Yeah that's not happening. Having to press fast forward, then oops too far, go back, ok close enough, 4 seconds of the last ad. Ok another break, fast forward, oops too far, go back..
Yeah, no. That's almost worse than just sitting through them. My point was I shouldn't have to deal with the ads at all if I'm paying for it. Maybe I'm alone in this opinion, but I'm certainly telling them how I feel with my wallet.
work on your reflexes.
I mean seriously it isn't that hard.
The advertising before the previews at movie theaters is also really annoying. Is $9–$15/person not enough to spare us, and give the audience 2+ hours of peace from the constant bombardment of ads? But most people don’t care: it is their normal.
Before TiVo, I had a ReplayTV box that had an ad-skipping feature: a commercial comes on, hit one button and it skips the entire break. TiVo also had one for a short time but capitulated when the networks sued Replay out of business. All the major players in broadcasting live and die by ad-revenue in the US. So, everyone can forget about making ads convenient to skip.
And it’s not just reflexes: ad breaks have different run times. It could be the short 2 minute break after the cold open and credits, or the second 3:30m break or the extended 5 minute break of 4 commercials, a local 30s bumper, and another set of 5 commercials near the end — but they like to mix it up. So, you can forget about reflexes even with a 30s skip forward and a 10s skip back. People can never do the exact same motion, nor time things exactly right over and over: only a computer or something that can read the video signal differences can accurately skip these things with ease (and as mentioned networks will kill any company that allows that tech as part of their service). So, rather than snark with a comment equivalent of “ya gotta move faster, bro” why don’t people accept that no one else is them nor do they has the exact same PoV as everyone else. Also, I don’t care what you think about commercials or timing, since it affects me differently than you and you cannot assume everyone reading has use of their fine motor skills. Try blowing through a straw to control your computer for a day and then see how easy it is to control a TV skip feature when accessible remotes make the Harmony’s price look pocket change.
Hulu is better than broadcast for all but NBC’s commercial load (which is only a few minutes less than broadcast) in that I get to watch a 1 hour program in about 50 minutes (adding only about 5-6m of commercials vs the standard of ~15m). But even then it is still a bit of a pain. Is getting back a few hours of my time/week worth the $4–$6/month difference? maybe. If they added dependent accounts like Netflix did for a buck more, I would definitely add the a time saving feature assuming it applied to all sub-accounts.
Hey it's not like we don't pay for the programming! I remember the advent of "pay TV" ages ago. There were no ads on cable. Since when do they think it's ok to charge you for programming but then rake in income from ads?? A case of the networks wanting to have their cake and eat it too.
I'll go another step beyond that to say I think the networks are especially shitty for wanting to charge for programming, earn money through ads and then have the gall to eliminate their "expense" for programming by eliminating the writers! No they don't want to pay for no damn writers. They have endless programming ideas in the executive suite. This week, a new reality show, "Treetop Rescue" where firefighters rescue pet cats from trees... Ugh
Ever notice how a well written show gets cancelled the first season? I think the network execs are allergic to good writing. More boobs! More quarreling 20 somethings! More trash!
Netflix is doing good in content creation and obviously employing writers. It's what we watch the most. HULU does some good series also. They now offer Showtime but the series on it are lame.
Hey it's not like we don't pay for the programming! I remember the advent of "pay TV" ages ago. There were no ads on cable. Since when do they think it's ok to charge you for programming but then rake in income from ads?? A case of the networks wanting to have their cake and eat it too.
I'll go another step beyond that to say I think the networks are especially shitty for wanting to charge for programming, earn money through ads and then have the gall to eliminate their "expense" for programming by eliminating the writers! No they don't want to pay for no damn writers. They have endless programming ideas in the executive suite. This week, a new reality show, "Treetop Rescue" where firefighters rescue pet cats from trees... Ugh
Ever notice how a well written show gets cancelled the first season? I think the network execs are allergic to good writing. More boobs! More quarreling 20 somethings! More trash!
Netflix is doing good in content creation and obviously employing writers. It's what we watch the most. HULU does some good series also. They now offer Showtime but the series on it are lame.
Overreact much?
Businesses try to maximize profit. In some cases, they need high cost ads to pay for production of great shows like Breaking Bad. The "networks" that actually allow you to pay your way out of ads are expensive, like HBO and SHO, which reflects the true cost of being in the business of producing and releasing something like True Detective. Should I name some more great shows that didn't get cancelled the first season?
Networks are having their cake and eating it too, when Apple charges $20 for a charging cable of questionable durability? You need to bring in money in order to profit.
Hey it's not like we don't pay for the programming!
You are delusional if you think the $8/month you pay for Hulu+ is paying for the content/programming! The majority of your monthly fee pays for Hulu's operating expenses. Servers, personnel, content delivery network hosting (disk space and bandwidth).
The reason that NetFlix is always a season behind is because it costs too much to get the rights for current season programming! Hulu+ is able to provide that more current programming by running a few ads!
How much do you think programming should cost? I have both Netflix and Hulu+. I work from home and have the TV on in the background all day and all evening. I probably watch 12 hours of TV per day - it's an even mix between 30-min shows and 1 hour shows (which takes 22 min and 43 min respectively without commercials). So - I watch at least 16 TV episodes per day. That's 480 episodes per month. Taking my $16/month into account, I've payed less than 4 cents per episode. Is that enough to cover the production of those episodes? Should I be freaking out that Hulu makes me watch 4 or 5 minutes worth of commercials when I watch content made available by them? And why do you think that Apple, Sony, etc charge $2.99-$3.99 for a single commercial free episode? Are they gouging us? Shouldn't I just have to pay Apple the same 4 cents that I pay Hulu and Netflix?
For those of you that hate commercials so much; there are options out there to rent/purchase the commercial-free episodes you want - but they seem pricey when compared to the ad-subsidized model you get with over-the-air, cable, satellite and Hulu+.
So please, join the rest of us in reality and stop whining about the fact that you've "paid for the content" when it's abundantly obvious that you haven't. Hulu+ and Netflix are the best thing since sliced bread. They offer you access to their content library for an entire month for pennies per episode. In order to provide some of the newer content, they're forced to insert ads in the episodes. if they refused to do that, they wouldn't be able to offer that content at all! I for one am glad I have the option - but you can tell at the very beginning of the episode, how many commercial breaks there are going to be and make your own decision then. You can watch it on Hulu knowing you'll be interrupted 3 times or you can hit the exit button and go rent it from iTiunes for $4!
I honestly shake my head in disbelief when I read some of the ridiculous, delusional, entitled, statements that some people make. I find it hard to believe there are actual, real people in the world that think this way.
The cable company shows ads. The newspaper you might buy shows ads. The magazine you paid for shows ads. HBO Now runs it's own ads. The sporting event you bought tickets to displays ads. The movie theatre you go to shows ads. None of those things are free.
Until somewhat recently ads didn't get as much venom from some folks. I'm guessing it's more about the increasing number of them intruding too far on the desired content instead of the idea of an advertisement in an of itself. Geez, even Apple considers ads to be an acceptable thing for the most part, making personalized ones the default setting on your iPhone.
Valid point but cause we are talking here about hulu vs netflix: Netflix does not have adds!! And they have a good database and so on. So if Hulu wants to compete I am more than sure that they will have to go this way. I wasn't even considering changing to hulu due to this fact. Now if hulu plus is and stays without adds I could at least consider it.
Valid point but cause we are talking here about hulu vs netflix: Netflix does not have adds!! And they have a good database and so on. So if Hulu wants to compete I am more than sure that they will have to go this way. I wasn't even considering changing to hulu due to this fact. Now if hulu plus is and stays without adds I could at least consider it.
Hulu+ and Netflix are not competitive services. They are companion services.
It's true that their is some overlap in content, but Hulu+ differentiates itself by offering current programming that is often available the same day it is broadcast whereas Netflix (for the most part) provides last season and older content. The content that Netflix provides is MUCH cheaper for Netflix to acquire the rights to - and that's why they are able to provide it without ads. A portion of everyone's $8/month is enough to pay for the rights to this content. Hulu+ on the other hand has to pay a great deal more for the current season content they offer which is why they have to run ads. The alternative would be to increase the monthly fee - which I think is what this article is all about. It's awesome that Hulu+ will soon offer a choice to consumers to either pay a higher monthly fee for ad-free content or to continue to pay the lower fee and watch a few ads. I for one will stick with the ads because I find them to be short enough to not disrupt my enjoyment of the program.
The problem in this discussion though is the fundamental misconception by many that $8/month should be enough to cover everything Hulu+ provides. It's not. Accept that and then figure out how much extra you're willing to pay for a commercial-free viewing experience. (It's around $2.99/episode through iTunes.). With the amount of TV I watch, Hulu+ is a phenomenal deal and I'm very happy to continue to subscribe to both Netflix and Hulu+.
The only drawback to Hulu+ is the scarcity of new content over the summer months while most current shows are between seasons. I've often considered putting my subscription on hold from May to September but it doesn't really seem like it's worth the hassle to save $24. It would be fantastic if Hulu recognized their decrease in value over the summer months and offered either an automatic discount over those months - or perhaps an ad-free experience over the summer months to keep subscribers happy.
Well now that you say it, the content on Hulu+ in fact is more up to date than the Netflix stuff. I am relatively new to Netflix so I am still exploring old shows like mad men and stuff like this. But new shows are mostly the Netflix Originals like Better Call Saul. The shows were they have to pay a licence are a lot older.
So the news are actually pretty good, for me it would be definitely worth it to pay some up to 5 bucks for ad free shows.
But I don't know if i could even use two streaming services I already feel that I am barely using Netflix considering that there is still a lot of content for me.
On my next holidays I could give Hulu another try I guess than i will see exactly the differences of this two services.
Comments
Yeah that's not happening. Having to press fast forward, then oops too far, go back, ok close enough, 4 seconds of the last ad. Ok another break, fast forward, oops too far, go back..
Yeah, no. That's almost worse than just sitting through them. My point was I shouldn't have to deal with the ads at all if I'm paying for it. Maybe I'm alone in this opinion, but I'm certainly telling them how I feel with my wallet.
work on your reflexes.
I mean seriously it isn't that hard.
The advertising before the previews at movie theaters is also really annoying. Is $9–$15/person not enough to spare us, and give the audience 2+ hours of peace from the constant bombardment of ads? But most people don’t care: it is their normal.
Before TiVo, I had a ReplayTV box that had an ad-skipping feature: a commercial comes on, hit one button and it skips the entire break. TiVo also had one for a short time but capitulated when the networks sued Replay out of business. All the major players in broadcasting live and die by ad-revenue in the US. So, everyone can forget about making ads convenient to skip.
And it’s not just reflexes: ad breaks have different run times. It could be the short 2 minute break after the cold open and credits, or the second 3:30m break or the extended 5 minute break of 4 commercials, a local 30s bumper, and another set of 5 commercials near the end — but they like to mix it up. So, you can forget about reflexes even with a 30s skip forward and a 10s skip back. People can never do the exact same motion, nor time things exactly right over and over: only a computer or something that can read the video signal differences can accurately skip these things with ease (and as mentioned networks will kill any company that allows that tech as part of their service). So, rather than snark with a comment equivalent of “ya gotta move faster, bro” why don’t people accept that no one else is them nor do they has the exact same PoV as everyone else. Also, I don’t care what you think about commercials or timing, since it affects me differently than you and you cannot assume everyone reading has use of their fine motor skills. Try blowing through a straw to control your computer for a day and then see how easy it is to control a TV skip feature when accessible remotes make the Harmony’s price look pocket change.
Hulu is better than broadcast for all but NBC’s commercial load (which is only a few minutes less than broadcast) in that I get to watch a 1 hour program in about 50 minutes (adding only about 5-6m of commercials vs the standard of ~15m). But even then it is still a bit of a pain. Is getting back a few hours of my time/week worth the $4–$6/month difference? maybe. If they added dependent accounts like Netflix did for a buck more, I would definitely add the a time saving feature assuming it applied to all sub-accounts.
I second that.
I'll go another step beyond that to say I think the networks are especially shitty for wanting to charge for programming, earn money through ads and then have the gall to eliminate their "expense" for programming by eliminating the writers! No they don't want to pay for no damn writers. They have endless programming ideas in the executive suite. This week, a new reality show, "Treetop Rescue" where firefighters rescue pet cats from trees... Ugh
Ever notice how a well written show gets cancelled the first season? I think the network execs are allergic to good writing. More boobs! More quarreling 20 somethings! More trash!
Netflix is doing good in content creation and obviously employing writers. It's what we watch the most. HULU does some good series also. They now offer Showtime but the series on it are lame.
Hey it's not like we don't pay for the programming! I remember the advent of "pay TV" ages ago. There were no ads on cable. Since when do they think it's ok to charge you for programming but then rake in income from ads?? A case of the networks wanting to have their cake and eat it too.
I'll go another step beyond that to say I think the networks are especially shitty for wanting to charge for programming, earn money through ads and then have the gall to eliminate their "expense" for programming by eliminating the writers! No they don't want to pay for no damn writers. They have endless programming ideas in the executive suite. This week, a new reality show, "Treetop Rescue" where firefighters rescue pet cats from trees... Ugh
Ever notice how a well written show gets cancelled the first season? I think the network execs are allergic to good writing. More boobs! More quarreling 20 somethings! More trash!
Netflix is doing good in content creation and obviously employing writers. It's what we watch the most. HULU does some good series also. They now offer Showtime but the series on it are lame.
Overreact much?
Businesses try to maximize profit. In some cases, they need high cost ads to pay for production of great shows like Breaking Bad. The "networks" that actually allow you to pay your way out of ads are expensive, like HBO and SHO, which reflects the true cost of being in the business of producing and releasing something like True Detective. Should I name some more great shows that didn't get cancelled the first season?
Networks are having their cake and eating it too, when Apple charges $20 for a charging cable of questionable durability? You need to bring in money in order to profit.
You are delusional if you think the $8/month you pay for Hulu+ is paying for the content/programming! The majority of your monthly fee pays for Hulu's operating expenses. Servers, personnel, content delivery network hosting (disk space and bandwidth).
The reason that NetFlix is always a season behind is because it costs too much to get the rights for current season programming! Hulu+ is able to provide that more current programming by running a few ads!
How much do you think programming should cost? I have both Netflix and Hulu+. I work from home and have the TV on in the background all day and all evening. I probably watch 12 hours of TV per day - it's an even mix between 30-min shows and 1 hour shows (which takes 22 min and 43 min respectively without commercials). So - I watch at least 16 TV episodes per day. That's 480 episodes per month. Taking my $16/month into account, I've payed less than 4 cents per episode. Is that enough to cover the production of those episodes? Should I be freaking out that Hulu makes me watch 4 or 5 minutes worth of commercials when I watch content made available by them? And why do you think that Apple, Sony, etc charge $2.99-$3.99 for a single commercial free episode? Are they gouging us? Shouldn't I just have to pay Apple the same 4 cents that I pay Hulu and Netflix?
For those of you that hate commercials so much; there are options out there to rent/purchase the commercial-free episodes you want - but they seem pricey when compared to the ad-subsidized model you get with over-the-air, cable, satellite and Hulu+.
So please, join the rest of us in reality and stop whining about the fact that you've "paid for the content" when it's abundantly obvious that you haven't. Hulu+ and Netflix are the best thing since sliced bread. They offer you access to their content library for an entire month for pennies per episode. In order to provide some of the newer content, they're forced to insert ads in the episodes. if they refused to do that, they wouldn't be able to offer that content at all! I for one am glad I have the option - but you can tell at the very beginning of the episode, how many commercial breaks there are going to be and make your own decision then. You can watch it on Hulu knowing you'll be interrupted 3 times or you can hit the exit button and go rent it from iTiunes for $4!
I honestly shake my head in disbelief when I read some of the ridiculous, delusional, entitled, statements that some people make. I find it hard to believe there are actual, real people in the world that think this way.
The cable company shows ads. The newspaper you might buy shows ads. The magazine you paid for shows ads. HBO Now runs it's own ads. The sporting event you bought tickets to displays ads. The movie theatre you go to shows ads. None of those things are free.
Until somewhat recently ads didn't get as much venom from some folks. I'm guessing it's more about the increasing number of them intruding too far on the desired content instead of the idea of an advertisement in an of itself. Geez, even Apple considers ads to be an acceptable thing for the most part, making personalized ones the default setting on your iPhone.
Valid point but cause we are talking here about hulu vs netflix: Netflix does not have adds!! And they have a good database and so on. So if Hulu wants to compete I am more than sure that they will have to go this way. I wasn't even considering changing to hulu due to this fact. Now if hulu plus is and stays without adds I could at least consider it.
Hulu+ and Netflix are not competitive services. They are companion services.
It's true that their is some overlap in content, but Hulu+ differentiates itself by offering current programming that is often available the same day it is broadcast whereas Netflix (for the most part) provides last season and older content. The content that Netflix provides is MUCH cheaper for Netflix to acquire the rights to - and that's why they are able to provide it without ads. A portion of everyone's $8/month is enough to pay for the rights to this content. Hulu+ on the other hand has to pay a great deal more for the current season content they offer which is why they have to run ads. The alternative would be to increase the monthly fee - which I think is what this article is all about. It's awesome that Hulu+ will soon offer a choice to consumers to either pay a higher monthly fee for ad-free content or to continue to pay the lower fee and watch a few ads. I for one will stick with the ads because I find them to be short enough to not disrupt my enjoyment of the program.
The problem in this discussion though is the fundamental misconception by many that $8/month should be enough to cover everything Hulu+ provides. It's not. Accept that and then figure out how much extra you're willing to pay for a commercial-free viewing experience. (It's around $2.99/episode through iTunes.). With the amount of TV I watch, Hulu+ is a phenomenal deal and I'm very happy to continue to subscribe to both Netflix and Hulu+.
The only drawback to Hulu+ is the scarcity of new content over the summer months while most current shows are between seasons. I've often considered putting my subscription on hold from May to September but it doesn't really seem like it's worth the hassle to save $24. It would be fantastic if Hulu recognized their decrease in value over the summer months and offered either an automatic discount over those months - or perhaps an ad-free experience over the summer months to keep subscribers happy.
Well now that you say it, the content on Hulu+ in fact is more up to date than the Netflix stuff. I am relatively new to Netflix so I am still exploring old shows like mad men and stuff like this. But new shows are mostly the Netflix Originals like Better Call Saul. The shows were they have to pay a licence are a lot older.
So the news are actually pretty good, for me it would be definitely worth it to pay some up to 5 bucks for ad free shows.
But I don't know if i could even use two streaming services I already feel that I am barely using Netflix considering that there is still a lot of content for me.
On my next holidays I could give Hulu another try I guess than i will see exactly the differences of this two services.