5 ms·

Hulu announces monthly subscription, support for iPhone/iPad, still ad supported

42 points by coderdude 16y ago

siculars 16y ago
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?
- ashishbharthi 16y ago
  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.
  - dailyrorschach 16y ago
    And this is why I am considering it, in addition to netflix, since I cancelled cable and dvr at that rate.
    - ashishbharthi 16y ago
      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.
dinedal 16y ago
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?
- jrwoodruff 16y ago
  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.
  - wmf 16y ago
    It looks like Hulu Plus is intended to replace cable, and from that perspective it's cheaper.
    - jpdbaugh 16y ago
      This is exactly how I feel about it. It is very close to the a-la-carte cable that I want. Who wants to be forced to watch things at certain times?
- wmf 16y ago
  I don't see what this has to do with Apple vs. Flash; maybe you can elaborate.
  - dinedal 16y ago
    Hulu's player is Flash based, so theoretically an iDevice with Flash wouldn't need a Hulu App.
    - keltex 16y ago
      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-beta-unveiled-hulu-a-no-show-froyo-now/ http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/20/flash-10-1-for-android-be...
      - ergo98 16y ago
        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.
        jonhohle 16y ago
        And I would imagine they can charge advertisers premium prices for ads shown to paid subscribers as opposed to free viewers.
        kgermino 16y ago
        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.
- whughes 16y ago
  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.
  - dinedal 16y ago
    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.
    - larsberg 16y ago
      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.
    - jpdbaugh 16y ago
      Yep, if you have a PS3 try to go to hulu.com on the browser.
thibaut_barrere 16y ago
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/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/27/windows_phone_7_ads/).
Towle_ 16y ago
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.
- coderdude 16y ago
  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.
  - WiseWeasel 16y ago
    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.
    - coderdude 16y ago
      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.
      - WiseWeasel 16y ago
        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.
        coderdude 16y ago
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
samratjp 16y ago
Direct link to Hulu's Blog Post: http://www.hulu.com/plus http://www.hulu.com/plus
commieneko 16y ago
Subscription? Ads? heh...
modeless 16y ago
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.
tomjen3 16y ago
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.
kmfrk 16y ago
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.

42 points by coderdude 16y ago

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?

ashishbharthi 16y ago
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.
- dailyrorschach 16y ago
  And this is why I am considering it, in addition to netflix, since I cancelled cable and dvr at that rate.
  - ashishbharthi 16y ago
    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.

dinedal 16y ago

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?

jrwoodruff 16y ago
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.
- wmf 16y ago
  It looks like Hulu Plus is intended to replace cable, and from that perspective it's cheaper.
  - jpdbaugh 16y ago
    This is exactly how I feel about it. It is very close to the a-la-carte cable that I want. Who wants to be forced to watch things at certain times?
wmf 16y ago
I don't see what this has to do with Apple vs. Flash; maybe you can elaborate.
- dinedal 16y ago
  Hulu's player is Flash based, so theoretically an iDevice with Flash wouldn't need a Hulu App.
  - keltex 16y ago
    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-beta-unveiled-hulu-a-no-show-froyo-now/ http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/20/flash-10-1-for-android-be...
    - ergo98 16y ago
      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.
      - jonhohle 16y ago
        And I would imagine they can charge advertisers premium prices for ads shown to paid subscribers as opposed to free viewers.
        kgermino 16y ago
        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.
whughes 16y ago
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.
- dinedal 16y ago
  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.
  - larsberg 16y ago
    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.
  - jpdbaugh 16y ago
    Yep, if you have a PS3 try to go to hulu.com on the browser.

thibaut_barrere 16y ago

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/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/27/windows_phone_7_ads/).

Towle_ 16y ago

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.

coderdude 16y ago
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.
- WiseWeasel 16y ago
  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.
  - coderdude 16y ago
    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.
    - WiseWeasel 16y ago
      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.
      - coderdude 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

samratjp 16y ago

Direct link to Hulu's Blog Post: http://www.hulu.com/plus http://www.hulu.com/plus

commieneko 16y ago

Subscription? Ads? heh...

modeless 16y ago

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.

tomjen3 16y ago

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.

kmfrk 16y ago

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.