Slashdot Mirror
Hulu For Sale: Is There Good News For Users?
itwbennett writes "The LA Times reports that Hulu, which is jointly owned by Comcast, News Corp., Disney, and Providence Equity, has retained investment banks Guggenheim Partners and Morgan Stanley to help them find a buyer. Yahoo is said to have expressed an interest, but not made a firm offer. But what might this sale mean for users? GigaOm says we can expect to see more ads. But there are also 'indications that free Hulu users will have to be a cable subscriber in order to watch shows the day after they air,' says blogger Peter Smith."
I don't know how Hulu would be profitable if sold off by its current owners. Part of the reason it has been profitable is because its owners are also the owners of the shows that are streamed on Hulu. If it's no longer in the hands of Comcast, News Corp and Disney, how could it survive if it also has to pay licensing fees to the IP owners? Hulu being sold can only be bad for their users, I think. Either the range of shows must be cut to avoid the licensing fees, or more ads, or bigger paywalls/subscriptions or any multitude of things to balance out the suddenly appearing higher cost of obtaining the shows.
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
Anything Yahoo touches will die out. Just look at their previous transactions. If Hulu gets owned by Yahoo, it will become a thing of the past.
Hopefully if it sells, the new owner gets half a clue about how advertising works. I watch a good bit of Hulu, and mostly see the same half-dozen commercials over and over and over again. I honestly wouldn't mind seeing a few more ads...just so long as they're different ads.
I live in Canada, you insensitive clod! I haven't cared about Hulu for years!
Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
As hulu gets worse, it gets easier to do something else.
Oh no! Our new product idea is too popular that it going into our core business. Lets dump it so we can kill it at someone else expense.
I don't think many really like Broadcast TV but they just like the shows. Cable was popular because back in the days because you paid for the service you got commercial free content, then reduced commercial, as well more stations to choose from.
Now they have often more commercials then broadcast TV, there are more channels however most of them are duplicates to each other. Standard, HD, Digital Standard, Digital HD. Or things Discovery 1 2 3 4 which the higher number has the same show that number seasons back. It has became a complete mess.
I have Basic Basic Cable (Broadcast stations that come in clear and 2 or 3 cable stations $10 per month) and Internet threw my cable company. Then I use Netflix for the rest.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Why would I pay for a another service that makes me watch advertisements after I've already paid? Do people not realize how ridiculous that is?
Netflix + Crackle + Youtube FTW. We use hulu to watch 2 things ... Psych and Wipeout.
cable free for 3 years and loving it.
So, the companies that run a website are going to sell the website (but of course keep all their own shows) so Hulu will only be a "portal", full of links and ads for CBS, SyFy etc.? Just shut it down. As far as people worrying about having to go to "random" websites to watch all these shows, I think you mean random "apps". Content providers are suing Time Warner and Cablevision to stop letting customers watch their shows on the iPad via apps. I'm pretty sure the content owners want their own apps to stream their shows.
Too successful, so let's sell it and kill it. The whole cable model needs to die, there's no reason to subscribe to hundreds of channels when the technology is in place to stream only the shows you want. I can see having a few sports channels for live events for sports junkies, but give those of us who don't watch sports 24/7 the option to stream the few events we want to watch for cheap. My cable set up is the same: minimum basic, most of what I watch is on Netflix. I tried DSL for a while, but the performance sucked.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
When I first found hulu, I thought: 'Its about damn time' but then, after using it for a slight amount of time, I realized it pretty much sucked. Sure you can watch shows ... with ads ... but if you want to watch it anywhere other than a PC you gotta pay ... and if you want a queue ... you gotta pay ... and if you want XXX ... gotta be a Hulu plus member ... and YOU STILL HAVE TO WATCH ADS.
Then there are the times when you get redirected to the content producers website ... with a completely different flash based noisy (as in makes sounds for no fucking reason) website to try and dig around and find some episode I want to watch ... in 320x240 because cbs.com is a shitty website ... using some other completely retarded flash player.
So ... I rapidly learned hulu could go fuck themselves. Now, instead I just DVR it on my Windows media center box, and have it transcode to iPhone/iPad and XBox360 compatible formats after the fact ... auto removing commercials in the process.
This is what happens when you make your product so absolutely freaking annoying to use that people would rather spend the effort to just figure out a way to not use you.
So no, I can't randomly watch some random show from last season of Stargate Universe because they decide they'd put it up on Hulu this week. Instead I watch whatever one scifi decided to air this week ... without the commercials ... without paying more than I'm already paying for scifi shows ... you know, since the cable company is already paying them for me out of my cable bill ... which of course, cable was originally supposed to be sans-ads as well ... Even if you watch the ads on cable versions, you at least generally don't see the same ad 4 times during one show ... with Hulu its rather common to see the same commercial at EVERY FREAKING commercial point.
And of course I can queue up shows/movies to play back to back, on the devices I want to watch them on ... doesn't matter if its my TV, iPad, PC, or phone ...
Hulu was a good idea that the content producers fucked up and made so most people wouldn't bother. Now they are trying to dump it on someone else before its a total wash.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I bet it sells for more than myspace does.
This signature has Super Cow Powers
I HATE ads. HATE.
I am willing to pay more for ad-free TV. Hulu seemed like the perfect platform, but they wouldn't shut up and take my money. Cable companies offer DVR's for an extra $5 to $10 a month, which seems equivalent to paying for TV without ads.Why can't Hulu do the same? I never did Hulu+ because it still contained ads.
Businesses are so focused on selling ads that they forget about just using paid subscriptions. Sure, ads provide income above and beyond the subscription, but if you are trying to grow, you need to offer something better than what everyone else does.
Life is too short to spend it watching ads. That is why I love watching old shows using Netflix.
indications that free Hulu users will have to be a cable subscriber in order to watch shows the day after they air
Maybe I watch the wrong shows, but the ones I've watched have usually been on a 7-day wait, i.e., "you can see it as soon as the next one airs."
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
I have no clue if they're interested, but I hope Google buys it. I like Hulu and I like Google. And, Google has done a decent job with YouTube.
You know, I really like Hulu, but one thing that the cable companies seem to ignore is the ability for people to simply not watch TV.
I am in the growing minority of people that actually do not have a TV service (cable nor satellite) because I find comfort in paying about $10 and getting Netflix while paying nothing and getting a lot of ad-supported content on Hulu.
I do not pirate whatsoever, so I literally only use those services to watch video on demand (although I do buy the occasional DVD and TV series, albeit quite rarely).
These media companies can get me with the ads. Hulu usually even has pretty high quality ones, even if there are two of them where there used to be one. I can live with that. However, I will not pay to have that experience. They did not earn any reason to allow them to double dip.
Now, I wonder how long before this minority starts to grow into such a size that it actually stands out to them. Because the days of charging a monthly, randomly growing amount of money to sell a couple of hundred channels when the person only wants maybe 10 and most of the time it is garbage anyway (how many times do people go channel surfing to try and find something?). I honestly hope that more people start doing what I am doing to force those businesses to start lowering their prices to bring people back.
After all, if they charged consistent, reasonable rates, then this post probably wouldn't even exist. I can afford their plans. I, like many people, just don't feel like the value justifies the cost.
Hulu was born with a fault line running through its foundation : It was owned by major content owners. Yes, that means it gets good terms on content (and, can make deals at all). Yes, it means it gets free advertising on major networks. However, its owners don't really want it to succeed. They view it as a fundamental threat.
Under a new owner, Hulu would likely shrink dramatically (less content, less advertising). However, it will be free to innovate, which is probably necessary for its long term survival. So, over all, I view this as likely to be a good thing for Hulu, and for viewers.
Wait... someone is trying to sell Cthulhu? Seems like a wise investment...
When it first came out they had more content and back episodes of shows. In addition the commercials only lasted 15 seconds instead of the 2 minute three times each we now get.
I gave up on Hulu in preference of Netflix and other sources.
Hulu's been around what, 3 or 4 years now? The first 2 years I used it, it was pretty great. There were some commercials, I didn't mind too much. There was a huge selection of movies and good TV shows.
Last year, I stopped watching Hulu. They put almost anything worth watching behind the Hulu Plus service, what was left to the free users was often delayed by a MONTH (seriously, there were 3 or 4 shows I was trying to watch which would put the first 2 episodes of the season on after a week delay - ok, I can live with that; then they would take a MONTH delay and start showing episodes which had been on the TV a full month before that).
I got the message that the content producers don't want people watching shows on Hulu, so I stopped watching. I thought about subbing to the Plus Service, but they were still going to show commercials, after charging me $10/mo. Netflix costs about the same, no commercials. Guess who I give my money to?
Netflix doesn't have everything Hulu does, and doesn't have things as recent, but I decided that there's so much on Netflix, I'll just watch stuff there. If I'm gonna wait a month to watch it on Hulu, might as well wait 6 months and watch on Netflix.
So what you're saying is... Hulu is cable TV?/p?
From my point of view, they are enough ads already. I'm a hulu plus subscriber and I shockingly expected it to be ad free, seeing as how I'm paying for it. Yes, I understand that they're trying to keep the cost down by offsetting it with advertising income, but still. The amount of ads currently is at an acceptably annoying level. If they add in more, well, they can go pound sand.
Typically I see maybe one ad per 30 minute show, which is okay. I have noticed that I see more or less ads depending on how I access the content. I.E. I usually use my 360 and I see maybe one ad. If I access it from my PC, I usually see more ads, if I access it from my Roku, I very frequently am ad free. On the iPad I don't recall, but I think it's about the same as the 360.
There is nothing preventing you from hooking an HDMI cable from your computer to your TV. Sure you might have to run it through a wall, but you can do it or pay less than a couple hundred to have someone do it.
"Less than a couple hundred"? If the initial outlay is a lot more than one month's cable TV bill, the general public isn't going to feel like doing it. Besides, the companies offering the service of running HDMI through a wall don't seem to advertise in my area; without advertisement, the general public isn't going to know that such a service exists.
I am willing to pay more for ad-free TV.
Ad-free TV doesn't exist. Often the shows themselves either have product placement or are flagrant ads in the first place (e.g. any kids' show). And if by ads you just mean interruptions, there are always season box sets on DVD, which lack interruptions.
Good Riddence!!! Netflix while a paid service does not care where I watch my content. My TV, My phone, My Computer. Hulu's "web browser only" witchhunt is the one reason why they don't have the market share that they want. Factor in the fact they try to shove ads down your throat and its a wonder they are still around at all. But then again never underestimate the stupidity of most people there are people who still put up with this crap because "its free". I
I am in the growing minority of people that actually do not have a TV service (cable nor satellite) because I find comfort in paying about $10 and getting Netflix
Good for you. Have you a solution for some of the households in my extended family? One household ("Y") has someone who likes to turn on MSNBC while doing housework; the other ("G") has a fan of NHL hockey and NCAA and NFL football.
The owners are doing this because they don't make as much ad revenue on online ads as they do on cable/over-the-air ads. Now, anybody can understand that with Internet based ads, they should be able to charge significantly more than for traditional ads. A *lot* more, in fact. They can have an exact count of how many times the ad has been shown, who saw the ads, and a lot of other very, very detailed information about the ad consumers that's impossible to get via cable/satellite/airwaves. Hulu, for example, knows where I am, what my birthday is, what my viewing patterns are, and now, even what ads I like and I don't like. If they're working with Google, then they know a heck of a lot more about me, too.
The only logical reason that content providers don't want to stream everything is because the rates they're charging advertisers for ads shown using cable/satellite/air distribution is because those rates are grossly inflated. They can say "1,000,000 people saw your ad for StupidWidget last Thursday night during StupidTVShow" and there's no way to prove them wrong. For ads shown over the Internet, there's no way that they can make up a number, because everybody and their grandmother knows that ABC/NBC/whoever else can say that "your ad for StupidWidget was seen 10,251 times. 25% were women under 30, 20% were men 30-40, etc, etc".
Neilsen ratings are a joke, because A. the sample size is so small as to be useless and B. they're paid by the broadcasters!
So, until advertisers understand that they are being and probably always have been grossly overcharged for traditional TV advertising and refuse to pay the inflated rates, the content providers are going to continue to smother online broadcasting because there's no way to lie to their customers (advertisers).
I buy advertising, but I've since stopped buying traditional media advertising because I realize that all of the circulation/viewer/listener numbers are all completely made up. I'll only buy online advertising where I have a reasonable expectation that I'll know who/where/when sees/hears my advertisements. I don't know why all of the mega companies are so incredibly stupid and continue to pay for traditional media advertising.
I don't respond to AC's.
You have a point.
But an interesting counterpoint is that the cable TV model is fundamentally broken. Subscribers pay far more than the cost to provide the service from the cable office to the wall socket--they pay money that goes to the companies that own the channels--but they are still fed commercials.
The whole point of ad-supported TV is that, as with over-the-air broadcast networks since the beginning, the commercials finance the programming. But cable networks aren't satisfied with that--they want more and more money, so they sell commercials and charge subscribers, too. They want to have their cake, eat it, and have some pie and eat it, too. It's a never-ending, greed-fueled hunger for infinite growth. It's unsustainable; but rather than accept that fact, the megacorps resort to harsher and greedier measures to try to extract more and more money from the public. They're just never satisfied.
Honestly, I'm surprised that they still sell DVDs of movies and TV shows, because that is a one-time sale. I imagine that in 5-10 years, as Internet connections become faster, they will become reluctant to offer one-time sales of anything, instead opting for only rentals with short viewing windows.
So, given the unending greed and corruption of media conglomerates and the government agencies that cater to their every whim, what is John Q. Public to do? He can a) give them what they want: more and more of his hard-earned money, while receiving less and poorer-quality and more expensive services; or b) abstain from their content entirely; or c) use alternative means of acquiring their content. Is option C illegal? Perhaps. Are the relevant laws that protect the greedy corporations at the expense of the citizens of the nation ethical or moral? Perhaps not. Is the government that passes such laws still beholden to its citizens, or to said corporations? Is it still possible for its citizens to effect reform against the wishes of the corporations? If it's not possible, then is civil disobedience immoral? If the corporations are acting unethically and immorally, is it wrong to use technical measures to counter their undermining of the Constitution?
I agree with you that we should all spend less time watching TV and more time doing productive things in our lives--myself included--but these are still valid questions. At what point do we, being powerless to legislatively oppose the greedy, immoral, unethical media corporations, workaround their evil by using the technical measures that are--at the moment--available to us?
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
Another would be to pay a monthly fee to have access to all the content owned by a particular "channel", as per Netflix. I'd like to have the option to do either.
By the way, welcome to the internet, and try to go easy on the name calling, it really doesn't add to the discussion.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27559165/ns/msnbc_tv/t/watch-msnbc-tv-live/ for the first one.
I clicked play and waited at least a minute for "NBC NEWS: your video is loading" to go away. Then I scrolled and saw that it's available only from 10 AM to 3 PM, which doesn't cover the time when Y is at home to watch. Most notably, these time slots don't include Morning Joe, Hardball with Chris Matthews, The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, or The Rachel Maddow Show.
I think TSN also has a streaming service (possibly paid, but probably cheaper than cable/ppv).
I searched Google for TSN and got this. I clicked "NHL Draft Live Streaming" and got this. I sat through the ad and got "Sorry, there was an error", and the video failed to start. Might it be for Canadians only?
Go to bestbuy, ask.
Call any electrician, ask.
How would somebody learn in the first place that HDMI from PC to a TV through a wall is 1. possible and 2. available from Best Buy or an electrician? Most people I've talked to don't seem to be aware that both PCs and TVs can use HDMI. To them, computers are computers, and TVs are TVs, and never the twain shall meet.
My time is not free. So if I have to watch a commercial, it is taking up my valuable time and that is not free. So stop calling it free!
Replacement for cable news: Fark.com
I don't see how Fark.com or MSNBC.com or FoxNews.com would be used from the couch while one is doing housework. She wants to listen and occasionally glance up, not read the screen. She's even had someone hook up an FM transmitter to her cable box so that she can listen in the shower.
Replacement for cable sports: sports bar
The sports fan has kids and stepkids in the household, and they're not yet old enough to enter the sports bar with their dad/stepdad.
They could use google I guess.
How would they know what keywords to use? Google isn't psychic. In fact, people don't even know what they want. Before automobiles became common, people thought they wanted a faster horse. Likewise, nowadays, people have no idea that connecting a PC to the TV would let them their root problems.
If they are so uninterested in the world around them that is the price they pay.
The obscurity of HTPC is not only the price that end users pay but also the price that people who have products and services to sell to HTPC owners pay. That's why I'm trying to figure out how to promote HTPC to the general public.
NHL GameCenter Live for live NHL games
I've been told that games shown on local cable TV are blacked out on NHL's online stream.
ESPN3
ESPN3 isn't available anywhere. An ISP has to subscribe to it, and I'm guessing based on what I read in ESPN3's FAQ that not all areas have a cable or fiber ISP that does.
and they all work with PlayON which is compatible with PS3 and Xbox360
I'm not entirely sure that the CPU of the PC in the household in question is fast enough to meet PlayOn's minimum system requirements. It was bought used a few years ago. Besides, they would still need to buy a PS3 or Xbox 360 for the TV room. The cost of a new PC and a new PS3 just to watch PlayOn would pay for several months of cable TV. Or can someone usefully surf the Web and write homework in a word processor while PlayOn works in the background? If so, I might be able to promote the combination to the head of household as a PC and Blu-ray movie upgrade.
Agreeing with Andy...I rarely watch the commercial-laden networks anymore...it's a waste of my time and honestly, their's as well. I'm not going to buy anything that trys to get in the way of the precious few hours a week I have for entertainment.
Fastpasstv...by the time the season premiere of Burn Notice aired on the Pacific coast, I could watch it in real time, without commercials on Fastpasstv. What amuses me most is that the "authorities" raided the Fastpasstv server location and confiscated everything they had, both physical equipment and domain.
It took them 48 hours to get a .ms domain and be back up and running.
Hulu can't compete with that...no one can.
I recommend Y tries listening to music, podcasts
"What's a podcast?" -- Y
or audiobooks instead of MSNBC. No doubt someone would feel better about life and the world if someone wasn't fed a constant stream of stress-inducing, breathless, bad news.
Y told me that she disagrees with your assessment of MSNBC and HLN as "stress-inducing, breathless, bad news". She sees U.S. federal progressive politics as her favorite soap opera.
As for sports, well, watching less of it probably wouldn't hurt--could it be considered an addiction to some extent?
And sports addicts tell us: "As for web sites, well, reading less of them probably wouldn't hurt--could it be considered an addiction to some extent?" I'm sort of at a standstill in my discussions with G. He has told me that if his household had to cut back expenses, he'd cut Internet to dial-up before cutting TV to the farmer five.
Doesn't the NHL have games online, though?
I've been told that games available on broadcast or cable TV in the market where your IP address is located are blacked out on NHL's online service.
People's price tolerance is higher than one might think at first. People pay 60 bucks a month for cable TV so that they can watch men on skates slide a puck across a sheet of ice with a stick.