Hulu Ends Free Streaming Service, Moves Free Stuff To Yahoo View (hollywoodreporter.com)

Hulu has inked a deal with Yahoo to provide free, ad-supported episodes of a range of TV shows. But Hulu also said Monday it will end free streaming service on its own platform as it is moving that to an all-subscription model. As part of its expanded distribution deal with Yahoo, which is launching Yahoo View, a new ad-supported TV streaming site with five most recent episodes of shows from ABC, NBC, and Fox among other networks. From an article on The Hollywood Reporter:Most of Hulu's free content has been fairly limited, restricted to what's known as the "rolling five," or the five most recent episodes of a current show -- content that typically becomes available eight days after it airs and is usually also available for free on broadcast networks' websites. For example, recent episodes of shows like America's Got Talent, South Park and Brooklyn Nine-Nine are currently available for free, while Hulu's slate of originals and high-profile exclusives remain behind the paywall. [...] Yahoo is launching the TV site a half-year after shuttering Yahoo Screen, the video service that offered up ad-supported episodes of original TV shows like Community, live streaming concerts and other clips. With View, however, Yahoo is focusing specifically on providing a destination for television to its audience, many of whom are still driven to Yahoo products via its highly trafficked homepage.

Comments

The Yahoo name makes me avoid a service entirely

[HBI]

Even more than the name Hulu did.

I suppose Verizon will learn this the hard way.

Anime, older shows? Imthebossneedtheinfo

[the_skywise]

I've been using it to mostly stream anime - Does that go to Yahoo too or fall under Hulu's subscription model?

Are they going to continue to show ads on their PAID SUBSCRIPTION service? Even the more expensive NO-ADS subscription service that still sells ads?

Is Yahoo's service still going to use Hulu's software to stream or has Yahoo come up with a whole new system?

And how many people can use the Hulu subscription simultaneously... :)

Re: Anime, older shows? Imthebossneedtheinfo

[interstellarsurfer]

KissAnime has you covered, at least as far as anime is concerned. I don't know of any good places to watch older non-animated series, but torrents are still alive and well.

Verizon is trying to compete w/ Comcast?

[bluelip]

One can hope this will create competition between Comcast and Verizon that will make things more tolerable for the end user, but my hunch is otherwise.

Broadcast television (recorded personally) is still how I find it easiest to watch shows.

Re:Verizon is trying to compete w/ Comcast?

[bluefoxlucid]

Broadcaster here. Please continue to support local TV and big broadcast networks until we figure out how to monetize streaming well enough to survive Comcast's and Dish's downward negotiating pressure on rebroadcast prices. Maybe we can license live stream rebroadcasting to Netflix and Hulu.

(That's commentary; I don't represent a broadcasting corporation.)

Who Lu?

[ArhcAngel]

The networks have been trying to get something to compete with Netflix for years and fortunately so far they have failed miserably. Amazon is doing well but they had to tie their service to their Prime subscription as an add-on to get the traction they now have. Even so I watch Netflix original shows 10 to 1 over Prime. If the RIAA/MPAA/Networks get a foothold you know they will do everything they can to close it off and jack up the price.

Re:Who Lu?

[Gilgaron]

The Netflix streaming started as a free bonus, too. We've had Prime for a while and are just starting to actually use the video part here and there... we tried out HBO Now and it was nice, although we cancelled after GoT was over. The catalog is a bit thin to subscribe year-long, especially since you can binge through a show pretty quickly. The binging thing Netflix has encouraged certainly seems like an interesting wrench in the gears of normalcy for the 'old powers' to deal with.

Re:Who Lu?

[ausekilis]

Netflix started out as a replacement for blockbuster and gained a lot of popularity by showing people are willing to wait a few months for cheaper prices and convenience. They proved that people were willing to pay a reasonable price for content, and were willing to wait until it was out on DVD/BD to watch it.

The MAFIAA has already done some strong-arming of Netflix to get their way and push their own products. STARZ keeps going back and forth about having content on Netflix, Showtime has slowly removed all their stuff, as has HBO. What the MAFIAA doesn't realize is that each individual provider just doesn't have enough content to command the price they want over the timespan they desire. Other posts mention HBO only during GoT and it's otherwise not worth it.

What Cable TV and Netflix both have is variety in their offerings. I'd wager Yahoo's stock increases a bit as people flock to the free stuff. My own uneducated/unresearched opinion of Hulu is that it's bleeding out slowly. What little I do want to watch seems to disappear after a couple weeks, and the selection I find interesting is getting smaller and smaller. Either they are going downhill, or their customer base cares about the Khardashians.

Re:Who Lu?

[gfxguy]

Hulu has been around for several years, and is backed by most of the big content providers (Disney, Fox, Time Warner, to name a few). I don't see it so much as direct competition until Hulu starts offering a vastly larger number of movies to the catalog. Until then, Hulu is basically the Netflix of TV shows, Netflix is the Netflix of movies. The very small catalog of original shows notwithstanding. Yes, Netflix has a large catalog of OLDER TV shows (past seasons for what they do have), but that still doesn't compete with Hulu showing new/recently aired TV shows. For the time being, they complement each other.

Re:Who Lu?

[ArhcAngel]

I used HULU the first month it came out so I know how long it's been around. It's funny you mention Disney as a backer of HULU since Some of the best original content on Netflix are Disney properties (DareDevil, Jessica Jones, and soon The Punisher, Luke Cage, Iron Fist, and The Defenders). But the fact remains HULU is niche product (although 12 million subscribers is nothing to sneeze at) looking for that breakaway hit but the networks keep trying to get it using the old style pablum "we'll feed it to you when we're ready for you to have it" mentality. If I want that I'll get a Tablo/Channel Master DVR+ and an antenna.

Re:Who Lu?

[RyoShin]

I actually really liked Hulu, having used it from its first year until April of this year. It had a lot of "day after" showings of series I liked, and once they finally got a No Commercials plan I started giving them actual money. Even though it cost more than Netflix and the original content was subpar, I was quite happy.

But, this past April, they forced a new "Watchlist" format on all users. The move was basically an amalgam of every complaint /. has whenever UI is fucked with: control is removed, interaction is made confusing, and the system starts making decisions for you. You could no longer manage your own queue (where I had shows sitting for years as "to watch if I get bored" fare), the UI was a convoluted mess and would include listings for series long-since finished/cancelled that I had also long-since seen, and their "BFF" (as they put it) would add videos to the watchlist if you made the mistake of clicking the wrong area (and these were a pain to remove entirely.) This is made worse because they've long had a bad UI of "six episodes at a time" for series' pages, where you can only see six episodes, then have to click a button to load the next six, etc. If you were lucky you could at least jump to a season, but heaven help you if you wanted to queue up all episodes of one long-running show. They took this and put it on the "Watchlist", meaning that I was forced to look at a list of 1000 items six-at-a-time.

I not only cancelled my subscription but closed my account entirely. My understanding is that the "Watchlist" (who watches the watchlist?) reflects how Netflix does things (having never used the service myself), so this move of content to Yahoo! is just one more step by a company trying to live up to another company's ideals. It's too bad, because most of the reasons I liked Hulu were reasons I didn't have much interest in Netflix.

Is Hulu still a thing?

[spoot]

I used to use it when it first started. It was easier and of course, I felt that I was "doing the right thing" as opposed to torrenting for TV shows. Then they went to the paid model. Wait a second, I have to pay... and watch commercials. When was that 2-3 years ago? Stopped watching Hulu. I used to 'make fun' of people at work who were paying for this. They want you to pay and watch commercials?! Hell, I can put an antenna on my TV and watch for "free." So yea, what does their user base (paying that is) really look like these days?

I was thinking of this in terms of news the other day. I am an admitted news junkie. And I've noticed that I don't even bother with the NYT or the WPost any more. I just jump over those bookmarks. Instead I use free sites where I can use adblocks. Not that I have an aversion to ads, just don't need all that crap running on my browser. I even paid for Sling for a couple of months so I could get CNN. But dropped it, after realizing I was paying 20 bucks a month for CNN, just wasn't worth it. Instead, I watch France24, DW and Sky News. Why, cause they don't charge me. So I don't watch the BIG news casters.

My real point? Not sure exactly.... But I drop the big casters trying to nickle and dime me, and get the free options. When it comes to TV shows, the point of Hulu (I would think) for the consumer, was to offer TV in a legal and easier to use fashion than torrenting. I'm back to the point where it's easier to pay for a proxy and torrent. What have the streamers learned, from what I can gather, not much.

Re:Is Hulu still a thing?

[Binestar]

I find that when you add the Hulu Plus no commercial plan and Netflix together it is a suitable replacement for cable TV in my home. I went from >$100/month for TV to ~$25 for TV and didn't lose anything but live sports. Since I only watch NFL and I used to TiVo it during the week, the $99/year for NFL replaces from NFL gamepass turns it into ~$35/month.

Re:Is Hulu still a thing?

[110010001000]

CNN isn't news. It is info-tainment. By the way, Sky-News is much bigger than CNN is in terms of viewership and revenue.

Re:Is Hulu still a thing?

[gfxguy]

I've only just converted, but I'm glad to see other people like you having success in ditching the > $100 (mine was nearly $140 from DirecTV for service on 3 TVs, and that didn't even include any premium channels). I decided TV is just not worth it. I liked skipping commercials with the DVR, but with Hulu's commercial free option, that hasn't been a problem. There are certainly drawbacks and caveats, and there are holes in the programming that I need to make up for in other ways (like you with the sports package), but still... Amazon Prime, Netflix, Hulu+ no commercials... compared to over $1500 year? For TV?

Re:Is Hulu still a thing?

[gfxguy]

Time Warner just bought a 10% stake in Hulu; TW owns Turner owns CNN.

Re:Is Hulu still a thing?

[Anubis IV]

Yeah, I used to watch Hulu all the time with their free tier as well, but stopped watching regularly a year or two ago after the experience turned sour.

For instance, one serialized show I watched suddenly stopped receiving new episodes about 3/4 of the way through the season, even though it was (and is) still on the air. New episodes started again with the next season, but those older episodes were never posted for free viewing, and then they did the exact same thing the next season as well. For other shows, new episodes might arrive 8 days after airing, or, as happened to me on a number of occasions, they might suddenly arrive a month or two or three later all at once, with the earliest episodes already having passed their expiration date for free viewing.

We tried their lowest for-pay tier so my wife and I could watch a show that wasn't available for free, but we were so frustrated with it that we cancelled even before our trial week was up. And having been away from cable and broadcast TV for so long now, I find it downright offensive if I'm forced to sit through commercials while using a service I've paid good money to use.

Relatedly, we're currently on our one-week trial of Sling at the moment because my wife wanted a (legal) way to watch the Olympics. We signed up for their Sling Blue package that was supposed to be good for watching the Olympics (i.e. it includes NBC and NBC Sports), but after two, frustrating days, what we eventually discovered was that NBC is only available in select cities (not including ours) and that Sling can't be used as your cable provider to verify your subscription on nbc.com, which means that the $25/mo. we're expected to pay got us none of the stuff my wife wanted to watch.

As for me, I've found the various "features" that are supposed to differentiate Sling from cable and other services to be frustrating and unreliable. You frequently have to relaunch the app to have changes you make (e.g. add a film to your Watchlist) appear elsewhere; fast forward/rewind/pause is only available on certain channels; leaving a film and coming back to it later causes it to restart; I've only found one film so far that doesn't cost extra; VODs have commercial breaks and are edited for TV viewing, which ruins the pacing and tension; despite running on a variety of platforms and devices, only one app can be used at a time; and the resolution frequently drops to unacceptable levels.

We'll likely be cancelling Sling before our trial is up, and given that Sling's regional blackout antics have caused my wife to miss the Olympics coverage she most wanted to see, I doubt we'll be trying out any other services anytime soon.

If she does still want TV after this, I'm thinking about just buying a DVR and antenna and calling it a day, since that'd provide us with the channels she most wants and wouldn't require monthly payments of any sort. I'd find the presence of commercials in that situation to be less of an affront, given that we could skip them and wouldn't be paying a monthly fee.

Re:Is Hulu still a thing?

[lgw]

Wow, you sure made it clear to everyone what tribe you belong too! But did you stop to think, "do I really need to re-assert my tribal affiliation when I have nothing else to say?" Because the answer is no, no you don't.

Re:Is Hulu still a thing?

[smooth wombat]

So like Fox gets its talking points directly from the RNC? The ones who are so desperate to not have Trump as their candidate that they have ordered Fox to not say a single nice thing about Trump and criticize him whenever they can?

Talk about propaganda. At least CNN reporters don't sit in a hotel room and call in their reports because they're too scared to go out in a war zone.

In fact, Robertson noted he saw the Fox reporter more often at breakfast than he did anywhere in the combat area.

So please, cut the crap about propaganda. Fox is a propaganda station, plain and simple, and they make no bones about it. That is why people watch. Not for news, but to be entertained.

Re:Is Hulu still a thing?

[RyoShin]

Yeah, pay-to-view-ads was pants-on-head stupid, so I continued with the free, ad-supported plan. Last year they introduced a more expensive No Commercials plan and I was quite happy to give them my money. Then this year they completely fucked up their UI and I dropped them entirely.

Re:Anime, older shows? Imthebossneedtheinfo

[Binestar]

Are they going to continue to show ads on their PAID SUBSCRIPTION service? Even the more expensive NO-ADS subscription service that still sells ads?

Yes, they will continue to have ads on their paid subscription service. It's all spelt out when you sign up.

Also, yes, they'll also have some commercials in programs that are required to have commercials under their no commercials service. This is a limitation from the content providers, not with Hulu deciding they want more ads to run. The shows that this affects are listed during signup for the no-commercial plan.

From their help: "In response to feedback from our viewers, we started offering a commercial free experience on Hulu. For a small number of shows, however, we have not obtained the rights to stream commercial free and they are not included in our No Commercials plan. You can still easily access these shows with a short commercial before and after each episode with no interruptions during the episode. Specific shows that still have commercials accessible through the No Commercials plan will be noted throughout the signup, switching and playback experience. While the list of shows may change, they are currently: Greyâ(TM)s Anatomy, Once Upon a Time, Marvelâ(TM)s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., Scandal, Grimm, New Girl, and How To Get Away With Murder."

Bolded by me. The wording is not unclear and they don't pretend everything will have no commercials. What you're buying for $8 is Hulu Plus, the library they have with the ability to stream with commercials. Adding $4 to the plan to remove commercials gives you access to the entirety of the "No commercials" package, which does not included a whopping 7 shows.

What does watching those 7 shows give you in practice? Under Hulu+ you'll have a couple commercials prior to each show, with some in the middle of shows. Under Hulu+ and No Commercial plan you'll have one Commercial before the shows, none during and one after. Then when starting the next episode you'll have another before that one. If you click "Next episode" it counts as stopping watching that, so you'll skip the after commercial and just need to watch the before commercial.

TL;DR: I dropped cable and picked up Hulu+ No commercials and Netflix and haven't been happier with my TV Viewing in a long time. The only thing missing is sports, but there are subscriptions available for NFL now too if you're willing to not watch live.

And at the end...

[HerculesMO]

Nothing of value was lost.

It still does no good for those outside the US

[fustakrakich]

Sorry, bittorrent is still the best service going.

Re:It still does no good for those outside the US

[fustakrakich]

Rent collectors cry to the government with GIMME GIMME GIMME indefinite copyright!

Can't compete with free!

Tell it to Netflix....

Yes they can compete with free, with convenience and a fair price. The numbers don't lie.

Re:It still does no good for those outside the US

[mlw4428]

None of that excuses your getting content that is meant to be purchased (whether by serving you ads or you paying money). In short, you're getting something for free. If you don't like it, why not avoid the content altogether? Because you're full of entitlement - the world "owes" you that TV show. You shouldn't have to do anything and the people who want to get paid for it - well bugger off.

So next time I feel like I need some free electricity to charge my electric car with - what's your address? And I'll probably use some of your water to wash it 3-4 times a day. You can foot the bill - I don't believe I should have to pay you for the water that I use - regardless if it's you footing the bill. Heck I may plug in a few old freezers too - that won't be a problem right? Oh and around Christmas time, I tend put up lights that jack my light bill up. I'm just gonna run a few extension cables to your house. I don't believe I should have to pay the extra electricity. It's just companies saying GIMMIE GIMMIE GIMMIE.

Re:It still does no good for those outside the US

[fustakrakich]

Sorry, they aren't the only ones to set the rules. If I purchased the content, say through Netflix, and they refuse to deliver because of my location, I will take the right to access it as I please. If I bought a VHS, I won't let them charge me again for the DVD when I can download and record my own. I am entitled to the things I purchased.

As for the rest of your troll charade, it doesn't apply, and I'm not playing.

Television?

[AndyKron]

Television? Is that some new type of technology I haven't heard about yet?

Re:The Yahoo name makes me avoid a service entirel

[Luthair]

My question is - did anyone actually know that Yahoo previously offered ad supported network shows? I literally have never heard any reference to it prior to this story.

Re:The Yahoo name makes me avoid a service entirel

[110010001000]

What? You didn't know they were a huge force in online video? They bought broadcast.com from Mark Cuban for $5.7 billion. Surely that wasn't $5.7 billion wasted????

Re:Then I'm moving too!

[mspohr]

Nice Haiku.

I don't want more than one

[JosephDoeden]

I have no desire to switch out of one app and into another while watching TV. Either put them together into one universal interface or expect monopolization.

Suckers!

[kheldan]

They fell for the 'streaming TV' meme, LOL!

OTA broadcasts + TiVo + 30_second_skip_enabled = Free TV, no ads.

Oh, and by the way: You're paying for TV three times now: Pay for internet, pay for the streaming service, and be subjected to ads. Suckers!

Re:Suckers!

[Hodr]

Some of us have highspeed internet, but no over the air channels within SEVERAL hundred miles.

Re:Suckers!

[gfxguy]

Except AMC isn't broadcast OTA. USA is not broadcast OTA. TNT is not broadcast OTA. FX, FXM, FXX are not broadcast OTA. If all the content I wanted was available OTA, then I'd agree with you.

Re:Suckers!

[kheldan]

You must be one of those people who reads a book once then either throws it away or sends it off to a used bookshop. I keep my books, eventually I'll forget enough details that reading it again is like reading it for the first time. You pay for a book once then you can read it as many times as you like, that's what's nice about books. Skip e-books they're just another scam.

Re:Suckers!

[kheldan]

Guess what? I used to pay for cable. I gave it up as a cost-cutting measure about 10 years ago and never looked back once. I was paying a premium for a bunch of shitty channels so I could get a few shows I wanted. I decided that made no sense and just walked away. Guess what else? There's plenty on OTA TV to watch, more than I have time for during the Fall/Winter season, good thing I have a DVR. You only think you 'need' those cable-only channels, but you really don't. Why do you think more and more people are quitting cable and satellite? Also the picture quality is shit because of recompression.

Re:Suckers!

[ThatsMyNick]

Have you heard about this thing called Hulu, where you can watch non-OTA shows? It is good it was even on /. earlier today.

Re:Suckers!

[kheldan]

Are you trying to be funny? Or are you clueless? Or are you just a talentless wanna-be troll?
I'm not paying to watch TV. Especially when you PAY and still have to watch ADS. That's why there's an antenna on my roof. You're welcome to PAY to watch ADS all you want, buddy, if that's what gets you off.

Re:You overdid it so now you can

[gfxguy]

I just signed up for Hulu+ commercial free. $12 compared to the nearly $140/month I was paying for DirecTV (don't get me wrong, I liked DirecTV's service a lot, but that's a lot of money for watching TV). I've had it less than a week, but we've been enjoying commercial free since we haven't watched any of the exceptions, but even the exceptions are supposed to only show commercials on the front/back end and not interrupt the program in the middle... the better question is who wouldn't pay the extra $4 to get commercial free?

Re:You overdid it so now you can

[gfxguy]

I'm a recent convert, and pay the extra $4 for commercial free, and am thinking along the same lines. I will miss my DVR - we'd save up entire seasons of shows and binge watch when we had the time. But if you can watch any show any time, you don't really need a DVR... and especially if there are no commercials (the biggest benefit to DVR, IMO, is skipping commercials). The only problem is every show has this or that restrictions... only the most recent 5 being the most common, with the show not being available until the day after it aired (some shows we look forward to we wouldn't binge watch, we'd just watch shortly after it started). You need to keep track of which shows you can't let go too long without watching, or risk missing them. The other thing is that if I had to reduce what I watched to the five shows on TV that I liked the best, four of them would be on AMC, and none of them, as far as I can tell, on Hulu. But so far I'm OK with what we got (watched the last Preacher from the AMC app... but with commercials).

So there are definitely drawbacks.... but going from what I was paying to $12 is great. There's a few holes in the programming that I'm trying to work around, so I will end up paying more, but nothing like the nearly $140 I was paying for TV service before.... it's just TV, it's not worth that.

Re:%%% HULU IS GAY ANYWAY %%% Use Kodi.

[Luthair]

Kodi is a media center and is orthogonal to a content provider.

Yahoo??

[rikkitikki]

"many of whom are still driven to Yahoo products via its highly trafficked homepage." Crap, did I wake up in an alternate timeline again?

Re:You overdid it so now you can

[AvitarX]

And it's a 30 second commercial in the front and back.

They intentionally made it as commercial free as possible. Less commercial than on an HBO show.

Re:The Yahoo name makes me avoid a service entirel

[c-A-d]

I'm sure Mark Cuban is spending his 5.7Billion wisely.

Re:Anime, older shows? Imthebossneedtheinfo

[Eponymous Coward]

Do you have any idea why the rights holders for those few shows insist on commercials?

Re:Anime, older shows? Imthebossneedtheinfo

[Binestar]

Unfortunately I have no inside knowledge, anything I say on that would be pure speculation. But, since this is slashdot, I'll speculate! Pulling things from my ass: they are popular shows and they charge a premium for commercials that the small split from the $4 doesn't cover, or possibly they were sold to the networks with a percentage of gross ad sales clause. I could see where they have "If viewed commercial-free pay X, if viewed with commercials, we get 1% of gross ad sales. They toss ads on and pay out of the gross of that instead of a flat fee."

Re:Who subscribed to Hulu?

[gfxguy]

$8 for streaming with commercials, $12 without. The question is who would pay $8 when $12 gets you no commercials.

Re:Anime, older shows? Imthebossneedtheinfo

[gfxguy]

They might have commercial free contracts with other vendors - typically pay services like Amazon (non-prime) and Apple. Although personally, the 30 second ads that run before/after hardly seem to make it worth paying extra for them, but it's probably just getting around wording in the contracts. I work in broadcast, and there are instances where we cannot give the same exact content we are showing on cable to streaming services, and it has to do with contracts we have with the cable companies. So, it really could be any number of things in various contracts. It sounds silly, but I will be willing to bet you'll see things change (for the better) as time goes on. Believe it or not, broadcasters know TV, as such, is a dying medium and we need to adapt to serving content the way the viewers want it, but you will see a lot of growing pains while existing contracts need time to die out, and you'll probably never get all you want from once service.

Re:The Yahoo name makes me avoid a service entirel

[93 Escort Wagon]

My question is - did anyone actually know that Yahoo previously offered ad supported network shows? I literally have never heard any reference to it prior to this story.

Yeah, I've known about it for two or three minutes now.

Re:Broken software doesnt help

[ArhcAngel]

You can thank Jeff Bezos for that. He had the app intentionally borked to not work on Android TV and I suspect it didn't help it functionality overall. There are workarounds but ultimately it's such a PITA I stopped trying.

Re:Hulu is no longer consumer friendly

[Ramze]

This.

I quit using it several weeks ago when the new watchlist replaced my queue. Hulu only had 2 shows I still watched sem-regularly anyway, and I wasn't going to bother with the watchlist. I thought, perhaps with the hatred of the feature and loss of viewers, they'd wise up -- but no. Apparently my eyeballs aren't worth the money they make from targeted advertising towards me vs the bandwidth cost to serve me. That's fine.

Most of what I watch, I have to visit various websites directly anyway -- like syfy.com for 12 monkeys... which was never available on Hulu.

Now we wait until Hulu becomes completely irrelevant. The owners have tried to sell it several times, but no one was stupid enough to buy the middle-man distribution network from the content providers. Why would anyone purchase it? So they could then have to negotiate pricing for everything from the very people they bought the company from? lol. Hulu Plus was the owners' idea to monetize it further... and it was clear that they went kicking and screaming towards no commercials (as their ability to target customers for commercials was worth a lot of money)... and they HAD to kill off the free version as anyone could see the sales pitches all over every page and the intentional hiding of the free content you had to search for. Shoving the freebie stuff over to Yahoo for a fee made sense... b/c now the free stuff is on a completely different site that the owners hope you'll never visit.

Rolling 5 is a good deal...

[MMC Monster]

I actually loved the original Hulu.

The idea that I could watch the latest five episodes of a TV show with associated commercials baked in (and unskipable) was quite nice. I certainly stopped pirating those shows.

The problem with Hulu was that they slowly made more of their stuff behind paywalls. This move to a different website is a good solution. Keep the free stuff on Yahoo and paywalled stuff on Hulu.

Re:The Yahoo name makes me avoid a service entirel

[Gavagai80]

Other Space was good. It's the only thing I ever watched on Yahoo.

I tried their subscription model...

[InfiniteBlaze]

I wanted premium service, access to their entire catalog, and most importantly - NO ADS. They failed to deliver that experience, and I cancelled the same day. I still use Netflix, but if they ever start showing ads, I'll kick them to the curb just as quickly. I hardly watch anything anymore...saving $10 a month would probably be better for me anyway.

Re:i gave up on hulu years ago.

[SScorpio]

Paid Hulu had ads since the beginning. The updated ad-free plan is actually new.

Re:Anime, older shows? Imthebossneedtheinfo

[Binestar]

Sorry but you're either naive or sound like a shill for Hulu. You realize that Hulu is Comcast, Time Warner, Disney, Fox, and NBC all rolled up into one? Of course they want to keep commercials in. They have no incentive to keep them out because there's folks willing to pay for a service that includes commercials...just like cable. Bottom line...how is Hulu any different than cable?

I might, or I might just be happy with the product and willing to pay for it. If you go back far enough in my comment history I'm sure you'll think I'm a shill for TiVo as well because it allows me to timeshift and 30 second skip through commercials.

Bottom line...hulu is different from cable in many ways.
1: You can watch what you want when you want instead of on the networks schedule.
2: It's cheaper by a factor of 10 ($12 instead of $120).
3: Has *WAY* fewer commercials with the No-Commercials plan
4: Doesn't have sports

I find I need to mix Hulu Plus No Commercials and Netflix to get the majority of what I want to watch. I'm very likely going to add in Youtube Red for another $5/month.

I've wanted commercial free television for a long time. Now that companies are charging an affordable rate for an adequate service, I'm willing to pay for it. I get that others don't want to, or think that paying for the cheapest plan should get them all the benefits. That's not how the world works. I vote for services with my wallet, and in doing so I'm saving at least $65/month on television.

Does that make me a shill? Definition is: an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others. I'm not an accomplice or affiliated with Netflix, Hulu, Tivo or Youtube, just a happy customer of all. (Although my TiVo is currently powered down to not having cable).

Did their paid service stop sucking at some point?

[lusid1]

When I last tried to use that service, most of the content was not available on the paid variant. What was on it had a bigger back catalog, but was too infested with commercials to be viable. I understand you can pay 50% more to reduce, but not eliminate, the commercials now. But did they ever get all the content moved over to the pay service? Otherwise dropping the free service seems brain dead, even for Hulu.

Your connection is not secure

[TimSSG]

What I get trying to go to https://view.yahoo.com/ Tim S. Your connection is not secure The owner of view.yahoo.com has configured their website improperly. To protect your information from being stolen, Firefox has not connected to this website.

Re:Anime, older shows? Imthebossneedtheinfo

[mattack2]

Bizarre that Grimm is included, since the first 4 seasons are commercial free on Amazon Prime Video. (..and presumably the 5th season will be added sometime around the beginning of the new TV season, which has happened for the previous seasons.)

In other words, it's weird that the different streaming services have such a different experience with the same show.

Re:Anime, older shows? Imthebossneedtheinfo

[mattack2]

TiVo as well because it allows me to timeshift and 30 second skip through commercials.

and current Tivos (Roamio and above) have a feature where you skip the entire commercial break _for a significant number of shows_ (but definitely not all) just by hitting one key when the commercial break starts.

Re: Anime, older shows? Imthebossneedtheinfo

[interstellarsurfer]

Easy, they insist on being paid more than their tiny sliver of the $12 subscription is worth. They are high-value series with dedicated fan bases. Hulu is just passing the blame with lawyer approved verbiage.

Re:You overdid it so now you can

[gfxguy]

They make it quite clear there are four or five shows that have a 30 second leading commercial before you sign up, so don't get your panties in a wad.

Great move

[adamptp]

I think this a good move for hulu.

Re:The Yahoo name makes me avoid a service entirel

[Shirley Marquez]

I had no trouble with the Yahoo name. The Verizon name, on the other hand, is a problem...

Re:The Yahoo name makes me avoid a service entirel

[Shirley Marquez]

Not quite true. Back when the internet was still small enough that a human-curated directory was feasible, Yahoo did a good job of it. That was their original claim to fame. Unfortunately, time and technology left that model behind, and Yahoo has always been a me-too player in most other services. Their strong sports site is a notable exception, and Yahoo Groups is a useful service that doesn't have any direct equivalent at any other major provider.

ulu Ends Free Streaming Service, Moves Free Stuff

[rickyslashdot]

Guess I'm telling my ancient age, but I remember when CABLE was advertised as 'no commercials' -lol-

Re:The Yahoo name makes me avoid a service entirel

[RyoShin]

Fans of Community were well aware--after NBC cancelled it a second (third?) time after the fifth season, Yahoo! picked up for the sixth and final season. (A recurring joke/plea was #SixSeasonsAndAMovie) That and Other Space were probably the only somewhat-known content it had.