Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hulu "Kicking Back Into Action" Says CEO, Adding New Content

Posted by samzenpus on from the back-to-life dept.

cagraham writes "While rival Netflix dominated the news this summer with original programming and content deals, the only news from Hulu was a July announcement that they might be sold off. Parent companies Disney, 21st Century Fox, and Comcast seem to have decided against that now, and acting CEO Andy Forssell says they're 'kicking back into action.' The main take is that they've signed an agreement with the BBC to add show like Sherlock, MI-5, and Doctor Who, although the deal isn't exclusive, and the shows are already on other streaming services."

15 of 169 comments (clear)

  1. As a US-only service by msobkow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hulu can rot in hell.

    I am so tired of seeing "not supported in your region" messages from US companies.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:As a US-only service by cheater512 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Tip: thepiratebay.sx is one service which doesn't have those messages.
      Works well for me in Australia.

    2. Re:As a US-only service by oodaloop · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's what you get for living in the outer rim territories.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    3. Re:As a US-only service by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Funny

      Shouldn't you be thankful that your pristine country is protected from Yankee cultural rot and contamination?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re:As a US-only service by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's worse than you think. Even if you're in the US, you can't watch certain shows on certain devices, such as XBox 360 or Roku. Their management lives in this 20 year old fantasy land where I'm going to go sit at my desk and watch something in my web browser. It's an incredibly backwards-thinking company.

      --
      Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
    5. Re:As a US-only service by egamma · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's probably rooted in the fact that American commercials shown overseas won't produce any revenue. I despise Hulu because I pay monthly for service and still get commercials...and the interface sucks compared to NetFlix.

      Then do what I do--vote with my wallet, and stop paying for Hulu Plus, and stick with Netflix. So I'm a year or two behind--so what? I can watch years and years of a single show, and then do the same with another show. I never run out of stuff to watch and never see a commercial. Why bother with Hulu?

      --
      Battlemaster--Game with friends in medival realms
    6. Re:As a US-only service by chihowa · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm sorry, but that sentiment is not supported in your region.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    7. Re:As a US-only service by sharklasers · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's weird. I used to pirate a lot because of a lack of income - I was a kid but still wanted the movies/games. Later on I started things as I got older and had more disposable income - I wanted to support the creators and "do the right thing", morally as well as legally. But now I'm back to pirating things again not because it's free, but because of all the additional benefits it provides:

      (1) I can obtain movies/TV shows in a DRM-free, open(ish) cross-platform format that doesn't require a special, Windows-only player which requires authorization per viewing and lacks functionality compared to other video players of choice.
      (2) I can obtain an actual file, period. Something I can store on my own devices and not rely on streaming and Internet access to watch.
      (3) In terms of games, I don't have to deal with dodgy DRM schemes, or DRM at all. I can also pick and choose which patches to install once they're released by a scene (so I can use, for example, an older RAGE patch that doesn't lock out most console commands, whereas on Steam you can't downgrade updates once they occur).

      At this point in my life it's really, really hard to justify subscribing to these services and buying (or renting as the case generally is) content, because the actual product is generally worse in terms of user control and freedom than what you'd get from TPB.

      The only reason I'd stop now would be if there was a real, legitimate way to prove and punish with accuracy everyone who pirated, and it was all but guaranteed that if you pirated you'd get caught. If that were to eventuate, I'd definitely stop... but I wouldn't start buying things either, because there's no motivation to give people what they want apparently.

  2. Shill service by hguorbray · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They were probably hoping that they could diminish netflix (esp comcast) since they would all prefer pay per (every) view or non ala-carte bundles rather than a 'watch whatever you want for a low flat fee'

    Netflix is one of the things that is helping keep the Media cartels at bay at this point and I am happy to have been a subscriber for the past 10 years or so and hope that Comcast/ATT get their comeuppance some day (but doubt it due to regulatory capture)

    -I'm just sayin'

    1. Re:Shill service by notanalien_justgreen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      At $2 an episode, tv watching adds up quickly. I (and almost everyone I know) vastly prefer netflix's model. Just look at the lack of success of historic pay-per-view channels. Yeah, people will occasionally pay for it, but generally it's something people do very rarely (like once every few years).

      Just last week I was sick with the flu for several days - so I loaded up the most recent seasons of Mad Men and Breaking Bad - binged on them while I was sick and couldn't really do anything else. There's no way in hell I would have done this with the pay-per-view model as I would have blown ~$20/day on it.

  3. "everything's just fine" by globaljustin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hulu.com is doomed in its current incarnation.

    Exclusivity was the game 5 years ago, before Netflix sort of cornered the market w/ userbase & began its successful 'original programming' venture.

    Getting BBC 'content' that is already available on competitors, fee or not, is kind of sad, really.

    Maybe Dr. Who is a big 'get' (look IMHO its shit scifi, but i don't know what people like)...maybe it'll boost 'clicks' by 20%...that's just polishing the brass on the titanic

    the 'profit model' iceberg sunk Hulu.com a long time ago...we're just watching it play out now...

    **if** the copyright holders decided to just dump their content onto hulu exclusively for free...that would change things, but that's virtually impossible

    my prediction: hulu.com dies a slow sad death and gets bought by some Mark Cuban type for $1.2 Million in 5 years who uses it for MMA fights or something

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  4. Service is meh... by pspahn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For $6/mo you still have to watch ads, and the only real benefit you get is that you can watch a new episode of certain shows a couple days before the non-paying members.

    On top of that, when we watch using the Wii, the interface is quite clunky. I'm not sure if they're doing a similar thing as Netflix where they have all these dozens of wrappers for different devices, but I can only assume they are to some extent. I'm sure Hulu on other devices is equally painful (though, on a computer it's actually quite well-done).

    Netflix is just a way better value and it works better. I'm all for Hulu "stepping it up", but I'll believe it when I see it.

    --
    Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
  5. I still don't get it. by seebs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hulu's options:
    1. I watch shows which have ads.
    2. I pay them money, and they still show me ads.

    I am really not seeing the attraction of option #2.

    --
    My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
  6. I will never use Hulu by dmomo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When they first came out, I was impressed. They were streaming programs and trying honestly to generate revenue. Instead of cramming ads down my throat, they tried to show them in innovative ways, as a sort of compromise to the ad-weary consumer. They would show two cars and let me pick an ad to watch. They would ask if I wanted to view all commercials first so I could watch the show uninterrupted.

    And the commercials were short. I was optimistic about the way things were headed. I understand the need to make money. Hulu seemed to be sensitive to their audience.

    Then, Hulu Plus came along. They basically said.. "Some of that free content is no longer free. You have to pay for it now. But, you still have to watch commercials". With that, I ceased all interaction with Hulu. About a year later, I decided that paying for some streaming content would be worthwhile, if I could watch it on my terms. I now gladly give Netflix my money for that. So long as they don't charge me twice by also showing ads, I will stick with them.

  7. Re:Linux != GNU/Linux by evilviper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    GNU hasn't got a damn thing to do with it. GNU is just some crap userland tools which are trivially easy to replace with something else. The important part is X11/Linux.

    The reason RMS insists on sticking GNU in the name is pure self-promotion, and he's a shameless blowhard.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant