The thing is, there is already places to pay to watch TV on a computer. Hulu as it is now fills a niche in the web by offering people free programming legally. Hulu based on paid subscription will be doing something Itunes and Amazon and Netflix already do. I don’t think fragmenting the market for online programming this early in the game is going to be profitable for Hulu either. It also means that the TV industry is giving up on trying to offer an easy alternative to piracy. It also seems like giving up on the free content model after just being around for less than 3 years suggest they aren’t even trying to make a go at it.
Me neither. I was at first surprised when I started using Hulu because they didn’t have many ads, just three 30 second commercials. I thought that couldn’t be enough ad time to be profitable. 8 minutes of ads would be fine with me too. I’d use the time to check email like I do during commercial breaks on TV. Maybe the networks can bundle their TV and web ads into one package for advertisers. It’d give them a little more money from commercials and help Hulu stay afloat while it still needs to grow.
When Hulu starts charging, they’ll drop off the face of the earth just like Napster and every other media service that began to charge for what was previously a free service. There’s just too many places online to get free content… Besides, why the hell have I been sitting through ads after ads on Hulu if they weren’t making revenue?!
I just started using Hulu and I was kind of appalled by how few movies that I could think of were even on there. Is it more of a TV rebroadcast service? Is there some better way to search their database for more movies? All I ever seem to get is links to trailers, Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas being the only notable exception.
Or better yet, is there another good quality, free website that actually HAS a bunch of movies on it?
Pretty much this. Especially the subscription model. I’m willing to pay for something like Hulu if it replaces cable, because cable has the problem of scheduling–I have to be sitting in front of my TV for x-amount of time at x-hour, or I don’t get to see what I wanna see. If I can pay all at once for a year’s worth of access, then that’s worth it; it means I don’t miss shows.
However, if it becomes more expensive than a DVR–or if it becomes more of a pain in the ass, by, say, requiring that I pay per episode (thus requiring me to make a cost/benefit analysis any time I want to watch an episode of Dollhouse–then. . .well, I’ll buy the DVR.
I’m an untapped market for this stuff. Make it worth my while, and I’ll pony up the dough. Make it a pain in the ass, and I’ll find other (legal) means, or I’ll go without. Because, frankly, torrents are more of a pain in the ass than actually paying.
I don’t know what content on Hulu other people watch but everything I watch is 1) available for free on the major networks’ Web sites and 2) available on broadcast or cable television. I’m just totally unwilling to pay for it. And it makes complete sense.
I canceled my cable television a year or two ago because I always missed the couple shows I actually liked. I weighed spending even more for DVR against spending nothing and watching a few shows online for free. If I have to pay for the inconvenience of watching TV on a little computer screen I’ll just buy cable again. And most people never canceled their cable in the first place, or have an antenna for broadcast tv. Not paying makes even more sense to them.
I already barely use hulu because watching streaming TV shows on my PC is far more annoying than watching the same shows as downloads from less legit sites on my TV via my X-box. No matter how much buffering Hulu’s player does, everything I watch on there winds up stuttering at least once in a while. And now they think I’m gonna pay for that? No way, jose.
Of course, I wouldn’t have get shows off the net at all if they didn’t always schedule too many shows I want to watch in the same timeslots… You’d think with a dual tuner DVR and three VCR’s I’d be set, but nope.
the best resolution Hulu offers is the worst one offered for broadcast. I and the people I’ve talked to have been subject to the buffer delays and find them annoying. For me, I’m willing to put up with it if it’s paid for with ads.
If Hulu cannot draw enough people to generate ad revenue I don’t see how it will survive subcriptions.
I didn’t read all the posts in this thread but, if you’re already paying for TV through your cable subscrption, why would you pay for Hulu to get the same thing? I watch TV programs on Hulu more frequently than I do regular broadcast TV. However, I do so because it’s free and covenient. If (when?) Hulu goes becomes a pay service, I’ll go back to Tivoing the programs I want to watch like anyone with any sense would.
I just finished reading the rest of the thread, and what Fuzzy Dunlop says here is correct. In fact, at times I’ve had to go to the network’s website to watch a show I’ve wanted because the Hulu feed was on the fritz for that particular episode. The quality is the same to boot. Another reason not to get sucked into paying Hulu.
What I did was connect my old PowerMac G4 to my 42 inch LCD TV in my bedroom with an HDMI cable. It works great.
I won’t pay for it but I expect it will survive as a niche service for those who have money to burn, who have no qualms about online purchasing, and who are too ethical, lazy, and or ignorant to find alternate sources.
It has some value, but very little. I could not currently justify paying a cent for it. I do without a lot of things that have value.
Other posters have mentioned that there are other sources for the same shows, but equally important to me there are other forms of entertainment.
ETA: I have no problem with advertising before, after, or during the program. I’ll even tolerate crawls and bugs. I want content providers to make a profit – I just can’t give it to them directly.
I’m pretty sure this is incorrect. Analog TV signals (which the majority of americans still use–or view on a non-HD TV), AFAIK, are 480i. That, combined with general signal degradation, results in picture quality inferior to Hulu’s “HD” mode, which I believe is 480p.
That’s an excellent question. Whilst most of you in the US might (understandably) not want to pay for it (I wouldn’t either if I was there), there are people outside the US who might be prepared to pay so they can see shows that either A) Never air on their own channels or B) Are months or years behinds what’s airing in the US.
Assuming that you would only watch streaming video that is not violating someone’s copyright, right now there is content that is not available by online streaming (to my knowledge). Some examples that come to mind are children’s programs and HBO series. Premium cable packages for live sporting events allow you to watch your local games plus any games outside of your local market. For NHL games, there is a pay streaming service at nhl.com, but your local game is blacked out, and at least for now, the streaming video apparently still has problems with lags and interruptions of the game. I have heard that local games are also blacked out for the MLB streaming package.
I’m with you. I’ve been watching Hulu a lot lately, mostly because I am either working or out with friends during prime TV-watching times. The other night I watched Flash Forward, 30 Rock, and two episodes of Glee (which I’d never seen but figured I’d check out) on Hulu.
But the thing is, if I have to start paying for that, along with what I pay for Netflix and cable . . . well, that’s too much. I don’t have a DVR right now, so maybe I should get one of those instead. Or maybe I should cancel cable, since I rarely watch it anyway, and just use Hulu. Except that I love old black-and-white movies and would miss TCM.
What would work best for me is some sort of pay-per-channel deal, where you get to pick the channels you want and pay a fee for those each month, combined with a DVR. Unfortunately, that doesn’t exist.
Indeed, which wasn’t at all my point. Of course people who have HDTVs are able to take advantage of hi-def signals. My point is that the majority of Americans still don’t, and are thus stuck with the old, analog signal which appears to be inferior to Hulu’s HD mode.
As an alternative to cable, I can see it working, but it would need to offer superior service for a cheaper pricetag.
With cable, I might be spending $100 a month for a package, 90% of the channels of which I’m not even interested in and don’t have the option of going a la carte for a more reasonable price; and for which I either have to work my schedule around the TV, or buy and mess with extra equipment.
Or I could go to Hulu, watch only what I’m interested in, watch it on my schedule, not have to bother with a pre-fab “package” that primarily consists of a bunch of crap I don’t want, and not have to go out and buy a DVR (and let’s face it, these days people have computers at home, whether they end up using them for streaming TV or not… so it wouldn’t be an “extra” piece of equipment to buy).
For that, I’d either pay a low subscription fee, or watch ads, but not both. Again, I’ll pay for something if I think it’s worth it, but don’t try to make me pay twice – this double-dipping is one of the main reasons I’m not particularly motivated to even investigate cable TV.
However, I would also expect an improvement in service. Which might entail some negotiations with the copyright owners (the “last five episodes” thing, I assume, it because that’s what they’ve bought the rights for). I’d also like to see shows from other channels not currently available. I’m not going to spend a bunch of extra money on a bundle of “premium” cable channels because there’s ONE show that I’d like to watch (e.g. Dexter on Showtime). However, this is something they’d need to work out with Showtime, and who knows if Showtime would be willing.