Hulu Lowers Prices After Netflix Raises Theirs (variety.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hulu Lowers Prices After Netflix Raises Theirs (variety.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Monday October 9, 2017 @10:50AM from the perfect-timing dept.

Coincidentally, as Netflix raised their prices last week, Hulu decided to lower theirs. The streaming service is now offering a plan, which includes commercials, for $5.99 per month for the first year -- a short-term promotion aimed at luring new subs with the kickoff of the fall television and Hulu's expanded TV library lineup. Variety reports: Hulu's special offer for the limited-commercials plan is available through Jan. 9, 2018, only to new or returning Hulu subs. After one year, the regular $7.99 monthly price will kick in. Hulu offers a commercial-free option for $12 per month, and a live TV service (which includes access to original series like Emmy-winning "The Handmaid's Tale" and on-demand titles) for $40 monthly. A Hulu rep said the company's new promo is intended to draft off the fall 2017 TV season. As it looks for another original series on the order of "Handmaid's Tale" -- so far its only breakout hit -- Hulu has inked deals to bring thousands of current and older TV shows to the platform to armor-up in its battle with rivals Netflix and Amazon Prime.

108 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Lower? by Quirkz · 2017-10-09 10:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm sorry, but "new promotional rates" is not lowering prices.
1. It doesn't reduce anything for anyone who is already paying.
2. It's a promotional rate. The regular rate is the same.
So, it's a temporary sale to lure in new subscribers. That's different.

--
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
1. Re:Lower? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 11:12 · Score: 0
  
  "it's a temporary sale to lure in new subscribers. That's different." Different than Donald J. Change.org?
2. Re:Lower? by DontBeAMoran · 2017-10-09 11:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Lowering prices means lower prices for everyone. That is clearing not the case here.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
3. Re:Lower? by Darinbob · 2017-10-09 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  And it only applies to the lowest tier. The normal version without any commercials is same as Netflix price. The more expensive "live TV" version is kind of useless without a DVR like feature (we've had DVRs and VCRs so long now that few people watch TV live anymore except for sports).
4. Re:Lower? by JackieBrown · 2017-10-09 11:52 · Score: 1
  
  No it doesn't. It would mean everyone is they said lowering for everyone. You can't add words to something and then say it means the same thing,
  That said, until cable reduces costs for internet only plans, most people won't officially cut the cord.
  I have cable. I never watch it, but I have it since it costs more or the same to not have it.
5. Re:Lower? by JackieBrown · 2017-10-09 11:58 · Score: 2
  
  You know, there are a ton of Trump stories on slashdot without forcing this discussion to become a Trump one.
6. Re:Lower? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 12:05 · Score: 0
  
  I had lifeline cable with Comcast because it cost $15, but lowered the my Internet costs by $20. After I canceled and switched to DSL, I wondered if the added cable fees and taxes ate that $5 difference. When my introductory DSL price runs out and I switch back, I will gladly eat the one or two dollar difference if it means I'm not helping them inflate their stupid subscriber numbers.
7. Re:Lower? by fluffernutter · 2017-10-09 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I took the headline to mean they were lowering them for everyone. Mostly because it juxtaposes them to Netflix prices which got risen for everyone. A promotional price is not 'lowering prices', it is having a promotion.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
8. Re:Lower? by JohnFen · 2017-10-09 12:34 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  No, Quirkz is correct: a temporary promotional price is not a "lowered price" in the commonly understood sense. It's a "sale price".
9. Re: Lower? by dbialac · 2017-10-09 14:09 · Score: 1
  
  They need it. They beat their UI ober the head with an ugly stick and decided to get rid of any kind of usability at the same time. People are threatening to cancel right and left. My own subscription expires at midnight tonight.
10. Re: Lower? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 14:24 · Score: 0
  
  No it doesn't. It would mean everyone is they said lowering for everyone. You can't add words to something and then say it means the same thing,
  Umm, exactly. You can't add the words 'new subscribers only introductory offer' and expect it to mean the same thing.
  So you are 100% wrong, right?
11. Re:Lower? by rtb61 · 2017-10-09 14:27 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I don't understand people who pay for commercial, pay for someone to enter their lounge room and scream at them about shit they don't want. Once you start going largely commercial free, those commercial when you occasionally come across, come across as extremely aggressive and loud, hugely undesirable and really put you off products. There are products they I totally avoid as a result of aggressive commercial placement and a very loud and aggravating style. If people behaved like commercial did, wander into your house to demand you buy product, would you tolerate it or would you throw them out. I can not understand why people think they will be able to sell me product by actively trying to force me to watch their POS commercials. Every time I buy stuff, I check other people's NEGATIVE opinions an reviews of the product, fuck you commercials, you live or die on how badly you have treated existing customers, that is it.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
12. Re:Lower? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 15:27 · Score: 0
  
  I lost interest in Hulu when they added that premium tier that allowed you to watch on TVs, but didn't remove the ads.
13. Re:Lower? by Maxo-Texas · 2017-10-09 18:17 · Score: 2
  
  They only lowered prices for new customers and only for 12 months.
  Saying they "lowered prices" is grossly incorrect because all existing customers will not see a lowered rate.
  Hey, bread's been lowered from $2 to $1.
  Okay, I want some.
  Oh-- it's $2 for you.
  But you lowered prices?!?!
  Yes- but not for you.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
14. Re:Lower? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 23:12 · Score: 0
  
  My rule on commercial advertising is if they repeat their telephone number more than 2 times I shut off the radio/TV and won't do business with them. Something about repeating the phone number 3, 4 and in one case 5 times just pisses me off.
15. Re:Lower? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 23:20 · Score: 0
  
  Their promotional rate wouldn't matter to me anyway - I stopped reading as soon as I got to "which includes commercials".
  No thanks Hulu, I dropped cable specifically to get rid of time wasting commercials. I'm not paying monthly to be shown advertisements, no matter what the cost.
16. Re:Lower? by squiggleslash · 2017-10-10 02:05 · Score: 2
  
  You can't add words to something and then say it means the same thing,
  
  Unless those words are implied. If there are no qualifications on the sentence, then the implication was, actually, that the prices were lowered for everyone (or at least every customer buying the products affected.)
  What you're saying by saying "We're lowering prices for everyone" isn't the same as "We're lowering prices" is that "We're lowering prices" is the same as "We're lowering prices, but only for a small set of people."
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
17. Re:Lower? by JackieBrown · 2017-10-10 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  But it is still lower for the people they sell it at 1 dollar to.
  If they said "1 dollar for all customers" then you'd have a point.
  And considering Hulu is upfront about this (it's the article from the Verge that uses the phrasing you find deceptive), not sure what the problem is in any case
18. Re:Lower? by Cro+Magnon · 2017-10-10 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  Is that the live streaming one? I have no interest in that, but I like their $11.99 ad-free one.
  
  --
  Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
19. Re:Lower? by unrtst · 2017-10-10 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  And considering Hulu is upfront about this (it's the article from the Verge that uses the phrasing you find deceptive), not sure what the problem is in any case
  IMO, the problem is that many of us are sick of shitty editorials that not only add no value, but get worse because they provide misleading or incorrect information.
  Someone took time to write, "Coincidentally, as Netflix raised their prices last week, Hulu decided to lower theirs", as a summary of some points from the article, but that's wrong. It leads those with existing Hulu contracts to expect to pay less for the next year, which will drive far more interest into the article than if it read, "Coincidentally, as Netflix raised their prices last week, Hulu announced a short-term promotional sale for new or returning Hulu subscriptions".
  No wonder they didn't phrase it correctly... it's barely news. Passing on "news" of a promotional sale is just advertising (or a slashvertisment, as it's known here).
  I like this site, a lot, but crap like this should be corrected ASAP. I know I can't really trust Variety to get all their facts straight, but I do expect the one or two phrases that slashdot adds in summaries to at least be accurate (grammar, spelling, jokes, opinions... I can deal with all those).
20. Re:Lower? by Sporkinum · 2017-10-10 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  True. Not only that, you used to be able to watch a fair amount on PC with an unpaid account. Now they have nothing. I checked that a couple of months ago to see if anything had changed.. it hadn't. I had lost interest in it a few years ago because too many ads, that they repeated over and over for too long, and mostly shit content.
  
  --
  "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
21. Re:Lower? by AvitarX · 2017-10-10 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  They dropped the free tier a while back.
  Basically it was all stuff available from the networks anyway.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
22. Re:Lower? by barc0001 · 2017-10-10 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  Also useless considering that Hulu's potential user base is 300m people in the US, whereas Netflix has a global potential user base. Until Hulu is available elsewhere they're fighting over a tiny piece of the pie. As one of the non US Netflix subscribers, Hulu could offer to GIVE me $500/mo to ditch Netflix for them and I still probably wouldn't do it because I can't actually use Hulu. Well, maybe I would do that for a few months and then go binge Netflix afterward... because that's a lot of money to just stop watching Netflix for a few months.
23. Re: Lower? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-10 07:12 · Score: 0
  
  Cal JG Wentworth, 877 Cash Now.
  Cal JG Wentworth, 877 Cash Now.
  Cal JG Wentworth, 877 Cash Now.
  Cal JG Wentworth, 877 Cash Now.
  Kind of like that?
24. Re:Lower? by Maxo-Texas · 2017-10-10 21:33 · Score: 1
  
  No. If Hulu advertise that they have lowered their prices but then doesn't give lower prices to all customers then they are engaging in bait and switch fraudulent behavior. Same as if the dealership says they are selling trucks for a certain price and then only actually sells those trucks to new customers.
  If you say, "Hulu lowered prices" the default reasonable expectation is that they lowered prices generally. Not that they lowered prices for new customers who will be a tiny number compared to their current customer base.
  There's no problem. It's the usual mangled Slashdot header. It should have said, "Hulu lowers prices to new customers".
  Instead it said something that didn't match reality... as it often does.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
25. Re:Lower? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-11 00:22 · Score: 0
  
  You don't have to add words to something that is generally assumed. You may want to learn how natural languages work.
  
  We sell gasoline for $0.10 per gallon (fine print: for the first quart if the person has never been to the station before). You: OMG, they've lowered their price!
Seems only fair by PopeRatzo · 2017-10-09 10:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

which includes commercials, for $5.99 per month for the first year
I pay $5.99 for the privilege of watching your commercials?
Tell you what, I'll sign up when the CEO of Hulu comes and sucks my hairy balls. And I'll only charge him $5.99 and he has to listen to me talk about my fantasy football team and the cute thing my cat did. For three hours. While he sucks my hairy balls.
Honestly, the cheek of these bastards. Do they not know how the whole idea of "commercials" works?

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
1. Re: Seems only fair by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 11:17 · Score: 0
  
  Tell me more about the cute thing your car did!!
2. Re: Seems only fair by corychristison · 2017-10-09 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  It's exactly the same as the cable companies do...
3. Re: Seems only fair by DontBeAMoran · 2017-10-09 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  Free with ads, or monthly fee with no ads.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
4. Re: Seems only fair by markdavis · 2017-10-09 11:34 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  >"It's exactly the same as the cable companies do..."
  No it isn't, not even close. With cable, anyone with any brain uses a DVR (I use a TiVo) and skips the commercials. Streaming, on the other hand, can FORCE commercial viewing, and that is exactly what Hulu does- forced commercials.
  And with cable/DVR, you can record what you want for later viewing, and without a live Internet connection. Streaming video and your Internet goes down? Too bad. No more video.
  And with cable/DVR, I can record hundreds of hours of video and it doesn't impact my Internet speed at all. And my Internet usage doesn't impact video at all. Never any dropping of resolution spontaneously, no missing frames, no freezing.
  And with cable/DVR, I can pause, play, rewind, fast forward, and frame-by-frame effectively with my video. And it does so instantly- no lag, no "loading", no hiccups.
  So no, this is not "exactly the same as cable."
  I don't care if Hulu with commercials was FREE, if it has forced commercials, neither I nor many others will use it. I haven't watched commercials (unless I WANT to) for over 16 years and I will NEVER go back.
5. Re: Seems only fair by JackieBrown · 2017-10-09 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  Awesome. You should set up a video service with your model.
  I won't be subscribing to another commercial channel but it doesn't mean that it doesn't have value for a lot of people. And 5 dollars is cheaper than a lot of cable plans (which usually include commercials.)
6. Re: Seems only fair by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 12:50 · Score: 0
  
  Did it occur to you that without subscriber fees, it might require more commercials to cover the costs? Why not an intermediate option with fewer commercials but that has a low subscriber fee? I don't know why you find that unreasonable. Please explain.
7. Re: Seems only fair by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 12:52 · Score: 0
  
  Holy moly, settle down.
  #triggered much?
8. Re:Seems only fair by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 13:10 · Score: 0
  
  I'm new to slashing dot, but you people rate this as insightful? I'll see you later.
9. Re: Seems only fair by Darinbob · 2017-10-09 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  Wasn't their old model free with ads, and monthly fee with ads? This definitely caused a lot of people to prefer Netflix at the time.
10. Re: Seems only fair by Darinbob · 2017-10-09 13:34 · Score: 1
  
  And the drawbacks to cable/DVR - no on-demand shows (except a few curated ones), a limited selection of shows at any time, amazingly overpriced subscription fees, and terrible service.
  I don't like commercials, but compared to cable/DVR I'd rather have Hulu with commercials. And Hulu has the option to pay more for no commercials anyway, same price as Netflix. The super-cheap option is subsidized by commercials.
  And I do think the "subsidized by commercials" is a bad deal. If they make enough money on broadcast TV with commercials to build and maintain thousands of transmitters across the country with local staff and local programming, then someone should be able to offer a free streaming service paid for 100% with commercials.
  (I suspect there is Hollywood's finger in the mix here; for broadcast TV you get a lower quality signal; but with streaming there's a high quality signal and there's a morbid dread in Hollywood that someone might be able to make a copy for free. So Hollywood is going to charge more money for HDTV shows than broadcast quality shows.)
11. Re: Seems only fair by markdavis · 2017-10-09 14:01 · Score: 2
  
  >"I don't like commercials, but compared to cable/DVR I'd rather have Hulu with commercials."
  Choice is a good thing. Free markets give consumers more of what they want. I, for one, am glad Hulu exists even though I have no interest in at least their commercial model, because it spurs more competition. In the past we had none and it is about time the cable monopolies fall under real pressure.
12. Re: Seems only fair by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 14:34 · Score: 0
  
  Choice is a good thing.
  
  It is.
  
  Free markets give consumers more of what they want.
  
  Complete BS. What sort of fucking retard are you? A free market is by definition not required to do anything for the consumer. That's the whole fucking definition.
  Complete shit for brains...
13. Re: Seems only fair by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 15:47 · Score: 0
  
  When paid-cable was first rolled out it didn't have commercials, It was a major selling point to get people to ditch "free TV", to avoid commercials.
  Bit-by-bit commercials crept in.
  Hulu is trying to leap-frog that middle step.
14. Re: Seems only fair by markdavis · 2017-10-09 23:29 · Score: 2
  
  >"Complete BS. What sort of fucking retard are you? A free market is by definition not required to do anything for the consumer. That's the whole fucking definition."
  Um, if they don't give the consumer what they want, another company will. Or do you think Communism works better?
  >"Complete shit for brains..."
  Look in the mirror, foul-mouthed coward...
15. Re: Seems only fair by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-10 00:19 · Score: 0
  
  I used to pay for Hulu. Then I started seeing ads. I will never touch Hulu again.
  They most certainly play ads at subscribers for certain shows.
  If I'm going to have to pay and watch commercials I might as well just pay for shitty cable as it is a FAR better deal.
  Hulu HAD only 2 advantages over cable:
  On demand - Cable companies more or less do the same thing now
  No commercials - They've been playing commercials for years now, to paying subscribers
  So Hulu gives you exactly -0 advantages over just paying the existing rip off cable companies.
16. Re: Seems only fair by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-10 01:08 · Score: 0
  
  Even the ad-free version now still has ads. Try to access hulu while having adblock enabled gets you the cringy "we advertising executives are morally superior to you" turn off adblock notifications.
17. Re: Seems only fair by Cro+Magnon · 2017-10-10 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  Yup! I tried their free service, and it totally sucked. There was NFW I'd try their paid stuff, until they offered the ad-free service.
  
  --
  Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
18. Re: Seems only fair by unrtst · 2017-10-10 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  The free version on PC's has just as many commercials (AFAICT) as the $7.99/month version on TV connected systems (roku, appletv, firetv, xbox, ps3/ps4, etc). IMO, they're charging because they can get away with it on those systems, and they don't feel they could get away with it on the PC. They even made a hulu desktop version that had built in support for remotes and was free, but so few people have media centers, and those that do are usually capable of finding the programs elsewhere for free (pirate), so they don't charge them.
  
  Why not an intermediate option with fewer commercials but that has a low subscriber fee?
  That'd be swell, but that's not what's happening. For it to be an intermediate option, there would have to be a lower option, but they don't provide a 100% ad supported version for streaming devices (roku/etc).
19. Re:Seems only fair by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-10 09:30 · Score: 0
  
  Eric Cartman? Is that you?
Nope by HBI · 2017-10-09 10:58 · Score: 0

I don't think people want Hulu. Having a promo price isn't going to change that. It's a service without much of a premise, and doesn't have any other business to bundle its service with to get subscribers, either. Netflix got where it was by mailing DVDs. What did Hulu ever do that people found even marginally interesting?

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
1. Re:Nope by Dutch+Gun · 2017-10-09 12:35 · Score: 2
  
  It has a commercial-free tier, with some network-exclusive content. That was the only time they interested me. I'd have never paid them to watch commercials. Once you go commercial free, you really can't go back.
  Only it was "mostly" commercial free (a few exceptions). And they also pasted a bug in the corner of the screen advertising the local affiliate station, which was distracting to me (that's an awesome way to make torrents look better than paid subscriptions). And I found I just didn't watch all that much TV anyhow, certainly not enough to justify subscribing to yet another streaming service (which may very well happen to Disney as well).
  So, no more Hulu for me.
  
  --
  Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
2. Re:Nope by JohnFen · 2017-10-09 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  Hulu has 17% of the market and climbing. Some people clearly want it.
3. Re:Nope by Darinbob · 2017-10-09 13:35 · Score: 1
  
  Netflix also got there by having streaming early on that was better than Hulu and without commercials.
4. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-10 03:57 · Score: 0
  
  They used to be supported only by commercials (no monthly fee), and before that, some shows (e.g. anime) were even completely free. That's what they did that people found even marginally interesting. Of course they still played availability games, like they always do. And then they added a monthly fee to somewhat reduce the availability games, and tripled the number of commercials across the board. And then they made they added the monthly fee to all of their service. And that's where people stopped finding Hulu even marginally interesting.
Not really lower... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 10:59 · Score: 0

It's a promo and you get ads. It might be attractive for a bit if you're able to deal with the ads, but at least with Netflix, your monthly fee means there's no ads.
2017: Paying to watch TV by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 11:00 · Score: 0

Meanwhile we of the Antenna Master-race pay NOTHING every month and have more than enough to watch. Why are you letting these shit companies leech money out of your bank accounts?

I can't have an antenna where I live!
You're not trying hard enough!

There's nothing on broadcast worth watching!
There's nothing on your meme 'streaming' service worth the money and you know it!

Broadcast is dead!
LOL you keep right on believing that if it makes you happy.

I 'cut the cord' on cable, I'm smarter than everyone else!
LOL no, you traded one cord for another!

I have satellite, your argument is irrelevant
Nope, you're an even bigger fool than cable TV clowns and streaming idiots.

Face the facts: If you're paying cash money to watch TV, you are not very smart.

***DROPS MIC***
1. Re: 2017: Paying to watch TV by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 11:05 · Score: 0
  
  To get an antenna high enough into the air to actually get any signal where I live would be prohibitively expensive and may not actually be legal since it's fall path would cross into neighboring properties. That said, I don't pay for cable either. Ad free Hulu is pretty easy compromise.
2. Re:2017: Paying to watch TV by known_coward_69 · 2017-10-09 11:08 · Score: 2
  
  does this magical antenna thing work on your phone or tablet?
3. Re:2017: Paying to watch TV by XXeR · 2017-10-09 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  does this magical antenna thing work on your phone or tablet?
  I don't necessarily agree with everything else the gp said, but with Tablo you can watch antenna TV on your mobile device:
  https://www.tablotv.com/blog/a...
4. Re:2017: Paying to watch TV by Darinbob · 2017-10-09 13:41 · Score: 1
  
  It's $10/month for me, no big deal. And broadcast really doesn't have that much. Ie, Doctor Who, Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, and so forth. Sure, wait long enough on broadcast and stuff shows up in syndication, and you will get "edited for content/time" movies as well.
  If I didn't have internet then your argument might make sense as adding in the boradband capable ISP is by far the bulk of the cost for streaming.
  Of course, you could be like where my mother is; the internet is terrible and digital TV can't be received except for one lousy channel. So paying for the lowest tier of satellite is needed to get the local television stations.
5. Re: 2017: Paying to watch TV by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 23:11 · Score: 0
  
  City folk can't imagine living in a valley 50 miles from the nearest transmitter. ATSC doesn't work well without line of sight.
6. Re: 2017: Paying to watch TV by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-10 01:56 · Score: 0
  
  This, it's about 70 miles for me, and while I used to be able to get 2-3 channels back in the analog days (because of it being analog there was a middle ground between "it works" and "it doesn't work") but since the digital TV transition it's been reliably zero channels.
  Cable isn't here, there's no view of the sky in any direction for satellite (trees), but I can get DSL, so things like Hulu are my only option, and have been for years.
7. Re:2017: Paying to watch TV by Chameleon+Man · 2017-10-10 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  You are poor and can't pay $11 a month to NOT watch commercials AND have a wider selection of content? Who's the idiot now? I don't know if you're trolling or not, but your "DROPS MIC" bit is super cringy. No wonder you posted as AC.
Meh. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 11:01 · Score: 0

Piracy is still better, faster, cheaper with more selection and no restrictions.
and the handmaidens tale isn't worth pirating.
apples and oranges? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 11:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

To even mention the limited commercials price is extremely misleading.
What I see in the article is that Netflix offers a $7.99 / month plan for a single stream non-HD commercial-free stream or $10.99 / month for the standard HD plan, and Hulu's lowest commercial free option is apparently $12 / month.
So, the article says Hulu is more expensive than Netflix unless you're willing to listen to commercials at which time it becomes the same price as the lowest price commercial-free Netflix plan (after the bait-and-switch promotion completes).
Good Price by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 11:06 · Score: 0

This is a good price for stale, static, commercial laden content.
That is what I would pay to watch stale, static , commercial laden content, since I need the Internet anyway for work.
I don't want to pay 12.99/Mo to rent a box to watch stale static commercial laden content, ala cable.
Hulu was cool when a lot of content was free by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 11:07 · Score: 0

but I can't be bothered to pay for another service.
Stick your commercials you know where by OneHundredAndTen · 2017-10-09 11:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

Hulu would have to pay me $5.99 a month.
1. Re:Stick your commercials you know where by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 11:20 · Score: 0
  
  $6/mo is not enough to get me to watch commercials. They'd have to pay my living expenses and increase my savings.
2. Re:Stick your commercials you know where by Darinbob · 2017-10-09 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  If the amount of money they say my watching commcercials can earn companies, they owe me $10/month as the very least.
And Increased Ads by dcollins · 2017-10-09 11:16 · Score: 2

I noticed that Hulu recently increased the numbers ads in between breaks: I believe from 4 to 5 now. It seems close to interminable. In some cases recently I've finished my dinner and just shut off the program before it could get back.
Since it's inception they've been ratcheting up the ads per break. I think 2 to begin with, now up to 5. I wonder where the end-point is.

--
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
1. Re:And Increased Ads by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 11:23 · Score: 0
  
  if i wanted to pay to watch ads on tv, i would subscribe to cable or satellite.
  oh wait. shit. i do. have. cable. fuck me.
2. Re:And Increased Ads by Darinbob · 2017-10-09 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  Holy crap. Broadcast TV doesn't even show that many ads at the breaks.
3. Re:And Increased Ads by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 19:31 · Score: 0
  
  Some of the niche cable TV channels show 8 to 12 30-second commercials towards the end of the broadcast. Not to mention totally obliterating the credits so they can start the next show. Breaks are at minimum 4 minutes, 30 seconds and can be as long as 6 full minutes. If a show is past halfway complete, a fairly accurate determination of the time remaining can be found by dividing the remaining time by 2.
4. Re:And Increased Ads by tmjva · 2017-10-10 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  It isn't the ads, its the reduced content over time they used to offer. Show I've seen over the years simply "go missing" what's up with that?
  
  --
  Tracy Johnson
  Old fashioned text games hosted below:
  http://empire.openmpe.com/
  BT
Torrents by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 11:18 · Score: 3, Funny

Are offering a very competitive rate. You pay $0 per month, which comes out to $0 per year. Torrents are also commercial free. They offer an impressive library of new and old content including access to original series like Emmy-winning "The Handmaid's Tale." Compared to Netflix and Hulu offerings this is an impressive deal indeed, and it's not some kind of teaser rate that expires after a few months. The $0 fees for torrents are going to last well beyond the 2017 season.
1. Re:Torrents by DontBeAMoran · 2017-10-09 11:23 · Score: 2
  
  And is this "Torrents" thing limited to the U.S.A. like Hulu, or is it available world-wide?
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
2. Re:Torrents by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 18:26 · Score: 0
  
  Don't forget that you can get overseas shows, shows in other languages, even shows you watched that is dubbed in another language (does everyone you know speak / understand english? Do you need the show in a different language?)
Who are all of these people with connections... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 11:37 · Score: 0

fast enough to stream? I don't know anyone that has one at home. Looks at my ISDN terminal adapter connected to the fastest connection I can get in my apartment building here in Seattle and cries.
Seriously, it doesn't seem like either could have a large enough market of potential customers to matter.
1. Re:Who are all of these people with connections... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-10 02:21 · Score: 0
  
  I understand the horrible internet situation. Me I have to choose from 120mbps cable with horrible service or 80mbps dsl with better service. I just wish the town would get the fiber laid for the promised 1gbps. That should be done in a year or two though.
  Seriously though. MOVE AWAY FROM SEATTLE.
New Hulu Interface driving people away by FerociousFerret · 2017-10-09 11:42 · Score: 2

I think this promotion is to try to deal with the massive rejection of the "New Hulu Experience", i.e. the new interface that sucks and has received massive negative feedback. Hulu has no plans to go back to the previous interface. Many are voting with their wallet, myself included, and dropping Hulu.
1. Re:New Hulu Interface driving people away by mschaffer · 2017-10-09 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  I know I am seriously thinking of dropping Hulu because of their horrible UI.
  Probably will next week---after getting my antenna installed.
2. Re: New Hulu Interface driving people away by junk · 2017-10-09 23:29 · Score: 2
  
  Came here to day this. My gut reaction is that this has nothing to do with Netflix and everything to do with losing subscribers. I dropped because of the new UI. It's not just a "change is bad" reaction either. If the new changes were mostly usable, I would adapt. I left because bad change is bad and I'll keep my couple of bucks and put it into an external antenna. The mohu does OK but now it's time to get serious.
The Ads make this a non-starter for me. by Halo5 · 2017-10-09 11:54 · Score: 1

The whole point of moving to streaming is to get away from the 10-15 minutes of commercials. It's way past the point of ridiculous. I can't even watch regular TV anymore. Netflix+Prime has allowed me to ditch the ads, and I ain't never going back!
If Hulu is ADDING to the number of ads, I don't really expect them to be around much longer...

--
665: The mark on the forehead of Satan's slightly less evil brother, Stan.
1. Re:The Ads make this a non-starter for me. by Cro+Magnon · 2017-10-10 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  I haven't have any complaints with their $11.99 ad-free service. The extra money is well worth it.
  
  --
  Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
2. Re:The Ads make this a non-starter for me. by AvitarX · 2017-10-10 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  I love being able to watch a 1 hour show in 45 minutes the day after it airs.
  This time of year it's the service I use most.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Un-FUBAR the interface now by nobuddy · 2017-10-09 12:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

All they need to do now us roll back that useless FUBAR interface they pushed out recently. Thats why they are hemorrhaging subscribers.
1. Re:Un-FUBAR the interface now by gymbrown · 2017-10-09 19:29 · Score: 2
  
  If you want to see what shows that are on your watch list you can only see 2 shows instead of 12. A quick google will take you to 100s of negative comments but maybe 1 or 2 positive ones.
  
  --
  Embrace the future.
So torn by JohnFen · 2017-10-09 12:33 · Score: 1

On the one hand, I'm happy to see anyone taking Netflix down a notch.
On the other hand, Hulu is the team effort of Disney, Fox, and Comcast -- and I can't really cheer for any of those guys.
So they want a subscription by waspleg · 2017-10-09 12:35 · Score: 1

AND want you to watch ads? Huh. That sounds familiar for some reason ... and equally odious.
1. Re:So they want a subscription by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 13:15 · Score: 0
  
  AND want you to watch ads? Huh. That sounds familiar for some reason ... and equally odious.
  Wikipedia: Hulu LLC, a joint venture with The Walt Disney Company (through Disney–ABC Television Group) (30%),[8] 21st Century Fox (through Fox Entertainment Group) (30%), Comcast (through NBCUniversal) (30%), and as of August 10, 2016, Time Warner (through Turner Broadcasting System) (10%, minority stake).[2][9]
  So, promotional rates and ads. Yeah it sounds familiar for good reason.
And I will continue paying for Netflix by No+Longer+an+AC · 2017-10-09 14:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

But I will never pay for Hulu.
Netflix isn't perfect and the price increase is mildly annoying I guess. One more dollar a month? I can deal with it. Hulu with no commercials is still more expensive and I still haven't finished watching everything I want to watch on Netflix.
And compared to what I was paying for cable before I cut the cord it's completely insignificant.
But why is Netflix raising their prices by a whole dollar considered news anyway?
Is it news when Comcast raises the price of their service by more than that or when they drop a bunch of channels from the basic plan?
One thing that's great about Netflix is I know how much it will cost from month to month and if there's ever a price increase Slashdot or some other internet news will warn me about it - lord knows Netflix never talks to me. I don't even know if they have a current email address.
But with cable TV you never know what your monthly bill will be and if they tell you one price you know they're neglecting a bunch of add-on fees and it will go up or channels will be removed.
With Netflix, I guess I'll lose Disney movies but I haven't even mustered up the patience to watch that Star Wars movie that's on Netflix because there's other stuff I'd rather watch.
JUST cancelled by MrDoh! · 2017-10-09 15:32 · Score: 2

After the change to the watchlist that instead of just being the programs I wanted to watch in the order I wanted to watch, setting + on a season, I just got so frustrated with their new watchlist that I 'tuned out'. Sent them a 'please return it how it was, it worked' message and got the "no, you're wrong, this is far better way to manage your subscriptions" response. Then not having anything new to watch for months on end, but it dropping things I'd previously subbed to. Then adding programs I didn't want to watch in my list because they thought I might be interested, when I don't even speak spanish, why's it offering me programmes to watch in a language I don't understand? And the ads, oh my goodness the ads. The same ones over and over and over and over. I'd try to adblock but it stopped the site working (fair enough, they need ad revenue I guess), then offered a 'watch without the ads' deal, but I feel the prior months of the same ads over and over and over was just torture to make the new package seems better value. And then those ads that forced you to do some survey. I want to passively watch, not start answering questions on the name of the actor in Magnum PI. And I can't quit/skip unless I mash a few buttons for a bit. I'm just... burned out. Gave up on hulu. It could/should have been great, and there's bound to be later sites that do what early Hulu did, that'll be popular. But what Hulu ended up being, an ad network you have to pay for, that's slow and clunky to use, keeps getting worse every few months, nope, cancelled a month ago.

--
Waiting for an amusing sig.
Does Hulu actually support HTML5 video yet? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 17:45 · Score: 0

Netflix works on Linux using Chrome. Does Hulu support HTML5 video or are they still using a dead format?
This is their normal pricing by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 21:40 · Score: 0

I've been on this plan for nearing 2 years. I found it by googling for Hulu deals. Its a normal deal for those who are looking for deals, just not normally on their main page.
Hulu doesnt have anything other than current tv shows. They regularly remove old seasons of content so it makes watching an entire current tv series a pain in the ass. If they want to charge more they would need to add more shows.
BoeoStream Netflix Amazon Hulu by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 23:09 · Score: 0

...Hulu > Your Mom
Impersonating me? Weak by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-10 00:22 · Score: 0

See subject: Whoever the fool is attempting to "impersonate me" only proves that I've REALLY 'gotten to them' somehow (thanks)!
* I am with you on something though - there is a TON of bogus downmoderation but as the saying goes? "When all your opposition has is censorship you've obviously won"
&
I am highly against the LOON(s) who shot all those folks up in Vegas - I think it's somekind of falseflag OR an attempt @ further dividing our nation up ala the KING of bogus evil in that capacity, George Soros paying off groups like BLM & Antifa to do so - but GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE - people do. NO reason to ban guns!
As far as "AssFux" Ash-Fox? That whimp's a weasel who ALWAYS starts w/ me (he's 'butthurt' I've busted him up on tech issues is all that is).
APK
P.S.=> Provoking weasel reactions like yours is all the satisfaction anyone needs seeing as you try to "impersonate" me loser... apk
hulu has better content anyway by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-10 00:47 · Score: 0

as stated elsewhere, this is a promo price, basic hulu has commercials, but spring an extra 2 bucks for commercial free and it is great.
i have netflix as well but i hardly ever use it. hulu has better movies and better shows. netflix has a lot of content but nothing on there is ever worth watching. i spend quadruple the time on netflix looking for something to watch than i ever do watching it. the only point in paying for netflix these days is for their original content, but i've only enjoyed a few of their shows and movies.
Limited commercials? by jdharm · 2017-10-10 02:53 · Score: 1

What is this "limited commercials" of which Hulu speaks? I've got that subscription and a single 45 minute episode of Shark Tank has 6 commercail breaks of 2 minutes each. How is 20% of the running time being commercials being "limited"?
1. Re:Limited commercials? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-10 11:41 · Score: 0
  
  Limited to what you will tolerate before walking away. If Netflix pulled that crap, most users would say goodbye - and they know it.
I Canceled Hulu by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-10 03:58 · Score: 0

Hulu recently changed their TV interface to mirror the smart phone/tablet interface. Problem is, my TV is NOT a freakin mini-device and the interface is inefficient, clunky, and a real pain in the ass to use on the TV. Plus, it's buggy and half of it doesn't work at all.
What was Hulu thinking????????
I just canceled Hulu. Haven't missed them yet. Hulu doesn't have anything Netflix or Amazon doesn't have.
Hulu is struggling to keep users by Ghosthorseman · 2017-10-10 04:15 · Score: 1

As others have said, Hulu is offering promotional prices to mitigate losses after an enormous interface blunder. Hulu split their content flagging into 2 systems, Watchlist and MyStuff. But the two systems don't talk to each. The result is that users can "save" shows via the web, but they can't see those shows on their Roku. The same is true in the other direction. Thousands of folks are going to their Roku's, discovering that the interface is new, clunky, and all of their shows and content are missing. These price changes are a mitigation to avoid large subscription losses.
1. Re:Hulu is struggling to keep users by Cro+Magnon · 2017-10-10 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't notice any missing content on the Roku. But the other day, I was on the iPad, and a bunch of my stuff appeared to be missing.
  
  --
  Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Won't watch commercials if I am paying by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-10 04:33 · Score: 0

If they offer a free service, then I will watch commercials. They shouldn't even try to offer a service where you pay for it AND have to watch commercials. History is repeating itself. Cable television did the same thing. They offered a service with no commercials, then added commercials later when people had signed up.
And their commercial free version is still more expensive than Netflix.
Hulu can suck it,
cable has more commercials and costs more by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-10 06:13 · Score: 0

i don't understand why people complain so much about hulu's commercials. paying for cable you have to sit through many more commercials at upwards of 6 times the cost. you can pay an extra couple of dollars for commercial free hulu. but yes, it's very much worth that extra couple of bucks to not have to sit through them. i think people are used to netflix not having commercials so they think every competitor should do the same, but the consequense of commercial free netflix is that there is nothing but shitty old movies that no one wants to watch.