5 ms·

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. G

by 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
        I did some reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_television_in_the_United_States#Subscriber_Fees 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.
    - WiseWeasel 16y ago
      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.
- Towle_ 16y ago
  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.
- megaman821 16y ago
  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
  - chc 16y ago
    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.
    - Tautology 16y ago
      correlation does not imply causation. But I see your point.
    - ericd 16y ago
      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.
      - chc 16y ago
        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?
jpdbaugh 16y ago
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.
- Towle_ 16y ago
  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.
  - jpdbaugh 16y ago
    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.

by 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
      I did some reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_television_in_the_United_States#Subscriber_Fees 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.
  - WiseWeasel 16y ago
    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.
Towle_ 16y ago
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.
megaman821 16y ago
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
- chc 16y ago
  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.
  - Tautology 16y ago
    correlation does not imply causation. But I see your point.
  - ericd 16y ago
    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.
    - chc 16y ago
      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?

jpdbaugh 16y ago

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.

Towle_ 16y ago
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.
- jpdbaugh 16y ago
  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.