Hulu forges deals with Fox & Disney for upcoming live TV service

Posted:
in General Discussion edited November 2016
Hulu on Tuesday announced content deals with two of its co-owners, Fox and Disney, as it prepares to launch a live TV service next year.




The Fox material will include "entertainment, news, sports and non-fiction content," Reuters reported. Disney, meanwhile, will be offering up video from channels lke ABC and ESPN.

Time Warner -- which bought a 10 percent stake in Hulu this August, and could soon be owned by AT&T -- is planning to include channels like TBS, Cartoon Network, and Turner Classic Movies.

The new service doesn't yet have a firm launch date or pricing, but will include at least some on-demand video on top of live broadcasts. At the moment Hulu offers two on-demand tiers: a $7.99 option with regular ad breaks, and a $11.99 "no commercials" plan which, despite its name, still inserts limited ads into some shows.

Rumors have hinted that Hulu could charge close to $40 per month for the combo live TV/on-demand package, but that price might be too high relative to bundles from Sling TV and PlayStation Vue.

Apple has long been rumored as wanting a live TV service of its own, but the company has reportedly taken a hardline approach in negotiations and made little headway -- even trying to undercut Disney, a close corporate partner whose CEO is on the Apple board.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 14
    "even trying to undercut Disney, "

    Please explain. How can Apple undercut Disney?
    SpamSandwichlollivermike1
  • Reply 2 of 14
    irelandireland Posts: 17,669member
    I remember the first time I saw Fox News on YouTube I was convinced it was a spoof on a reality news show. I'm still not unconvinced.
    edited November 2016 paxmanrob53afrodriMacProzoetmblolliverEsquireCatsRayz2016badmonk
  • Reply 3 of 14
    I gave up on hulu a long time ago. Not a brand I can get behind. It drove me crazy that they still inserted ads into their "ad free" service. Totally insane. Plus if the rumored price is accurate, I already have all of those same channels for less with sling. $40 is way to close to a cable package and that's EXACLTY the price range Apple was pushing against. It would be ridiculous. Cable prices have far outstripped inflation by more than 4x in the last two decades. Apple seems to have generally sought to provide value to the customer with their services. 

    I wonder if HULU will lose Timewarner content. I would assume ATT is going to prefer some level exclusivity or preference on their network, otherwise why make the purchase?
    edited November 2016
  • Reply 4 of 14
    AT&T appears to be way ahead of the pack.  And they also have the right ideas for the future.  Cord cutters rejoice!

    It's interesting how TimeWarner sold TimeWarner Cable and then forges ahead with AT&T for a G5 future.
    Google Fiber appears to be hitting the breaks as well since 1 GB Wireless G5 will be here in 2 years.



    Time will tell.

  • Reply 5 of 14
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,611member
    Cord cutting is great and all but if you thought it would somehow reduce cost... think again.
    calimike1
  • Reply 6 of 14
    davendaven Posts: 543member
    At $40 for an incomplete channel lineup I don't see the benefit. I'm on over the air tv plus iTunes, some tv apps, and Netflix. My cable internet from Charter is $63 including taxes. I haven't seen a bundle that excites me and watching movies and old shows without commercials on iTunes and Netflix is a far better experience than the other options I've seen.
  • Reply 7 of 14
    If it hasn't already become completely apparent, the media companies are determined to get at least $40-50 a month out of us, and more if possible, for television programming, whether it be cable, satellite, OTA, steaming, or any combination of them. They are wise to the cord cutting contingency and their love for all things streaming, and are forging deals to get their tentacles into their wallets in other ways. Their plan is to make their money one way or another, either through cable and satellite subscribers, or through cord cutters who wind up paying almost as much for their customized cocktail of various streaming services.
  • Reply 8 of 14
    paxman said:
    Cord cutting is great and all but if you thought it would somehow reduce cost... think again.
    With AT&T DirecTV Now, it will.  
    1.    No $800 Cable box for each TV.  (Payable $20 per month + Tax + Fees)
    2.    No Service repair man for costly install.
    3.    No 300 Channels that you will never use.
    I think the DirecTV Now package will be similar to this 145 channels for $50 package except it will not have all the useless channels.
    https://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/pepod/configure.jsp#package-section

    edited November 2016
  • Reply 9 of 14
    Once Hulu loses the Criterion Collection, which is imminent, the value proposition is going to be tough. I know I'll be canceling. 

    And a a board member isn't Disney's only significant tie to Apple--Laurene Powell Jobs is also Disney's biggest shareholder. 
    cali
  • Reply 10 of 14
    jvmbjvmb Posts: 59member
    paxman said:
    Cord cutting is great and all but if you thought it would somehow reduce cost... think again.
    I cut the cord 6 years ago and saved a lot of money. I went from paying $80/month for Dish to less than $25/month Netflix, Hulu, and sometimes an iTunes rental. That is about $4k saved. 

    I don't care about live TV though. For people that want access to all shows as soon as they first air, cord cutting will not save money.
    lolliver
  • Reply 11 of 14
    calicali Posts: 3,495member
     Kind of depressing seeing all these services advance in this area. I'm betting they didn't even think of this idea until Apple decided to pursue it. That's what's depressing. 
  • Reply 12 of 14
    mike1mike1 Posts: 1,923member
    larz2112 said:
    If it hasn't already become completely apparent, the media companies are determined to get at least $40-50 a month out of us, and more if possible, for television programming, whether it be cable, satellite, OTA, steaming, or any combination of them. They are wise to the cord cutting contingency and their love for all things streaming, and are forging deals to get their tentacles into their wallets in other ways. Their plan is to make their money one way or another, either through cable and satellite subscribers, or through cord cutters who wind up paying almost as much for their customized cocktail of various streaming services.
    They own the content and have every right and responsibility to monetize as best as they can.

    Cord cutting may be beneficial for some, but it would be crazy to expect to save money. Right now the experience is fragmented. My cable box still offers the best user experience. One remote, one guide and no switching inputs. Heck, I can even access Hulu through the cable box if I wanted to. My Smart TV has Netflix and Amazon built in. I pretty much only use my ATV to rent movies from iTunes that aren't included with Prime or Netflix and watch Apple launch events.
    edited November 2016
  • Reply 13 of 14
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,589member
    Ugh! Did you need to use the photo of that evil witch????
  • Reply 14 of 14
    Kudos on the photo choice, Apple Insider, kudos!
Sign In or Register to comment.