Hulu announces monthly subscription, support for iPhone/iPad, still ad supported(readwriteweb.com)
readwriteweb.com
Hulu announces monthly subscription, support for iPhone/iPad, still ad supported
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/hulu_plus.php
48 comments
This just plain isn't good enough. Nobody is going to look at Netflix ($9/month) and Hulu Plus and pick the latter. They're being way too stingy with content. Give it all up, or go home.
People pay close to a hundred dollars a month for similar and non a-la-carte amounts of content that has about twice as many adds. Its called cable. Does $10 a month really seem like that much money to you for something like this? I don't watch TV so i am interested, however I just get frustrated with the trend of people refusing pay for anything tech related such as apps or even services like Pandora. Seriously, my non tech friends refuse to drop a couple of dollars on iPhone apps that they will use all of the time yet they don't hesitate to buy soft drinks when they eat out or add bacon to their burgers for the same price...
Sorry, I don't mean to single you out. This is definitely more generally directed.
Sorry, I don't mean to single you out. This is definitely more generally directed.
When consumers make the decision to purchase Hulu Plus, they won't be thinking about it in comparison to cable. They'll be comparing it to free Hulu, at it will lose.
Sidenote: Cable comes on a TV; Hulu comes on a computer. Does this matter to you personally? Likely not, you're a tech person and would have no issue working around that to get your preferred service on your preferred platform. But most people aren't you, and for them, that difference is called a barrier to consumption. This is the same reason IE remains the majority internet browser. It's the easiest thing in the world to just download another, better browser. But some 60% of the US refuses to. Well, they don't refuse to. They just don't think about it.
Sidenote: Cable comes on a TV; Hulu comes on a computer. Does this matter to you personally? Likely not, you're a tech person and would have no issue working around that to get your preferred service on your preferred platform. But most people aren't you, and for them, that difference is called a barrier to consumption. This is the same reason IE remains the majority internet browser. It's the easiest thing in the world to just download another, better browser. But some 60% of the US refuses to. Well, they don't refuse to. They just don't think about it.
The market for people tech savvy enough to use hulu.com is probably a bit larger than you give it credit for. I really don't see this as an addition to cable either but rather a replacement and for $10 a month that is a hell of a discount. Besides there is simply no way Hulu could make this service advertisement free.. Hulu owns <i>none</i> of the content. They aren't just scraping these shows off of network sites but they are instead making deals with these companies who in turn impose the ads. Hulu is simply providing them a platform to reach a tech savvy audience and they aren't going to change their ad supported model.
But really, if people wanted ad free content it would cost ten times as much as it does because they are making deals with other business to acquire their content. At $10 a month though its cheaper to me than pirating because of convenience. I guarantee I would save myself much more than the monthly price by cutting the time it takes to find a good torrent to download the entire backlog of a show I want to watch.
But really, if people wanted ad free content it would cost ten times as much as it does because they are making deals with other business to acquire their content. At $10 a month though its cheaper to me than pirating because of convenience. I guarantee I would save myself much more than the monthly price by cutting the time it takes to find a good torrent to download the entire backlog of a show I want to watch.
Hulu is owned by the networks.
To be specific, NBC, ABC, and Fox own Hulu: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulu (see right sidebar for ownership breakdown)
I just checked into this and I think you are right, but this is all the more reason why there are going to be ads no matter what.
I am a consumer and I will be replacing cable with Hulu. Just saying.
Hulu Plus will be offered through Playstation 3 and soon Xbox 360. Millions already have such systems connected to their TVs.
People pay for cable not so they can watch specific shows, but because they have adapted to always have the TV on no matter what. People use TV as their ambiance—an empty room with the TV blaring is considered "silent." Perhaps Hulu has a random play function, but I think people who pay for cable do so because it's a very important and indispensable part of their lives. If you've ever told anyone that you don't pay for or watch broadcast television at all, you've probably seen their surprise or disbelief.
Im thinking regarding apps it will take time for your friends to come around and start buying them. Android and iPhone are still very early in their product life cycles and thus is the concept of buying apps.
I'd say you're wrong. I have a couple co-workers that watch a lot of TV and they're very excited about this offering (minus the ads, which is ridiculous for a service you're paying for). I think more people will buy into this than you believe.
The co-workers in question are female non-techs, so perhaps it is a demographic thing.
The co-workers in question are female non-techs, so perhaps it is a demographic thing.
I don't think your co-workers realize just how fast they're going to run out of things to watch. The thinking is likely, "Whole seasons will be like 5x better than just 5 trailing episodes!" But the thing is, you were already getting the whole season before, just not all at once. It's the exact same amount of content, not 5x more. The only difference now is that you can burn through it all as fast as you want. Unless Hulu has multiple all-time favorite shows of yours with huge replay value, this won't be worth it.
You must not consume much legal media if you think paying money entitles you to no ads.
* $10 movie ticket - I see ads before the movie
* $70/month cable - I see ads on every channel but PBS
* $50 sport ticket - I see ads all over the field
* $60 Pay Per View - I see ads all over the place and the announcers spewing ads whenever they can
* $10 movie ticket - I see ads before the movie
* $70/month cable - I see ads on every channel but PBS
* $50 sport ticket - I see ads all over the field
* $60 Pay Per View - I see ads all over the place and the announcers spewing ads whenever they can
Coincidentally, all of these "legal media" fields are seeing decreases.
The media companies need to start competing with Bittorrent on actual quality of service, like Apple did. If the illegal route is that much more pleasant than the legit way, something is wrong with your business.
The media companies need to start competing with Bittorrent on actual quality of service, like Apple did. If the illegal route is that much more pleasant than the legit way, something is wrong with your business.
I wouldn't say it's because of the ads, but the convenience factor of BitTorrent and other sharing solutions is HUGE. Hulu is a very good step in the right direction, though they're still nowhere close in the ability to watch series from the beginning. (Netflix is much better in this regard).
Seeing ads at the movies and in other things I pay for does really burn my ass, though.
Seeing ads at the movies and in other things I pay for does really burn my ass, though.
Among people who know they exist, fast-forwarding DVR and Bittorrent are much more popular than watching TV with ads. It seems pretty clear to me at least that people do not like ads very much. So it's perplexing to see the networks take a fundamentally good product that people might be willing to pay for and intentionally include something that people really don't want. Why would you consciously choose to make your paid product worse than the free competition?
correlation does not imply causation. But I see your point.
You pay for cable/satellite TV, ads and everything. Personally, the streaming internet TV thing won't be really interesting until it's standardized on open formats and APIs, and I can use 3rd party browsing, playback and DVR software with it.
The stations you watch have ads because that's how they make money. The cable or satellite provider you pay charges you monthly because, in addition to other fees and services, that's how they make money. I have a feeling that Hulu's business model doesn't quite work like that.
The cable/satellite companies also pay the networks directly, using the money from your subscription, as the ad market is too volatile for the networks to rely on alone. Obviously, Hulu is also going to have to work in a similar way, paying the networks to gain access to their content, to attract more subscribers.
I did some reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_television_in_the_United_...
It states: "To support themselves, some cable channels charge "subscriber fees" in addition to airing commercials. These fees are collected directly from the cable service provider, who passes the cost onto the customer."
So you are correct, at least about some portion of the stations.
It states: "To support themselves, some cable channels charge "subscriber fees" in addition to airing commercials. These fees are collected directly from the cable service provider, who passes the cost onto the customer."
So you are correct, at least about some portion of the stations.
Furthermore, there are both network ads and cable/satellite provider ads mixed together in commercial breaks, so both the networks and the cable/satellite companies are making money on ads as well. On my cable TV service, the first block of ads is the network's ads, followed by a few local commercials sold by my cable provider.
As much as you spoilt yanks disapprove, we Europeans would crawl on broken glass and do terribly embarrassing things to get something like this. To add insult to injury, basically no channels transmit HD shows in my country.
On another note, all the people who interject "I don't watch/have a TV" in every bloody conversation would probably love this, regardless of how large a demographic they comprise. Are we assuming that Hulu will have to satisfy all types of consumers for it to be a good idea, or are you just chiming in with your own, perfectly reasonable, arguments? I just don't know how useful the "I won't get it, therefore it is a bad idea" is and how it reflects Hulu's strategy.
On another note, all the people who interject "I don't watch/have a TV" in every bloody conversation would probably love this, regardless of how large a demographic they comprise. Are we assuming that Hulu will have to satisfy all types of consumers for it to be a good idea, or are you just chiming in with your own, perfectly reasonable, arguments? I just don't know how useful the "I won't get it, therefore it is a bad idea" is and how it reflects Hulu's strategy.
Hmm. So for $10/mo. you get... ad interrupted shows, buuut you can see entire seasons of ad interrupted shows on all your iDevices.
How does this function?
How does this function?
I tried few free shows on iPhone 4 over 3G. Video quality is spectacular. I am not going to buy it because I am already paying for $120/month for cable and dvr.
And this is why I am considering it, in addition to netflix, since I cancelled cable and dvr at that rate.
I would agree with you on that but I need cable for occasional news and live broadcasts/award shows/talk shows type things. Otherwise I can totally live off of Netflix and Hulu.
Too little, far too late.
I really don't know if the media companies know just how much they have already lost - at this point most of the under 30 crowd downloads without even the tiniest feeling that perhaps, just maybe, they shouldn't or the companies deserve payment for what they have created.
At this point their only hope is to make it more convenient than piracy, which is possible to do now but won't in a couple of years and then slowly ween people away from free content.
I really don't know if the media companies know just how much they have already lost - at this point most of the under 30 crowd downloads without even the tiniest feeling that perhaps, just maybe, they shouldn't or the companies deserve payment for what they have created.
At this point their only hope is to make it more convenient than piracy, which is possible to do now but won't in a couple of years and then slowly ween people away from free content.
For some reason, this reminds me of Philip K Dick's book "The Simulacra".
If I recall well, the guy is trying to escape advertising bots of some kind.
There's a trend toward "paid + ads". It may soon become the norm to pay premium plans only to get rid of ads, in the OS, on your phone (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/27/windows_phone_7_ads/).
If I recall well, the guy is trying to escape advertising bots of some kind.
There's a trend toward "paid + ads". It may soon become the norm to pay premium plans only to get rid of ads, in the OS, on your phone (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/27/windows_phone_7_ads/).
Meh. There's no reason the using the iPhone/iPad app should cost money. The subscription should get you back seasons, not just back episodes from the current season. The media companies are afraid of losing their DVD revenues, but if they don't loosen up they may just end up driving more people to illegal sites.
Direct link to Hulu's Blog Post: http://www.hulu.com/plus
I think this is Hulu's attempt to make even more money on the iDevices.
I wonder if the iDevice had Flash, would they be able to do this?
I wonder if the iDevice had Flash, would they be able to do this?
The answer is yes. Hulu has regularly blocked Flash-enabled devices through various (often circumventable, but still) means. It's just that you never hear about them.
I wasn't aware Hulu was that defensive of it's content as to block it based on what device is running the browser. That's crazy.
Hulu reps have been quoted before saying it's because of licensing restrictions related to the content on other devices than PCs.
Having played around with it (I hacked together a gnash+ffmpeg port that's just sufficient to run Hulu on my own iPhone), they just have some logic in their flash scripts to prevent playing on unlicensed platforms. And in order to prevent direct linking to the FLVs, they use some obfuscating logic -- namely, they give you a string + a key and have you perform an AES-style operation using the two locally to get a time-expiring key to the file you want to play. They change the obfuscating pattern just often enough to make it annoying if you were, say, trying to keep up a Boxee script or update an AppStore application.
Having played around with it (I hacked together a gnash+ffmpeg port that's just sufficient to run Hulu on my own iPhone), they just have some logic in their flash scripts to prevent playing on unlicensed platforms. And in order to prevent direct linking to the FLVs, they use some obfuscating logic -- namely, they give you a string + a key and have you perform an AES-style operation using the two locally to get a time-expiring key to the file you want to play. They change the obfuscating pattern just often enough to make it annoying if you were, say, trying to keep up a Boxee script or update an AppStore application.
Yep, if you have a PS3 try to go to hulu.com on the browser.
I just wonder if they'll be able to do it at all. Part of making advertising work is maximizing audience. Charging $120 for something I'm already paying for elsewhere (through my cable, Tivo and Netflix subscriptions) seems like a stretch. There's only so much I'm willing to spend to watch television, and my cable/cable internet/netflix bill pretty much maxes that out. Especially when there is still advertising involved.
Maybe if this was more along the lines of a $36 annual fee, similar to Pandora, I would give it more thought.
Maybe if this was more along the lines of a $36 annual fee, similar to Pandora, I would give it more thought.
I don't see what this has to do with Apple vs. Flash; maybe you can elaborate.
Hulu's player is Flash based, so theoretically an iDevice with Flash wouldn't need a Hulu App.
It has to be full flash (at least for right now). Flash on Android doesn't work:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/20/flash-10-1-for-android-be...
http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/20/flash-10-1-for-android-be...
Just to be clear, Flash on Android is fully capable of rendering Hulu's videos. Many people are doing exactly that by changing their user-agent.
The "problem" is that apparently mobile devices have to be licensed differently, and presumably more expensively. Which is, I presume, why you have to pay $10 a month to still have to endure ads on your iPhone.
The "problem" is that apparently mobile devices have to be licensed differently, and presumably more expensively. Which is, I presume, why you have to pay $10 a month to still have to endure ads on your iPhone.
And I would imagine they can charge advertisers premium prices for ads shown to paid subscribers as opposed to free viewers.
I'm not sure that applies in this case. I agree that newspapers and magazines are able to charge more for ads to paid subscribers than for non-paid readers but the logic behind that is that someone who pays for the issue is more likely to actually read it than someone who gets it for free.
In Hulu's case they are able to measure the number of people actually watching the videos.
Also if anything a paid subscriber would probably be less likely to pay attention to the ads, making the ad worth less.
In Hulu's case they are able to measure the number of people actually watching the videos.
Also if anything a paid subscriber would probably be less likely to pay attention to the ads, making the ad worth less.
[deleted]
Subscription? Ads? heh...