5 ms·

Hulu is kicking Youtube's Ass

31 points by johns 18y ago

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
Hexstream 18y ago
Hulu only works in the US :/
- omouse 18y ago
  I came here just to say that. Youtube works everywhere, Hulu doesn't and probably won't for a long time.
- alaskamiller 18y ago
  I believe that restriction is due to contracts with screen writers.
ivankirigin 18y ago
I watched Heroes last night on Hulu. It was more convenient than kicking off a torrent. That is huge. I'd like it to be HD with no Ads - and I'd love to integrate Tipjoy to give money voluntarily to my favorite shows. I'd also love to be able to download the videos.
- jotto 18y ago
  I'm not sure a tipping model would generate enough for Hollywood. Along the same idea of avoiding the ads, I'd rather pay a subscription for a piecemeal selection of HD episodes with no ads.
  - ivankirigin 18y ago
    I think there is room for both, but Hollywood will want a sale. Tipjoy is going to support any distribution model people want - we're just starting out with voluntary tipping. We're building a general purpose micropayments engine.
    - wumi 18y ago
      i know you gotta sell, sell, sell Tipjoy, but to HN?
      - ivankirigin 18y ago
        Are you saying that I mention my startup and our plans too often on HackerNews? I like hearing about other YC companies here, so I presume others feel the same about me.
        wumi 18y ago
        True, I actually really like what Tipjoy is doing and imagine you have a few things up your sleeves that your working on, but ... that last comment felt like you were trying to sell the HN community on what Tipjoy is doing, when I don't think you need that validation. Maybe I'm just noticing your Tipjoy input more after the whole spiel with that guy writing the blog post saying you guys were floundering.
        ivankirigin 18y ago
        There is a lot of debate about the future of content monetization, and I thought Tipjoy was really relevant here. I'm not looking for validation, though I'm interested in hearing the different opinions on the topic. We were a day from releasing a major new feature that got techcrunched when the "floundering" post came up. Clearly he knew nothing.
        wumi 18y ago
        We're building a general purpose micropayments engine. That is what we want to hear about. :)
- jimbokun 18y ago
  "I'd like it to be HD with no Ads" The Pointy Haired Boss: "Lets give the customers what they want." Dilbert: "What they want is better products for free."
iamelgringo 18y ago
The YouTube acquisition wasn't just about buying a streaming video company. It's not about losing money on every sale and making it up in volume. The YouTube acquisition was about getting Google's engineers a huge dataset of video to start running search on. Google's all about trying to do things with huge datasets.
- alaskamiller 18y ago
  That and plus to make sure Youtube doesn't ever lose the safe harbor context argument to create the legal precedent that may unsettle quite a few things on the world wide web.
- mrkurt 18y ago
  You don't spend $1.65 billion on a dataset. You spend it on eyeballs. Eyeballs they got, though they haven't been able to turn them into money.
  - Hexstream 18y ago
    Does everything have to be mutually exclusive?!
- acgourley 18y ago
  Google videos may have been losing, but they had enough data to work with for video search, if they were even actively pursuing it.
bprater 18y ago
"Kicking ass" doesn't even make sense in this context. It controls its media. Ok, good. I visited YouTube about a dozen times today. Hulu, erm, zero. Ass kicking? Hardly.
- mrkurt 18y ago
  It's not often I agree with Cuban, but did you even read the post?
  - bprater 18y ago
    I did. It was very linkbaity.
    - ajbatac 18y ago
      That last comment proved that you didn't read it.
    - wumi 18y ago
      because he pointed out that Hulu probably already makes as much, if not more, money than YouTube? At the end of the day, YouTube has to make something its customers (advertisers, not users) want, and so far it has failed to do so.
rory096 18y ago
This is a bit of a stretch; they don't even really compete with each other all that much. Hulu only has TV shows; it doesn't have huge volumes of user-generated content. People don't use Hulu to the exclusion of Youtube or vice versa.
- ghiotion 18y ago
  Thank you for pointing that out. I felt like I was losing my mind as I was reading Cuban's blog. Can someone direct me to the place on Hulu where I can upload my kid's gymnastics video so I can send it to my folks living overseas? Oh yeah, that place doesn't exist.
  - condor 18y ago
    cuban's point is still valid, while youtube accepts user-generated content like your kid's gymnastics video, they will never be able to sell any ads against it, because no one other than you and your family will want to see that video, no offense.
- alaskamiller 18y ago
  You seemed to have missed the point. If Youtube's future planning involved using it as a distribution and advertising system for movie or TV studios (an actual business model mind you), well that's potentially shot out of the water with Hulu out of the gates with a very good site and team to do that. Also as a destination site, Hulu has more attractive content, actual licensed tv shows and movies. Stuff that are technically illegal on Youtube.
  - rory096 18y ago
    The chances of it ever getting such a deal were slim; the media companies already hated them for stealing their content before, and would not have wanted to reward that with a deal to do it legally (some did, yes, but it was unlikely that most or all of the content would have made it into Youtube- particularly with profit splitting between Google and the companies). Yes, Hulu's content is attractive, but it's different from Youtube's content, which is attractive for other reasons. Just because they're both video doesn't mean they're directly competing.
jotto 18y ago
there is value in keeping certain acquisitions out of competitors hands.
pchristensen 18y ago
For everyone complaining about the post, he says lots of times that Hulu doesn't have more videos and doesn't let you share videos. He is looking at it solely from a business perspective.
andreyf 18y ago
Similarly, watermelons are totally kicking lemon's asses - they're bigger, so you're more satisfied if you eat a a melon than a lemon. They're also sweeter, so they taste better. Give me a break. Hulu is doing completely different things from YouTube, just like blip.tv is doing completely different things from both of them. Each one of them does well what they were intended for. The right question to be asking, if any,is which one of them will replace television as we know it, and although it's impossible to know for sure, my best would be against Hulu.
- wumi 18y ago
  Eric Schmidt has gone on record saying Google has almost no idea what to do with YouTube. That's not a particularly good thing, and the fact Mark points out about YouTube not being able to monetize the majority of their videos is pretty alarming. It's not a charity.
tokipin 18y ago
i started watching Family Guy on there but it had ADVERTISING! i don't mind ads around the player, but interrupting the actual content is worse than a popup for me. of course, it's not as much advertising as on TV, but it's something i don't expect on the internet i'd rather download the torrent, though i guess that's not the sort of thing Hulu is for. it seems more like a replacement for TV
Tichy 18y ago
By that definition, my website is also kicking YouTube's ass. It made 400€ in revenue last year.
ssharp 18y ago
YouTube is no Broadcast.com, that's for sure.

31 points by johns 18y ago

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

Hexstream 18y ago

Hulu only works in the US :/

omouse 18y ago
I came here just to say that. Youtube works everywhere, Hulu doesn't and probably won't for a long time.
alaskamiller 18y ago
I believe that restriction is due to contracts with screen writers.

ivankirigin 18y ago

I watched Heroes last night on Hulu. It was more convenient than kicking off a torrent. That is huge. I'd like it to be HD with no Ads - and I'd love to integrate Tipjoy to give money voluntarily to my favorite shows. I'd also love to be able to download the videos.

jotto 18y ago
I'm not sure a tipping model would generate enough for Hollywood. Along the same idea of avoiding the ads, I'd rather pay a subscription for a piecemeal selection of HD episodes with no ads.
- ivankirigin 18y ago
  I think there is room for both, but Hollywood will want a sale. Tipjoy is going to support any distribution model people want - we're just starting out with voluntary tipping. We're building a general purpose micropayments engine.
  - wumi 18y ago
    i know you gotta sell, sell, sell Tipjoy, but to HN?
    - ivankirigin 18y ago
      Are you saying that I mention my startup and our plans too often on HackerNews? I like hearing about other YC companies here, so I presume others feel the same about me.
      - wumi 18y ago
        True, I actually really like what Tipjoy is doing and imagine you have a few things up your sleeves that your working on, but ... that last comment felt like you were trying to sell the HN community on what Tipjoy is doing, when I don't think you need that validation. Maybe I'm just noticing your Tipjoy input more after the whole spiel with that guy writing the blog post saying you guys were floundering.
        ivankirigin 18y ago
        There is a lot of debate about the future of content monetization, and I thought Tipjoy was really relevant here. I'm not looking for validation, though I'm interested in hearing the different opinions on the topic. We were a day from releasing a major new feature that got techcrunched when the "floundering" post came up. Clearly he knew nothing.
        wumi 18y ago
        We're building a general purpose micropayments engine. That is what we want to hear about. :)
jimbokun 18y ago
"I'd like it to be HD with no Ads" The Pointy Haired Boss: "Lets give the customers what they want." Dilbert: "What they want is better products for free."

iamelgringo 18y ago

The YouTube acquisition wasn't just about buying a streaming video company. It's not about losing money on every sale and making it up in volume. The YouTube acquisition was about getting Google's engineers a huge dataset of video to start running search on. Google's all about trying to do things with huge datasets.

alaskamiller 18y ago
That and plus to make sure Youtube doesn't ever lose the safe harbor context argument to create the legal precedent that may unsettle quite a few things on the world wide web.
mrkurt 18y ago
You don't spend $1.65 billion on a dataset. You spend it on eyeballs. Eyeballs they got, though they haven't been able to turn them into money.
- Hexstream 18y ago
  Does everything have to be mutually exclusive?!
acgourley 18y ago
Google videos may have been losing, but they had enough data to work with for video search, if they were even actively pursuing it.

bprater 18y ago

"Kicking ass" doesn't even make sense in this context. It controls its media. Ok, good. I visited YouTube about a dozen times today. Hulu, erm, zero. Ass kicking? Hardly.

mrkurt 18y ago
It's not often I agree with Cuban, but did you even read the post?
- bprater 18y ago
  I did. It was very linkbaity.
  - ajbatac 18y ago
    That last comment proved that you didn't read it.
  - wumi 18y ago
    because he pointed out that Hulu probably already makes as much, if not more, money than YouTube? At the end of the day, YouTube has to make something its customers (advertisers, not users) want, and so far it has failed to do so.

rory096 18y ago

This is a bit of a stretch; they don't even really compete with each other all that much. Hulu only has TV shows; it doesn't have huge volumes of user-generated content. People don't use Hulu to the exclusion of Youtube or vice versa.

ghiotion 18y ago
Thank you for pointing that out. I felt like I was losing my mind as I was reading Cuban's blog. Can someone direct me to the place on Hulu where I can upload my kid's gymnastics video so I can send it to my folks living overseas? Oh yeah, that place doesn't exist.
- condor 18y ago
  cuban's point is still valid, while youtube accepts user-generated content like your kid's gymnastics video, they will never be able to sell any ads against it, because no one other than you and your family will want to see that video, no offense.
alaskamiller 18y ago
You seemed to have missed the point. If Youtube's future planning involved using it as a distribution and advertising system for movie or TV studios (an actual business model mind you), well that's potentially shot out of the water with Hulu out of the gates with a very good site and team to do that. Also as a destination site, Hulu has more attractive content, actual licensed tv shows and movies. Stuff that are technically illegal on Youtube.
- rory096 18y ago
  The chances of it ever getting such a deal were slim; the media companies already hated them for stealing their content before, and would not have wanted to reward that with a deal to do it legally (some did, yes, but it was unlikely that most or all of the content would have made it into Youtube- particularly with profit splitting between Google and the companies). Yes, Hulu's content is attractive, but it's different from Youtube's content, which is attractive for other reasons. Just because they're both video doesn't mean they're directly competing.

jotto 18y ago

there is value in keeping certain acquisitions out of competitors hands.

pchristensen 18y ago

For everyone complaining about the post, he says lots of times that Hulu doesn't have more videos and doesn't let you share videos. He is looking at it solely from a business perspective.

andreyf 18y ago

Similarly, watermelons are totally kicking lemon's asses - they're bigger, so you're more satisfied if you eat a a melon than a lemon. They're also sweeter, so they taste better. Give me a break. Hulu is doing completely different things from YouTube, just like blip.tv is doing completely different things from both of them. Each one of them does well what they were intended for. The right question to be asking, if any,is which one of them will replace television as we know it, and although it's impossible to know for sure, my best would be against Hulu.

wumi 18y ago
Eric Schmidt has gone on record saying Google has almost no idea what to do with YouTube. That's not a particularly good thing, and the fact Mark points out about YouTube not being able to monetize the majority of their videos is pretty alarming. It's not a charity.

tokipin 18y ago

i started watching Family Guy on there but it had ADVERTISING! i don't mind ads around the player, but interrupting the actual content is worse than a popup for me. of course, it's not as much advertising as on TV, but it's something i don't expect on the internet i'd rather download the torrent, though i guess that's not the sort of thing Hulu is for. it seems more like a replacement for TV

Tichy 18y ago

By that definition, my website is also kicking YouTube's ass. It made 400€ in revenue last year.

ssharp 18y ago

YouTube is no Broadcast.com, that's for sure.