDIFFERENT

[furrymitn]

skimming over the hulu vs hulu plus, it's a toss up of whether to pay: hulu vs hulu plus: last 5 episodes of current popular shows, whereas plus gives you all current season of 45 popular shows. 800 full seasons from hundreds of shows vs full series runs for over 90 shows Kinda seems like they should rename from huluPLUS(misnomer assumes you get hulu PLUS extras) to huluDIFFERENT

Re:huluPLUS should be huluDIFFERENT

[robot256]

If you pay for huluPLUS can you not watch hulu regular? If they both have ads, will you notice the difference? Is there something else that implies you aren't getting your money's worth?

Even netflix/crunchyroll/etc don't have all their content in HD. Crunchyroll in particular uses the same pricing model (except for no ads if you pay): A lot of things are free with ads, but only in low def, and you get new shows a week late. If you pay $7/mo you get HD for any shows they have it, new shows when they air, and *no ads*.

Re:huluPLUS should be huluDIFFERENT

[AndrewNeo]

I actually like Crunchyroll's model, and it's nice they have some apps too (iPod Touch and iPad, etc.) but unfortunately they only have a couple shows I want to watch active, and the ease of torrenting it outweighs the cost of paying.

Re:huluPLUS should be huluDIFFERENT

[robot256]

I started my subscription when they picked up Bleach. I don't follow it that religiously, but I have watched a dozen or so shows from their archive and the HD option is really nice. But like I said, I pay mostly just to support the industry, not because the service is really that valuable.

Re:huluPLUS should be huluDIFFERENT

[Sancho]

The difference is where you watch it. HuluPlus has apps for various platforms such as the PS3 and iPad. Hulu does not. Therefore you can't watch a Hulu-only show on those devices--only HuluPlus shows.

There may be some overlap, but it is not total.

Re:huluPLUS should be huluDIFFERENT

[robot256]

Ok, then that is just stupid. Why would they want to restrict Hulu-only shows from paying customers on other devices? It makes no sense.

Back to the torrents, I guess.

US Definition

[Roger W Moore]

What is the definition of all here?

It's the US definition, similar in meaning to their definition of 'world' in 'world series baseball'.

Re:US Definition

[Lunix Nutcase]

Or it's that the target audience of the story is American users of Hulu and thus it is only targeted to one group. Clearly no one in any other country uses the terms "us" or "all" to only refer to people inside their own country.

Re:US Definition

[Eric_ColonSlashSlash]

Its easy to be ms. universe with only yourself as a contestant... plus i hear the chicks in the next galaxy are hotter and more down to earth (grin)

Re:US Definition

[Gizzmonic]

It's the US definition, similar in meaning to their definition of 'world' in 'world series baseball'.

The best baseball players in the world play in Major League Baseball-whether they be American, Dominican, Japanese, Korean, etc. So what's wrong with calling it the World Series?

Re:US Definition

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, imagine that the powers that be would have the brilliant idea to rename MLS to Soccer World Series. Calling MLB "World Series" is just as moronic.

In any event, I find it hillarious because even domestically a good percentage of the population doesn't give a rats ass about boreball - I myself can't stand it, and pretty much everyone I know thinks it's meh. Outside of the US and Cuba and a few nutcases here and there, no one gives a fuck about it.

Re:US Definition

[Roger W Moore]

Last time I looked Cuba was part of this 'world' but somehow none of their teams are allowed to play despite the fact that (as I understand it knowing very little about baseball) they are supposedly better than many US teams.

If, as you claim, the best players all play in the US then what's the harm in having them compete against you. I mean a US team would win all the time right? Having a national championship is fine but calling it the world series would be like Britain calling the F.A. cup the "World Cup" in football.

Re:US Definition

[Rogerborg]

By that definition, Buttfuck Arizona could run the World Series of Baseball (Open To All People Who Move To And Play For Teams in Buttfuck Arizona).

Re:US Definition

[Missing.Matter]

Speak for yourself and where you live. I live in Philly, and Citizens Bank Park has sold out the last 123 games (since July 2009). At a capacity of 43,000, that's over 5 million people, or 3x the population of Philadelphia. This of course includes games on work days. A ballgame is a great place to spend your Friday night, and the games are usually done early enough that you can hit the bars after. Of course I understand socializing and going out are things the /. crowed are pretty averse to.

Re:US Definition

[Gizzmonic]

(as I understand it knowing very little about baseball)

Well, that's obvious. There are a ton of Cuban defectors that play in Major League Baseball. Like when a Brazilian signs with Arsenal, for example.

There's also the World Baseball Classic, which is the international competition every 4 years, very much much like the World Cup in soccer.

Having a national championship is fine but calling it the world series would be like Britain calling the F.A. cup the "World Cup" in football.

No, football is an international sport. Baseball is a regional sport, with very few exceptions. Would you object to Japan holding the world championships of Sumo? Because guess what, all the best Sumo players end up in Japan.

Re:US Definition

[AdamWeeden]

Major League Players Born in Cuba

Re:US Definition

[Gizzmonic]

No.

But, Japan could hold a World Championship of Sumo because that's where all the highest level of competition of the sport is found. Why is this hard for you to understand?

Re:US Definition

[Missing.Matter]

Like many oddities in baseball, "World Series" is simply traditional. The A.G. Spalding sporting goods company published a baseball annual, Spalding's Base Ball Guide. As an international company, they were trying to get other countries involved in baseball, and started pushing for a "World's Championship Series" involving Australia and Britain in the early 1900s. The event never happened, but as the guide was the preeminent baseball annual, fans and others in the industry started using "Word's Series" which eventually became "World Series."

So, just a tradition that stuck, not some statement about how the US is the center of the world.

Re:US Definition

[TheUnFounded]

The "world" in "world series baseball" refers to the newspaper, not the globe.

Re:US Definition

[Scrameustache]

Or it's that the target audience of the story is American users of Hulu and thus it is only targeted to one group.

How is that targeted? By putting it on the WORLD wide web? By not saying anywhere: This is only for people currently within the 50 united states of america? Or should people just do what you do: assume that for everything, the target audience is you?

Hulu has been shit talking about delivering content outside of the US since day one, and now there's a fucking misleading headline implying that this is what's going on, but it's not. It applies to you: GOOD FOR YOU, you have accomplished the achievement of being born on the right side of the borders that apply to this corporation and to stay within those borders, you must be very proud of yourself for such a feat, but don't go saying that this headline was clearly targeted only at people like you, because that's just clearly not the case.

Clearer headlines: Not asking for the moon.

Re:US Definition

[Cwix]

Check snopes.com

Re:US Definition

[Roger W Moore]

Well, that's obvious. There are a ton of Cuban defectors that play in Major League Baseball.

I might not know about baseball but I do know about english and I wrote TEAM not PLAYER which is not the same thing. Last I knew baseball was a team sport so, if you call it the World Series you need to have the best teams in the world. It might be that they are already there but if Cuban teams are excluded how would you know?

Re:US Definition

[Roger W Moore]

I said team, not player. How about a link to all the Cuban teams taking part in the World Series?

Re:US Definition

[AlamedaStone]

Citizens Bank Park has sold out

Indeed.

Re:US Definition

[AdamWeeden]

Why does it have to be a team made out of all one country? Isn't that a little nationalistic? I like the MLB's model: take the best players from the whole world and mix them into one league.

Re:US Definition

[Roger W Moore]

Who said the Cuban teams only have to have Cubans on them?

I like the MLB's model: take the best players from the whole world and mix them into one league.

...that is based in the US. Seems very nationalistic to me and I am completely unaware of any other "world" championship that has such nationalistic restrictions.

Re:US Definition

[Gizzmonic]

You conveniently ignored my points about the World Baseball Classic (which in fact does field a Cuban national team) and the regionalism of baseball a la Sumo wrestling. Is it because you don't have any good arguments? Hey, I knew that already!

Re:US Definition

[Rogerborg]

I understand what you're saying, but I have a problem with agreeing with it. I suspect your parents were finalists at the World Series of Cousin Banging.

Re:US Definition

[Gizzmonic]

World Series of Cousin Banging? Is that what they're calling coronation these days? You might want to check who's ruling your country before you make any incest jokes towards Americans, eh wot?

Re:Available to one country only, not to all

[Lunix Nutcase]

The term "available to all" is talking about it being available to all people that regular Hulu is already available to. Yes, yes, we know for the 5 millionth time that it's not available to Europe, etc etc. Do we really need to beat this dead horse in every Hulu story?

So they basically spoiled it for the masses.

[sethstorm]

Well, go figure that Hulu decided to spoil it now that the unwashed masses get a chance at it.

Hulu +/-

[tverbeek]

So if it adds some content to Just Plain Hulu, but meanwhile doesn't include all of the content from Just Plain Hulu, wouldn't that it make it "Hulu Plus Or Minus"?

Re:Hulu +/-

[jgagnon]

Welcome to fuzzy differential equations? ;)

Re:Hulu +/-

[Yvan256]

Hulu 2.0: The Search for More Money*

With apologies to Mel Brooks.

Re:Hulu +/-

[N0Man74]

wouldn't that it make it "Hulu Plus Or Minus"?

I'd say that would be more or less correct.

Re:Hulu +/-

[hansamurai]

I'm guessing what the summary means is that just because you have Hulu Plus doesn't mean all the content will be available to watch on a device other than a computer (ie. PS3).

Re:Hulu +/-

[blair1q]

Not to the comptrollers at "FOX, NBC Universal, ABC, ABC Family, Biography, Lionsgate, Endemol, MGM, MTV Networks, National Geographic, Digital Rights Group, Paramount, PBS, Sony Pictures Television, Warner Bros. and more."

To them it's all +.

Re:Hulu +/-

[Attila Dimedici]

You misunderstand. The plus is from Hulu's perspective. From the perspective of Hulu the plus is that they make additional money from this version.

Re:Hulu +/-

[anexanhume]

More or less.

Re:Hulu +/-

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hulu More or Less"

Re:In b4

[Roger W Moore]

...and what about those people in South America, Canada, Mexico, Africa, Asia, Australia etc. etc.? I'm glad you've heard of Europe as well as the US but the world is even bigger than that....

watch it on the big screen via your PS3?

[cindyann]

Well, no, but I can watch normal Hulu on my big screen TV via the computer that's connected to it.

I saw that my Sony TV already had a "Hulu Plus -- coming soon" item its set of selections.

But I don't think I'm in a big rush to to sign up for Hulu Plus. As it is I barely watch Netflix; my wife watches it more than I do.

Re:watch it on the big screen via your PS3?

[geekoid]

Your being redundant. the PS3 is a computer you hook to your TV.

Royal you. Personally I use my PS3 to stream Hulu..and just about everything else.

Re:watch it on the big screen via your PS3?

[cindyann]

Your being redundant...

No, I'm not, and that's you're or you are, and not "your"

AFAIC a PS3 is a game console, not a general purpose computer; even more so since Sony has removed the ability to boot to Linux.

With a GP computer already in place buying an overpriced game console just for Hulu Plus would be doubly redundant. Royal you using an overpriced game console.

Re:Available to one country only, not to all

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, we Americans can be pretty chauvinistic, but your examples are slightly over the top.
Even the World Series is open to Canada, and the Cold War era term "leader of the free world" for the US president was intended literally.
But what about the Miss Universe pageant?

Not Worth It Yet

[Tenshigure]

After having been a part of the beta "testing" of Hulu Plus, I feel that the limited benefits they provide don't outweigh the costs just yet. For one thing, you still are having to sit through commercials (which have increased to 2x 60-second commercials at times); combine that with the fact that a good chunk of the shows I'd want to watch from Hulu.com aren't even available through the PS3 app nor on my iPhone, and I felt I wasted the two months I spent on the service. Sure, the fact you're not limited to 5 episodes back is a good feature, but it definitely isn't worth the $15 they're asking for. I know I could pick up PlayOn for a similar experience, but it really irks me that they can't provide several of these shows through their Hulu Plus apps but are perfectly capable of having them on Hulu Desktop.

Re:Not Worth It Yet

[ArhcAngel]

Perhaps you should provide a link to PlayOn since you mentioned it. Been using PlayOn for almost two years and having HULU on my Wii/360/PS3/BD/Ipod Touch has been great. But I find I'm actually using some of the community created plug-ins even more than the baked in ones. It's not without it's gotcha's but when problems are identified the PlayOn team has been quick to patch and improve the service. Now we just need an updated DLNA protocol to improve the experience.

Re:Not Worth It Yet

[Phoobarnvaz]

Sure, the fact you're not limited to 5 episodes back is a good feature, but it definitely isn't worth the $15 they're asking for. I know I could pick up PlayOn for a similar experience, but it really irks me that they can't provide several of these shows through their Hulu Plus apps but are perfectly capable of having them on Hulu Desktop.

With TV Tuners and editing software to kill whatever commercials are in the programs you want to watch...just record whatever shows you want off the antenna/cable/satellite and take out the commercials. There you go...you have Hulu+ without their limitations or costs. If you've been doing this for years...you have complete seasons without commercials on DVD's...in AVI or H.264 with AC-3 audio. Don't even have to get a call from the ISP that I'm sucking up all the bandwidth...since you would have your own copies. Not even having to bother with torrents...unless you enjoy stuff they don't show over in the US.

Going this route..."free" Hulu is good for watching old shows/movies when you want to watch something different. For instance...saw "Lord of Illusions" and "Omen III" Halloween night for my scarefest...for free. Don't care if the movies were 15-30 years old. Would have watched the old Hammer Christopher Lee Dracula movies if they had been available.

Yep.

[name_already_taken]

It seems it still applies to the USA only. You can probably blame region-based content licensing for all these artificial limitations.

Just like how we can't pay a British TV license fee and watch iPlayer content in the USA.

This is a US-based website. A few people need to realize that and get over it.

The tagline wording could have been better - ie. "Hulu Plus no longer invitation-only", but this is Slashdot - it's not like people expect (or ever see) high journalistic standards applied here.

Re:Yep.

[Anonymous Coward]

We are over it and are using eztv.it or newsgroups instead. Then we have our Popcorn Hour, Western Digital TV Live, Samsung TV or whatever. NAS boxes with download clients etc.
It is fun(and a bit shocking) to see that there's money in getting around those artificial limitations. It is amazing to see that big companies are now making products which primary function clearly is to show (and download) stuff that you can't get on your cable TV.

Re:Yep.

[jo_ham]

Yes, but they do mention that they are trying to extend Hulu outside the US - that is the message displayed to me every time I see an embedded Hulu player on a webpage at least.

Re:Yep.

[kiddygrinder]

i doubt they're trying that hard, it's just to preempt people from bitching

Re:Yep.

[thetoadwarrior]

The difference being British people have to pay a TV licence which funds those programmes on the iplayer so despite iplayer not requiring a TV licence it still isn't commercial content. Where as Hulu's restrictions are purely greed. Hulu has (I believe one or two shows you can watch outside of the US) and I'm sure they'd love to show the programmes to even more countries but greedy people rather sell off rights to foreign stations who buy the TV rights and, from what I can tell not the internet rights so you get stuck with crap like not being able to watch south park online for ages and even now I believe you can only watch a like 5 or so episodes.

Re:Yep.

[funkatron]

US only is a bit lame. They have tubes under the oceans which hulu can use in exactly the same way as they use the tubes on the land. It even takes less effort to use them as they don't have to do checks that they're only using the right tubes.

Re:Yep.

[thetoadwarrior]

correction, I do think they have al of them now. The link I clicked only showed the current season. Still it took years for them to get here.

Re:Yep.

[puto]

I have been able to see all seasons for around three years in Colombia, which is not in the US.

Re:Yep.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a US-based website. A few people need to realize that and get over it.

And content distributors should too, so we non-US users can finally get a decent service instead of all those more-often-poor-than-not torrent rips. Come on guys, I and many other customers are practically slapping you on the face with our money, all you have to do is take it!

Re:Yep.

[AmonTheMetalhead]

Actually, i'm pretty sure getting a world-wide license is being priced outside of their budget

Re:Yep.

[thetoadwarrior]

It'll be different for each country. They've only just came to the UK. I was correct originally too in that only 5 or so episodes are available. I thought I was wrong but when I went to view some season 3 episodes it told me they're still negotiating.

Re:Available to one country only, not to all

[Anonymous Coward]

2 continents, eurofag.

Is this just one big joke?

[mrsteveman1]

I looked over the show list.....and I can't find any reason why i would want to pay for Hulu Plus, in fact I think i'd have more reason to pay for the main Hulu site than Plus, because the shows available are different. And then I remember they both have ads anyway, and neither of them have shows I actually would pay for like Showtime content or HBO stuff.

No one but the cable and satellite companies (who don't actually make the product I actually want, shows) seem to want my money, it's a shame.

iPhone App Issues

[havoc]

The iPhone app has a 1.5 star rating. It hasn't been updated in quite some time and doesn't work on [my] iPhone 3gs. It does seem to work fine on [my] iPhone 3g and [friends] iPhone 4g. It did work on the iPhone 3gs before the last update to the app though, so it is something they broke. The problem is that the video and audio is out of sync and unwatchable.

hulu = failing

[CAIMLAS]

Hulu has a number of problems right now which, I imagine, probably translate over to their paid subscriptions:

* Poor performance due to Flash. The latest versions of Flash have caused nothing but problems for us at home - surprisingly, worse on Windows than on Linux. We'll occasionally have to restart the browser 1-3 times throughout a show due to dropped frames and choppiness resulting from Flash leakages and the like.
* Ads. They're not only getting more obnoxious but they're getting longer and more frequent. (That one about the 'skittles tree-boy' has to be the most offensive, disturbing ad I've ever seen.)
* Decreasing content. A lot of what used to be there, is no longer (BSG). No, I don't care if I can watch a show's latest 5 episodes: character development is important to me. If I can't watch the beginning of a season (particularly if it's a drama), I'm going to skip the show.

Add in the lack of the downsides, and I don't see the benefit. Maybe for $1-5, but certainly not for $10/mo.

Re:hulu = failing

[Nemesisghost]

I completely agree. But will add something to your list. Hulu delay times. When Hulu 1st came out most shows had a 24h delay. Which was fine, because usually if you couldn't watch a show when it aired, you probably couldn't watch it the rest of that night anyways. Then they went to the 7d delay, which was annoying, but livable. If I missed the original airing of a show I could watch it just before the next episode, no harm no foul. Now most will have 8d delays, some even have up to a 2 month delay. Add in the fact that you can only watch the past 3-5 episodes of any show, and now you are back to watching it when it airs on TV, recording it or torrenting it(which can remove all ads), buying it when the next season comes out, watching it exclusively on Hulu, or not watching it at all. I know several people who have taken to that last route just because of all the BS that the TV Execs have decided.

Now I would pay for Hulu+ if it meant that I'd get ALL their shows within 24h of the original broadcast and have access to every episode from the current season. Beyond that, I'll stick with Netflix & my DVR+MythTV.

Re:hulu = failing

[Anonymous Coward]

There have been rumors flying around that it'll soon be cut in half, so $4.99 per month. Then again, you know how rumors are...

Re:hulu = failing

[Scrameustache]

Poor performance due to Flash.

I'm pretty sure flash is just a DRM delivery method.

Re:hulu = failing

[geekoid]

I don't have a problem using Hulu. They only time I ever remember it uses Flash is when it make me upgrade.

There ads are 15 seconds or less, unless you opt to watch one longer one at the beginning. And that skittles ad is disturbing, but it's also been on TV. At least there starting to get variety, and the ad where you enter your name and it uses it was cute. Next up, it will take a picture with your web cam and insert you into the commercial. Also kind of neat.

Yeah, not having access to the entire series is pretty annoying.

Why would anyone pay for this

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Firstly, I'm not paying for ads. Period. That's the reason why I ditched my TV too.

Secondly, I like documentaries, British comedy and things like the Daily Show or South Park (well, at least when SP was good). There is plenty of all that for free on Youtube and the kajillion video-hosting clones out there, especially on Chinese video sites that don't give a flying fuck about US copyrights. All my TV needs are fulfilled by the internet already.

For older movies or shows, there's emule or bittorrent, and I don't even feel bad about using them because older movies are difficult to get hold of. Try to get Nash Bridges episodes legally to see what I mean. For newer movies, the local movie rental store is good too, and there's always swapping with friends and neighbors.

So why would I pay for Hulu or any other pay site?

Re:Why would anyone pay for this

[Lunix Nutcase]

and I don't even feel bad about using them because older movies are difficult to get hold of. Try to get Nash Bridges episodes legally to see what I mean.

Yeah it was so hard that it took all of 2 seconds searching on Amazon to find: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddvd&field-keywords=nash+bridges&x=0&y=0

Wait, what was your point?

Re:Why would anyone pay for this

[h4rr4r]

Netflix has the DVDs. For $9 a month they will deliver them to your door, and let you use their streaming service.

Re:Why would anyone pay for this

[Anonymous Coward]

He meant legally, that includes region locks.

Re:Why would anyone pay for this

[Swanktastic]

For-Pay Hulu's obviously not right for you. I don't really agree with your assumption that it's therefore good for no one.

There is a reason why market research people spend a lot of money doing random samples instead of just coming to slashdot, reading the comments, and calling it a day.

Re:Why would anyone pay for this

[robot256]

The only streaming site I pay is Crunchyroll.com, because it gives no ads to paying customers and is the only place I can legally pay for anime without buying overpriced DVDs. Of course their selection is kinda limited, but I like to think it makes up a little for all the stuff I torrent.

So, the only reason to pay is if you legitimately want to contribute to the production company through a non-evil distributor. Ads for paying customers automatically make them evil.

Re:Why would anyone pay for this

[theCoder]

AFAIK, you cannot stream netflix if you run Linux, which is the biggest reason why I personally do not subscribe to their service.

At $1/movie, RedBox has provided me with a good source of recent movies.

Re:Why would anyone pay for this

[geekoid]

Unless you buy absolutely nothing, every, you are paying for advertising. stop kidding yourself.

Your argument boils down to: I would rather get illegally distributed content then pay? well then just say so don't pretend to hide behind some self delusion about ads.

Nash bridges is an enjoyable show.
Can't find Nash Bridges? here let me help you out:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=nash+bridges&x=0&y=0

You can blame Don Johnson for it's lack of availability through Hulu. Old jerk.

Re:Why would anyone pay for this

[Anonymous Coward]

> biggest reason why I personally do not subscribe to their service.

Did you let them know?

If not, you should.

Re:Why would anyone pay for this

[samwichse]

This.

It did work at one time, but no more. Thanks Silvercrap.

So In Other Words....

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Based on the reading of the summary (I don't care enough about Hulu to RTFA), it sounds like this is just another case of someone taking something good....and making it worse. This brings back memories of pre-ad Pandora, pre-ad Disney channel, Halo before the days of weapon loadouts, and cars before the days of electronic locks that fault for no apparent damn reason and leave you with one door incapable of opening.... *sigh*

Context

[Roger W Moore]

Or it's that the target audience of the story is American users of Hulu

If the story was posted on a Hulu user site that might be excusable. Using 'us', if the writer was from the US, would be imprecise but not wrong. Were I posting on a site specifically linked to one country then yes, use of 'all' to mean 'all in that country' would be fine too. However using 'all' on an internationally read site to mean "only US" is just wrong. This site is supposed to be "News for nerds. Stuff that matters" not "News for US nerds. Stuff that matters to americans." If it were I would not be reading it.

Re:Context

[paintballer1087]

Slashdot seems to be very U.S.-centric. Do you have any plans to be more international in your scope?

Slashdot is U.S.-centric. We readily admit this, and really don't see it as a problem. Slashdot is run by Americans, after all, and the vast majority of our readership is in the U.S. We're certainly not opposed to doing more international stories, but we don't have any formal plans for making that happen. All we can really tell you is that if you're outside the U.S. and you have news, submit it, and if it looks interesting, we'll post it.

FAQ By CmdrTaco

Re:Context

[BStroms]

But it is available to all. Sure you have to at least visit the US if you want to use it, but they won't stop you from using it just because you aren't a US citizen. But more seriously, I read British news sites such as The BBC and The Guardian. Just because people from other countries read it, doesn't mean it isn't allowed to be country specific. That said, as much as I usually dislike the complaining on this topic, in this specific case I feel some sympathy to your cause, as the summary really could cause confusion.

Re:Context

[Roger W Moore]

Since when did "US-centric" mean "US-only"?

Re:Context

[Roger W Moore]

The story was only aimed at current users of Hulu.

Really? How from the headline "Hulu Plus Now Available To All — But Be Warned" did you figure that? You see, as someone not in the US this suggested that, while Hulu itself was US limited, that perhaps when paying for content the license to distribute might allow international use since real money is involved so rights owners would be being recompensed.

Using 'us', if the writer was from the US, would be imprecise but not wrong.

Why would it be wrong?

not: negation of a word or group of words as in "not wrong"

So then you equally whine about stories that are only relevant to people in the UK?...

You are missing the point. It is not the relevance at issue, it is the assumption that 'all' means just the US which is an attitude sadly only too common in the US.

Re:Context

[BobMcD]

Since when did "US-centric" mean "US-only"?

It would seem fair that 'US-centric' allows for statements that globally apply inside the US, but not outside it. A 'US-centric' site might say something like 'everyone eats at McDonalds', even while this is patently untrue in, say, Antarctica or on Mars. But it is indeed true in the US.

Besides, it isn't as if slashdot saying something would somehow bind hulu into offering you service overseas - which I assume is what you're REALLY after. Otherwise you'd be making quite a lot about almost nothing, and would be doing so to a largely unsympathetic audience. Right?

Re:Context

[blind monkey 3]

Using 'us', if the writer was from the US, would be imprecise but not wrong.
Why would it be wrong? People use the term "us" and phrases like "all of us" all the time to refer to only certain groups of people. And, yes, this is even done by people *gasp* outside of the U.S.

I believe he is saying it is NOT wrong,

So then you equally whine about stories that are only relevant to people in the UK? Or in Germany? Or in Japan? I can find numerous such stories and I doubt I will see you whining about them.

I have not seen stories from other countries that talk as if it is about the entire world when it is only about their country but I'm with you there (citation please) - if they do, people should complain long and hard about that too, it is very misleading and annoying.
Hulu Plus to all meant I could look at Hulu Plus for me (I'm from Australia). Sadly, it seems I am not all.

Re:Context

[badboy_tw2002]

You know why? Because its the mother fuckin' US OF A baby, and if you don't like it you can leave it, and if you've left it, never come back. And if you never were here, don't bother coming because you won't want to leave and then I'm going to have to drop a 2000lb (not gay ass kilowatts or whatever you use, POUNDS, get used to it) 2000lb MoaB and send you back to whatever commie socialist state you might come from. Its not "us" as "you and me" its "us" as in US as in United States as in the best country ever to have existed because mother fuckin Jesus and George Washington said so. If its the "World Series" its because we're hosting the best team in the world. If its freedom and justice for ALL its for all the people that matter, as in the people that live sea to shining sea and not in Mexico or Northern Mexico. AMMMMMERRICA, FUCK YEAH!

Or was that not the response you were trying to provoke? You're trolling, but half the people in this thread weren't. This isn't new, it's not changing, deal. I'm pretty sure if I posted on a British site that said "BBC online out of beta and available for all" I'd glue two neurons together and get that they weren't talking about people from the US or Mongolia or wherever. Yes the internet is global, but content still resides inside borders, and that means its generally directed at a specific culture or group.

Re:Context

[Roger W Moore]

Or was that not the response you were trying to provoke?

No, I was simply trying to remind those in the US that they are actually part of a larger world and that larger world might actually be very interested in a service like Hulu and then get annoyed when they find it is still not available to them.

...said "BBC online out of beta and available for all" I'd glue two neurons together and get that they weren't talking about people from the US or Mongolia or wherever.

It helps if you use functioning neurons: the BBC has a world service and even special channels for certain regions of the world like BBC America.

Re:Context

[Roger W Moore]

The major part of the annoyance is that Hulu would be a really nice service to be able to access from elsewhere since in many places there is no decent internet TV service. So it is particularly annoying to have your hopes raised and then dashed.

Re:Context

[AltairDusk]

While the headline is poorly worded there is some context, Slashdot openly admits to being US centric.

Re:Context

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my god, you are such a baby. Just stop your whining. It's an embarrassment.

Re:Context

[Anonymous Coward]

Acting like a whiny, condescending jackhole on an Internet site will surely remind American how we have wronged the rest of the world. Mountains for nerds. Molehills that matter.

Re:Context

[Scrameustache]

the assumption that 'all' means just the US which is an attitude sadly only too common in the US.

Not only common, but also denied and defended, as paradoxical as that is.

Re:Context

[Scrameustache]

it is particularly annoying to have your hopes raised and then dashed.

Which is why it should be common courtesy to link directly to hulu; or failing that to warn that the content is embedded-hulu when posting a "this is a really cool video that we all want to see" link.
Ok, in a perfect world all the Fox executives would be killed by the shock of a sudden attack of self-awareness, but failing that, courtesy would be nice

Re:Context

[badboy_tw2002]

Thanks for reminding us! And we're the arrogant ones.

Also, please note that Hulu is not a national project that every American is involved in. I'm sure it'd be cool for you to watch Friends reruns but as a random American I'm not really in control of that, sorry.

Re:Context

[Anonymous Coward]

Acting like a whiny, condescending jackhole on an Internet site...

Well if you are trying to communicate with someone you have to use language they are used to.

Re:Context

[Anonymous Coward]

Zing?

Re:Context

[evilviper]

it is the assumption that 'all' means just the US which is an attitude sadly only too common in the US.

Bull. In this context, they're explaining it's not a closed trial anymore. It's most certainly not necessary for every 5-word headline to be completely accurate. And your assumption that the paid hulu might be different is just that, and that a single mis-placed word gets your hopes up is not anybody's fault but your own...

No, the headline didn't cater to you. It didn't explain the particular detail you were anxious to hear about. Neither did it conflate the US with the entire world, or specifically state something that was untrue.

And I'd just like to say, I'd be willing to bet there's more Americans who can point out France on a map, than Europeans who can point out New Jersey.

Re:Context

[Eivind Eklund]

*yawn* The story was only aimed at current users of Hulu. Since one has to be in the U.S. to use Hulu it is quite clear to anyone but people trying to be intentionally dense or are just plain stupid that the "available to all" was only aimed at people who can use Hulu which means only people in the U.S.

You're clearly classifying me as "obviously stupid", since my first thought was that "Hulu has finally managed to strike some kind of international deal" when I read "Hulu [something I've never heard of] now available to all". For somebody that's not particularly into what the details of Hulu/Hulu Plus/whatever (as Hulu hasn't been available where I've been located), this is a fairly obvious interpretation.

Eivind.

Re:Context

[Eivind Eklund]

France has 65 million inhabitants, New Jersey has 8 million. Then, even compared to size, France is culturally much more important than New Jersey.

It's a fairly uninteresting comparison. (Oh, and I can point out New Jersey on a map, and I'm not from the US.)

Re:Context

[greyhueofdoubt]

the BBC has a world service and even special channels for certain regions of the world like BBC America.

And the BBC's web player doesn't work for US viewers. Doesn't Britain know that it's part of a larger world that might be interested in such a service?

Or maybe it's foolish to harangue slashdot users over the policies of a company they have no control over.

Re:Context

[John Hasler]

A 'US-centric' site might say something like 'everyone eats at McDonalds', even while this is patently untrue in, say, Antarctica or on Mars. But it is indeed true in the US.

No it isn't.

Open to everyone

[slasho81]

Open to everyone in the United States, that is.

Re:Open to everyone

[Lunix Nutcase]

Duh. The story's target audience is Americans.

Re:Open to everyone

[blair1q]

Everyone else is collateral incitement.

Because we live in Amerika.

[Lead Butthead]

Why do you guys want to pay for this?

Because we live in Amerika, where politicians are bought and paid for by the big media companies. Unlike European countries (yeah, I am making a gross generalization here) where your politicians at least make an half-hearted attempt to protect your rights. Ours sold them at firesale prices to the content companies. So we're to either pay up or face insane fines and/or jail terms.

Re:Because we live in Amerika.

[santax]

Make no mistakes. Our politicians are at least the bitches yours are ;)

Re:Because we live in Amerika.

[cheekyjohnson]

"So we're to either pay up or face insane fines and/or jail terms."

Not really. Again, the only people who seem to get caught are those who are technologically inept. I mean, sure, they get hit with insane fines and/or jail terms, but if you're not like them, the chances of you getting caught for such a harmless action are slim to none.

Re:Because we live in Amerika.

[BobMcD]

...your politicians at least make an half-hearted attempt to protect your rights. Ours sold them at firesale prices to the content companies. So we're to either pay up or face insane fines and/or jail terms.

So we have a RIGHT to use someone else's content without their consent?

I can see having the right to copy something you paid for, but the right to just take for free whatever you wish doesn't seem to be a tenable position.

Re:Because we live in Amerika.

[Anonymous Coward]

Our rights aren't whitelisted. We have the right to do as we please as long as we don't hurt anyone else. If I am not in any way hurting an artist by listening to a recording of his song, why would I need his permission to do so? Yes, I really do think that if I read a funny joke online, I can tell it to my friends tomorrow without mailing the original author to see if he wishes to allow me to do that or not. I really do think that if you reply with some clever argument, I can share the argument with other people without requesting your permission to do so.

Now... You can argue that if we, as a society, don't enforce IP rights strongly enough, people won't produce more IP. I might or might not agree but that purely practical issue doesn't really have anything to do with ethics.

Re:Because we live in Amerika.

[BobMcD]

Our rights aren't whitelisted. We have the right to do as we please as long as we don't hurt anyone else. If I am not in any way hurting an artist by listening to a recording of his song, why would I need his permission to do so? Yes, I really do think that if I read a funny joke online, I can tell it to my friends tomorrow without mailing the original author to see if he wishes to allow me to do that or not. I really do think that if you reply with some clever argument, I can share the argument with other people without requesting your permission to do so.

Now... You can argue that if we, as a society, don't enforce IP rights strongly enough, people won't produce more IP. I might or might not agree but that purely practical issue doesn't really have anything to do with ethics.

I understand your position, but so long as we have any ownership of creative output, these kinds of things need to be respected.

If you want to create your own material and release it without restriction, you're absolutely free to do so.

Anyway, what you're going for is a comparison of harm versus control. Does the music maker have more or less control when there's no harm done? Certainly a woman has the right to not be raped, but what about the right to not be dry humped? Has any harm actually come to her in this way?

I think society sides with the permission angle more often than not.

Give up the past

[mkw87]

Why can't content providers innovate? Technology has come so far in the past 20+ years, and they've fought it tooth and nail. Instead of continuing to fight it, innovate by coming up with new delivery methods, and in the process figure out new ways to make money. A la carte, pay per show per season, instant movie rental, these are all simple ideas. I'm sure someone getting paid as part of their job can come up with some more creative things.

Re:Give up the past

[prestonmichaelh]

A la carte, pay per show per season, instant movie rental...

These are all available. Buy a Roku Box for $60 and you have all the things you mentioned between Netflix and Amazon VOD. With Netflix, you have a $9 a month subscription fee with "instant movie rental" of whatever you want.

With Amazon VOD you have a la carte (just get one episode of a TV show, one movie, etc), pay per show per season (most TV shows are between $1 USD - $3 USD per episode, or you can get a discount for buying the whole season), and instant movie rental (pick your movie, pay a reduced fee, "rent" it for 24-48 hours, depending on the movie). Most things come in SD and HD with no commercials.

Its out there.

Re:Give up the past

[mkw87]

I have Netflix, I don't subscribe to basic cable. I'm aware of the offerings out there now. However, they are either overpriced or not 'nicely packaged'. Netflix is awesome on the 360. I use it almost every day between my wife and me watching shows/movies or my daughter watching kids shows. I know there's alternatives to cable out there. I'm saying that the ones clutching the archaic delivery methods need to embrace technology and use it to better their service. Imagine if they didn't piss and moan about 'local markets' and all the problems advertising brings to the table. We could have some truly great entertainment delivered to our home on demand. Live events, pre-recorded, etc. It's all hindered bc everyone wants to get their dime.

Re:In b4

[WilyCoder]

Always easy to spot the alcoholics on the internet.

I Don't See It In The Android Market

[ThisOrThat]

Ok, I know they did not say it was available for Android devices, but I figured I'd look none the less. As it's not there this is of little interest to me... I guess it's just time to stop watching TV any ways. :-)

Re:I Don't See It In The Android Market

[Anonymous Coward]

My only HDMI devices run Android. I can't even watch normal Hulu on them.

Re:What? Pay for TV online???

[BobMcD]

The whole point of watching TV online is to NOT pay for it.

Bzzzt. Wrong. The whole point of paying to watch TV online is not having to manage your own DVR. When you can get everything you want directly online without having to worry about cats and/or baseball games (or viruses, etc), why not plunk down a few extra dollars? Time saved is money earned.

What are you paying for?

[hawguy]

I (naively) though Hulu plus was going to be ad-free. Since it's still got ads, what is the point? What are you paying for? The ability to watch TV on your playstation? Even though you can already watch Hulu for free on your PC? That makes no sense - if they want ad revenue they should be pushing it out to every device imaginable.

When I heard about the upcoming Hulu Plus release I decided to give the regular Hulu a try for the first time. What a disappointment, I tried to watch the first episode of Hawaii-Five-Oh to see what it was like, but I guess it was too late to still see the series premier, as they only went back as far as episode 3. (don't ask me why they wouldn't have all episodes of a brand new show)

So I started watching episode 3 and it hung my browser. I restarted my browser and was able to watch to the second commercial, then the screen dimmed and a message appeared on the top of the playback window saying something like "your browser must allow ads to view this content", though the show continued playing, just dimmer. Conveniently, ads continued to play at full brightness and played just fine, but the show itself was dimmed out, so I continued to watch.

Then I paused it for 30 minutes to take a phone call and when I came back, it seemed to have timed out and I had to start over. Trying to skip back to where I left off made me sit through more ads - the same ones I had already seen.

So I gave up - I'll wait 'till it's available on Netflix. Or not. But I'm definitely not going to pay money for Hulu Plus after that experience.

Re:What are you paying for?

[tepples]

(don't ask me why they wouldn't have all episodes of a brand new show)

Contracts for repeats of first-run television are structured this way so as not to compete with DVD season sales.

What are you paying for? The ability to watch TV on your playstation? Even though you can already watch Hulu for free on your PC?

In most households with a PLAYSTATION 3 console and a Windows PC, the PS3 has a much bigger monitor, allowing multiple household members to watch at once.

I'll wait 'till it's available on Netflix.

And have all the plot twists spoiled around the water cooler at work.

They are paying to have cable

[Sycraft-fu]

People understand the idea of paying to get a service. You pay the cable company to get cable TV. For that you are a stupendous amount of channels that they deliver. However the programs themselves are separate, those require ads. Fine. When you buy an addon though, that is no ads. So you buy HBO. Those channels cost extra. Fine, you are paying to have no ads. It is a cost separate from the service.

Well now things are on the Internet. Again, people are ok with paying for the Internet. You pay the cable company, they give you Internet. Wonderful. However the content on the Internet is different, some of it has ads. Also fine. Then you have some pay for services on the Internet, like Netflix. Costs money, instead of ads. Also good.

This falls in the new category of "You have to pay for it on top of your service AND get ads." I don't think it is going to fly, particularly not given that there are alternatives. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

Re:They are paying to have cable

[hedwards]

I think you're correct. The problem is that while the cost might increase the selection or minimize the amount of ads, you don't see that. All you see is the cost and the ads. The consumer can be forgiven for assuming that this is another one of those cases where somebody is taking an extra cut at the consumer's expense.

Re:They are paying to have cable

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite. The cable companies pay for the programs that they show, so ads for these "separate" programs are not necessary. Ad space on cable is sold by the cable companies, who are the same people who collect your monthly payments as well. In my book, the cable companies are 'double-dipping' by collecting from ad revenues AND subscription fees from you. Count me as one of those people who won't play (or pay) that game; I canceled my subscription to DirectTV a few years ago. I remember when cable was young and virtually all shows, channels, and programming were commercial-free because we PAID to see it, so we could see it without commercials. Cable was touted for better picture quality, and for skipping commercials. No more; now you pay to see it and cable providers also collect ad fees. I enjoyed DirectTV very much and miss some of the channels and shows, but I grew weary of sending that money every month while watching commercial after commercial after commercial... ad infinitum. Now I spend more time with my family and hobbies. And get more exercise.

Re:They are paying to have cable

[StikyPad]

For that you are a stupendous

Oh yeah? Well, you're a... pianist.

Re:They are paying to have cable

[index0]

You might be wrong about the amount of people willing to pay for a service and still view ads. Take Xbox Live online service. You have you pay your isp to get online, then pay MS to play your games online, and you get to view ads on your xbox.

Re:They are paying to have cable

[Anonymous Coward]

What crap!

When you pay for cable the channels are paid for, otherwise you'd have options to choose which channels to receive and then the cable tv subscription would only be the "tube"providing the content.

Re:They are paying to have cable

[geekoid]

what if the service is 1/4 the price of cable?

Re:They are paying to have cable

[Scroatzilla]

Everyone seems to be missing the picture. 100% on Demand, all the time, is what we're shooting for here. DVR-- okay, but that's just the stepping stone for On Demand All the Time.

I canceled my Comcast (er, Xfinity??) subscription 7 months ago and have not looked back. In fact, I watch more "TV" than ever through my Roku box, simply because I have many more choices at my fingertips 24/7. Not to mention that I'm paying 50% of the price (yes, including my bandwidth costs).

Of note is that I have an 11-year-old daughter, whose initial groans about ditching cable tv have been replaced by the complete delight she experiences discovering that her favorite movies and tv shows are already available on Netflix; and she is also discovering classic TV such as the Adams family and Ren & Stimpy and lots of other great stuff.

With this Hulu offering (which will only get better over time), the existing "gaps" in programming will become completely irrelevant (although they are already irrelevant to me personally). Not to mention Pandora Radio, which is available free through the Roku, out of the box.

PLUS-- I have a little USB ATSC tuner with DVR software, which records my network shows off of the air in full HD including Dolby 5.1 soundtrack. Remember that digital switchover? It worked! And the picture is way better than what my Comcast picture was.

Currently, this costs me 75 USD/month, which includes a kick-ass 4G internet service with unlimited bandwidth usage, VOIP, Netflix, and now Hulu. Considering that I was paying twice that much with Comcast, without any pay channels nor HD (which I'm not even sure why they were trying to charge me extra for) nor DVR, I'm more than satisfied.

Just thought I'd weigh in with my experience. I'm not a typical TV-addicted American; or, I didn't used to be.

Re:They are paying to have cable

[bhiestand]

People understand the idea of paying to get a service. You pay the cable company to get cable TV. For that you are a stupendous amount of channels that they deliver. However the programs themselves are separate, those require ads. Fine. When you buy an addon though, that is no ads. So you buy HBO. Those channels cost extra. Fine, you are paying to have no ads. It is a cost separate from the service.

Well now things are on the Internet. Again, people are ok with paying for the Internet. You pay the cable company, they give you Internet. Wonderful. However the content on the Internet is different, some of it has ads. Also fine. Then you have some pay for services on the Internet, like Netflix. Costs money, instead of ads. Also good.

This falls in the new category of "You have to pay for it on top of your service AND get ads." I don't think it is going to fly, particularly not given that there are alternatives. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

I don't think it'll fly, either, but not because of the ads. People pay all the time for ad-filled TV channels: Comedy Central, AMC, National Geographic, all the others that may not come with a basic cable subscription.

I'm not a fan of that, but people seem to have no problem doing it.

That said, I have no idea why I would pay $10/month for hulu, knowing that I am getting an inferior and artificially-restricted service. I can get higher quality video delivered faster via torrent, and I can get it without commercials and with an easy method of overlaying subtitles. Other than the legality, why would anyone choose hulu instead?

Just give me the damned $10/month license and let me acquire the TV shows however I want. If you turn the volume down in the commercials, I might actually voluntarily watch a few of them.

Re:In b4

[Yvan256]

Why am I always without mod points when I need them? +1 funny to you, sir.

Re:Available to one country only, not to all

[Yvan256]

what about the Miss Universe pageant?

You don't want to know how pissed the alpha centauriettes really are.

Re:Available to one country only, not to all

[BobMcD]

Great enough of a country to have brought you the internet, your PC, your OS, and not the least of which, slashdot itself.

We're noteworthy. We can be proud of that. You can too, you know. No need to get all negative about a silly Hulu story.

I tried it in the invitation phase

[netsavior]

I do not have dish, cable or over the air TV, my living room LCD is connected to a computer, which plays DVDs, blew-Ray disks, ripped movies, old Tivo recordings from when I had cable, netflix, hulu, and occasionally CBS.com's craptacular website.

Apparently Hulu plus is not made for me at all.

Logging in and out of the plus account to watch different shows, seeing that there was NOT ONE SINGLE THING that was on hulu plus that I wanted but could not get from Hulu or Netflix was really annoying.

I had signed up for support for other devices, but since it really didn't add anything, I dropped it after one annoying month.

I guess it is just a geek thing, but imo if you want your TV to do something that your computer can do, just connect your computer to your TV, it isn't that hard, you don't even really need a special cable nowadays as many comps come with hdmi ports. (My "TV" computer us a $150 cheapo machine that does the job just fine.)

Re:I tried it in the invitation phase

[tepples]

imo if you want your TV to do something that your computer can do, just connect your computer to your TV, it isn't that hard

The majority don't even know that it's possible because the major PC makers have failed to adequately promote the Media Center features of Windows Home Premium. To everyone who's not a geek, computers are computers, and TV appliances are TV appliances, and never the twain shall meet.

PS: I have a mini PC directly hooked up to my big

[Eric_ColonSlashSlash]

PS: I use firefox from a mini-pc: www{DOT} littlepc{DOT} com{SLASH} products_DuoCorelittlepc_625fanless{DOT} htm

I use a solid state drive in a fanless PC with absolutley no noise and hdmi out
This works better than a laptop because there is no confusion between the possible monitors it can send signal to.

Plus this pc is quiet and runs cool. trial and error on my part - so there you go.

Re:Available to one country only, not to all

[Xtifr]

A country that likes to call itself by the name of a continent

What continent is that? I'm aware of a continent called "North America", and another called "South America", and together they're called "The Americas" (note plural), but I'm not aware of any physical location that's named or referred to as just "America", other than the US. The rest of your post I agree with, but that whole continent nonsense just bugs me. America has enough real problems that we don't need to make crap up to complain about.

Not quite available to all

[Anonymous Coward]

...here in Canada, I got the pop up.

Meh, Netflix is working just fine, but thanks Hulu. Too little, too late!

Re:Not quite available to all

[Yvan256]

Netflix Canada may be working just fine, but their selection is so poor at the moment that it's not even worth bothering with it.

Waste of Time Plus

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I'm just getting old, but I've come to realize that TV, by any means, is just an utter waste of time.

Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

Costs more than Netflix, has commercials, doesn't have near the selection. Is the only bonus current-run seasons of TV shows? If so not at all worth it, I'll just continue downloading those from rlslog/scnsrc.

catch up with the times

[Anonymous Coward]

The bigger part of the story http:blog.hulu.com/2010/11/04/more-content-more-devices/ is that you don't need to deal with getting a PC hooked up and you don't need to open a browser ever time you watch anymore.

Now you can just push the button on your TV's remote control and pick the show you want to watch. Dealing with a PC and its web browser to watch streaming video is so 00's.

i am a consumar!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a consumar! I looooove consuming connntent!

Plus My DVR?

[Doc Ruby]

don't assume that paying $10 gets you out of viewing ads like it does on Netflix — and there's no way to skip them.

Can't I receive Hulu video to my own player app, and then fast forward past the commercials using my own app's controls? If there's some kind of "mandatory advertising" lockout in the video data, isn't there a player that ignores it? Or at least a player that can play the video format which is open source, which I can change myself to execute the way I want - fast forward whenever I want it?

I hope it's the last option. Then I'd like to see the hamfisted content providers charge for mandatory ads that can be skipped in open source players, and a database collected by users of what timeframes to skip. If they're going to abuse their power, I want to see it thrown back in their faces, or rather right at their moneybelts where it really hurts.

Selection?

[bmalnad]

The selection is horrible. I'm sure they're dealing with different licensing restrictions for every show, but this is ridiculous. If they want people to drop cable/satellite for this, they need to have the shows people want. There aren't any kid shows at all (Nick, Disney, etc.). Some of the more popular shows currently on TV aren't there either (Fringe!), but are available on free hulu. WHY?

Hulu for all my ass

[ThePeices]

What stupid definition of "all" are the Slashdot editors using here? It looks like the American definition of all, meaning US only.

I mean, WTF? this is the bloody internet for dogs sake, there are more countries in the world than the US! A large percentage of slashdot readers are not in the US. You would think they would realize that Slashdot has a worldwide audience.

And after reading the article, it looks like the Americans are paying for something they shouldnt, like ads.

In my country, we get this service for free from all major tv networks. Even on the PS3 it is free. It has ads too, but who cares, its free.

Re:Available to one country only, not to all

[Chninkel]

A country that likes to call itself by the name of a continent

What continent is that? I'm aware of a continent called "North America", and another called "South America", and together they're called "The Americas" (note plural), but I'm not aware of any physical location that's named or referred to as just "America", other than the US. The rest of your post I agree with, but that whole continent nonsense just bugs me. America has enough real problems that we don't need to make crap up to complain about.

Not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas North and South America are sometime called sub-continents but there is only one continent which indeed is called The Americas (or the American continent).

I agree with you though that when one says "America" I generally assume that he's talking about the US (except in very specific contexts). (and all the same in French).

NB: There was (is ?) a several-years-long debate on the French Wikipedia about this very topic where some grammar zealots wanted people to use "étatsuniens" (unitedstatians ?) instead of "americans" even though almost no-one was actually using it in real life ...

Instant Gratification

[Anonymous Coward]

With hulu/netflix you click on the episode/movie and it just starts playing. There is no complication, and it generally works and works well.

US citizens do not want to wait even 5 minutes for a movie to download. They want it NOW, and that is what matters the most in the end.

After all, movies and tv shows are nothing but a service. Whoever, provides the best service wins. You have rss/bit torrent in one corner, which is nice and free. Or in another corner you can dish out little to nothing and get instant gratification with no geeky complications. People are willing to pay a little bit of money for that.

To "all", really.

[Arancaytar]

Does "all" include such quaint little places as "outside the US"?

All is not what it used to be

[houghi]

Apparently the "All" in the subject is like the "World Series" or "Miss Universe" where the location is basically not like anything the title might imply.

I am not able to select a country when I want to subscribe, When I go to the Terms of use, I get a popup that tells me "Sorry, currently our video library can only be streamed from within the United States" so I would not call this "All".

Re:Available to one country only, not to all

[Scrameustache]

Yes, we Americans can be pretty chauvinistic, but your examples are slightly over the top.
Even the World Series is open to Canada

You let Canada in your World series? Why, you're right, I was over the top to mention it as a US-centric example, then.

*sigh*

Re:Available to one country only, not to all

[Scrameustache]

I'm not aware of any physical location that's named or referred to as just "America", other than the US.

Ignorance is bliss.

PlayStation Plus + Hulu Plus + Netflix = CheaperTV

[Anonymous Coward]

Broadband Internet: $19.00 per month

PlayStation Plus: ~$4 to $6 per month (depending on subscription plan)

Hulu Plus: $9.99 per month

Netflix: free when you trade access to your Hulu Plus for access to your friend's Netflix account

That plus piracy rounds out my media preferences.

And it's cheaper than basic cable.

Re:Available to one country only, not to all

[Scrameustache]

We're noteworthy. We can be proud of that.

Nice rationalization. Very soothing, it must let you ignore reality in peaceful tranquility.

article is spam

[Anonymous Coward]

This article is spam. Not everyone has $10 or wants to pay.

Re:Available to one country only, not to all

[BobMcD]

Excellent rebuttal. Your value as a discussion partner is clearly illustrated.

Unit confusion

[mister_playboy]

I have a steady 5 Megabytes per second here.

The first time you mentioned "5mb" and now you say "5 Megabytes". There are 8 Megabits (Mb) in 1 Megabyte (MB).

If you are downloading at 5 MB/s, you have a 40Mb/s download capacity.

Re:Unit confusion

[santax]

Ah sorry mate, I come from the time that you had 360kb floppies. You would call those 360kb or single sided floppies. Later we got doubles sided, 1.44Mb You would call that doublesided or 1.4 megabyte. I know this isnt your fault but mine, but I never got adopted to the way they sell internet. I know I have 5Mb per second because I can tell in my torrents. They come in at 5000kb/s. My bad, but I hope it's clear now. It's 5 megabyte per second. And if that makes 40mbps that's fine with me :)

More content

[nine-times]

People keep talking about the problem of having to pay a subscription while still watching ads, and I think that's a fair complaint, but it's not what really really bothers me. To my mind, the much bigger problem is that they still are missing tons of content. Looking at the list of shows available on Hulu Plus for the current season, I only see... something like 6 shows that I'd watch. Looking at the stuff that's not from the current season, there are a handful more, but it's still hardly a comprehensive library.

So ultimately this is not a service which competes with cable TV, but a service that competes with Netflix. That's all well and good, but I already have Netflix, and for about the same price as Hulu Plus, I get a bigger catalog (especially if you include everything that you can get on DVD).

So while it's bad enough to expect people to pay *and* watch ads, what puts it over the edge for me is that I still won't be able to watch whatever I want. To get a comprehensive set of the newest seasons of TV shows, I'll need to still go to my computer to watch things on Hulu or buy the season on iTunes or Amazon. And the reason you're not seeing a comprehensive catalog available on set-top boxes is because the media conglomerates don't want Internet services to compete with cable TV. They'd like to push us into paying for cable TV *and* Hulu while at the same time collecting ad revenue from both distribution channels.

Give it a rest

[mister_playboy]

I mean, WTF? this is the bloody internet for dogs sake, there are more countries in the world than the US! A large percentage of slashdot readers are not in the US. You would think they would realize that Slashdot has a worldwide audience.

You would think it all the time you've been on /., you would have bothered to read the FAQ at least once.

Re:PlayStation Plus + Hulu Plus + Netflix = Cheape

[metrometro]

I'd love to get broadband Internet for $20. I don't see that happening soon.

Re:Available to one country only, not to all

[Scrameustache]

Excellent rebuttal. Your value as a discussion partner is clearly illustrated.

I don't think it showed the full extent of my utter contempt, no.

*sigh*

[AmonTheMetalhead]

Still US only....

How is T-Mobile "less for more money"?

[tepples]

People expect less for more money these days. And they take it. Seems like somewhere along the line we got a whole civilization with a masochist-gen activated. It's the only way to explain the success of T-Mobile, Microsoft Windows, and Dr. Phill.

Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T do not give a discount for bringing your own handset. T-Mobile does. So how is T-Mobile's rate plan "less for more money"?

Re:How is T-Mobile "less for more money"?

[santax]

Try using that free handset with their network and you'll soon find out ;)

Not "open to all"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's open to all AMERICANS, only.

HTPCs are for geeks

[tepples]

Yes, plugging in an HDMI cable from the computer to the TV is much harder than plugging an HDMI cable from the PS3 to the TV.

It's called wife acceptance factor. It starts with chassis design: most "desktop" PCs are towers designed to be hidden under a desk, while a PS3 is designed to sit next to a television. And then it leads into ease of use: most PC-based media players don't default to 10-foot user interfaces, and most PCs don't come with a remote control. See also an article I'm working on about why HTPCs are for geeks and geeks alone.

Re:HTPCs are for geeks

[Hatta]

Man, you geeks need to stop worrying about wife acceptance factor and make your wives start worrying about geek acceptance factor.

Re:HTPCs are for geeks

[tepples]

So how do you recommend that geeks market HTPCs to housewives who are trying to decide between a $100 Roku box and a $400 Gateway slim PC?

Re:HTPCs are for geeks

[h4rr4r]

It's called a cabinet, just put the PC inside. then no one can see it.

Slashdot is for geeks and geeks alone.

Re:HTPCs are for geeks

[h4rr4r]

Being less confrontational would get you more help. I added some suggestions to your linked site. There are some other things I do with my firefox, that I would also add if that is ok with you.

Re:HTPCs are for geeks

[swb]

I'm more worried about my wife's dick acceptance factor.

Re:HTPCs are for geeks

[Hatta]

I don't. I suggest geeks buy what they like and wives deal with it. Geeks are good mates, and good women know that and know that tinkering is part of the deal.

Re:HTPCs are for geeks

[tepples]

I apologize for any confrontational tone; I can't always tell when that happens due to my mental condition. Go ahead and add what you think will be helpful. You can even edit the article itself if you register.

Re:HTPCs are for geeks

[i_liek_turtles]

I'm pretty sure Mac Mini + Apple Remote + Front Row is pretty simple for non-geeks.

Re:HTPCs are for geeks

[tepples]

Mac mini is also $599, compared to $99 for a Roku DVP or $299 for a PLAYSTATION 3. People would ask me: "What do I get for the extra $500?"

Re:Available to one country only, not to all

[Xtifr]

Heh, well as you know (or should know), Wikipedia is not a reliable source. In this case, it's actually contradicting what it said a couple of years ago when I last looked, so I checked out the talk archives, and the current wording seems to be a compromise which may or may not last--people got tired of fighting. There are four common definitions of what constitutes a continent, and in half of those, North and South America are considered separate continents. The current Wikipedia wording seems to be based (judging from a quick skim through the talk archives) on checking dictionaries from different English-speaking regions, ignoring the overriding Wikipedia principle that local use should dominate (e.g. the article on The Beatles is written in English-English rather than American-English). The conclusion I've come to is that it's not that simple, and there's arguments on both sides, but they didn't want to over-complicate the lead, so they picked a wording that resulted in the least shouting, at least for now. The "right" answer is: it depends. But in America, what I said is generally considered correct; use of "America" (rather than "the Americas") to refer to the super-continent/pair-of-subcontinents is rare, especially in contemporary writing.

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

hulu plus crap is still crap.

Netflix is getting a lot right Re:Europe

[Fubari]

Netflix is getting a lot of things right.
The cost is low.
Streaming works pretty well; they make it easy.
I find their picture quality & sound better than youtube.

Yeah I could chase torrents. It doesn't take a LOT of time to manage torrent downloads. But Netflix takes NO time.

I don't subscribe to cable-tv; I'm happy to let Netflix act like my DVR.

I especially like their BBC content (I really enjoyed "The IT Crowd"!). I bet there are other ways to watch BBC content. But Netflix sends a some money the BBC's way. It is important to me to support what I value.

*shrug*
Netflix is getting a lot of things right.

SOME shows are ad-free on Hulu

[RaySt]

Just thought I'd mention that. I was about to cancel my Hulu+ when I found out that the full x-files were available without ads. Yeah, Netflix has 'em too, but I really like the Hulu desktop app - one hotkey and it's on and it doesn't need a mouse. And they have more current stuff than Netflix - it's complimentary, really. Hulu+ and Netflix and you can kiss cable goodbye, unless you're also a Vampire fan that is ....

Re:Available to one country only, not to all

[geekoid]

One of the teams is owned by Nintendo. So yeah, it's world wide.

Re:Available to one country only, not to all

[BobMcD]

Slashdot, and other US-centric sites, will surely miss your valued contribution.

Re:Available to one country only, not to all

[Anonymous Coward]

Until every USAian stop perpetuating their misconception that they are the only people on the planet, and that it is okay to exclude the world in the words "all" and "everyone": Yes, apparently.

Heat from a PC in a cabinet

[tepples]

It's called a cabinet, just put the PC inside. then no one can see it.

I'd recommend this, but a typical desktop PC puts out as much heat as an Xbox 360 console. (Or is that vice versa?) I've read horror stories about people failing to ventilate their 360 properly and ending up with two or three flashing red quadrants around the power button.

Re:Heat from a PC in a cabinet

[h4rr4r]

I am doing this now. Most PC cases do put out as much heat , but the cases are far bigger. Also cabinets for this type of stuff are vented these days.

Re:Available to one country only, not to all

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to Slashdot where they constantly grumble subliminally about 'America' and drag up how better it is elsewhere.

Go visit Hulu.eu or whatever, get over it that most .com's/.net/etc were founded in America and are run by Americans, yet were supposed to bend over backwards for the world as the screen lights up in front of them and their little faces glow warm. Wahhh, wahhh, wahhh go cry me a river, get over it,
America and Britain will always dominate the entertainment industry because we have something a lot of countries(EU/China) lack, a little thing called 'culture' or the environment to support that kind of talent that the world would watch.

The Irony being that they love to suck the tit of America/Britain when it comes to content for movies/music/etc but don't wanna play by the rules. Reason why Sweden doesn't have much talent in the area of exporting entertainment, they are a nation of leechers and you can see why the piratebay gets a 'pass go' card with the 'i want everything free' generation crowd.

Re:Available to one country only, not to all

[Scrameustache]

One of the teams is owned by Nintendo. So yeah, it's world wide.

That's the stupidest thing I read today.

Re:Available to one country only, not to all

[Scrameustache]

Slashdot, and other US-centric sites, will surely miss your valued contribution.

Awww, dirty dirty foreigners are allowed on YOUR internet, and you don't like it.

I bet you think you're a patriot, too. Here's a word you should learn: Jingo.

Re:In b4

[a_nonamiss]

Definitely a troll, but look at the very next post...

Re:Available to one country only, not to all

[Chninkel]

yes, I should have looked at this page first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent
(I know wikipedia should not be used as The source, but I keep using it as a good place to start search on a topic)
Note that the "one american continent with two sub-continents" is what I was taught at school (a long long time ago). They should have explained us this instead.

But in America, what I said is generally considered correct; use of "America" (rather than "the Americas") to refer to the super-continent/pair-of-subcontinents is rare, especially in contemporary writing.

100% agreed, AFAIK it's the same in French.

Can't non-US users use US Proxy Servers?

[Eric_ColonSlashSlash]

Can't non-US users use US Proxy Servers?

I know it's unfair but i see a major business opportunity there for someone to provide advanced proxy and obscuration services to the non-US market...