Hulu is going to fail, because the cheapest paid content you can't beat the 3¢ a TV show*, view anytime you want, commercial free streaming from Netflix.
*based upon viewing 300 shows a month for $9 a month basic DVD service.
*Based upon sitting on your ass for 10 shows a day, every day of the month.
I remember when free TV programming included "The Brady Bunch Variety Hour", "SuperTrain", and "Pink Lady and Jeff". Small wonder cable took off shortly afterwards.
I remember getting 2 1/2 snowy channels from 60, 100 and 250 miles away, respectively.
Now I get several hundred. Still nothing worth watching, however.
Let's see, nobody wants to pay for ANY content online. And everybody installs ad blockers so they don't have to watch ANY advertisements on the "free" sites.
I don't think that either of these statements are true.
Hulu doesn't need to "enter in talks" with Apple. All they is need it make their content displayable in HTML5.
And you do realise that the subscription will kill the ads, don't you?
I don't care if a subscription will kill ads or not ... I will not pay to watch over the air broadcasts. There are enough bittorrent sites where I can download the shows I want to watch.
To the .. person .. with the long rambling comment about Hulu subscriptions and "no iPad for me!" Seriously do you think that anyone here thinks you would have actually bought an iPad anyway? That was the only reason you were going to buy it eh, for Hulu and now that NBC and the boys are thinking about using the iPad for a test platform for a subscription service that's a deal breaker for you? Get real.
No, you won't. Hulu will be paid only for new content within the year. Mark it
What do you base that on?
I see Hulu et.al. as free advertising for the networks. That is why, for example, you can watch Lost for free at the Network's web site. They want you to consume their product, so that you will get hooked, and then watch the show every week and consume TV ads.
I'm not sure why the network's investment in their own website is different from a network's support (financial and otherwise) of sites like Hulu.
I see no need for these content aggregators to charge the consumer when they are in large part benefiting the providers.
In the old days, record companies used to pay DJs to play their records. I don't understand why TV producers wouldn't want modern content providers to similarly advertise their products.
The more I read these posts, the more I'm blown away by how people expect anything on the Internet to be available for free, as if the service doesn't cost anything to provide. I can understand if it's a service that people don't value enough to pay for or the business model is flawed, but when the expectation is it should be provided for free just because ? it's ridiculous! It reminds me of when people were outraged when they couldn't download music for free anymore through Napster. The sense of entitlement is unbelievable! How would you feel if your company told you they didn't value your work any more, and they were going to stop paying you?
I remember getting 2 1/2 snowy channels from 60, 100 and 250 miles away, respectively.
Now I get several hundred. Still nothing worth watching, however.
250 miles? Holy CATS - no hills or buildings over 20 stories near you?
Farthest I ever watched TV was 60 miles and, thanks to hills, we needed a ham radio (height) antennae. Seriously - the thing was tall enough that the ancient video game console of the day (those RF modulators were crap) leaked signals right up the tower and broadcast "Atari TV" to the whole town on channel 3.
*Based upon sitting on your ass for 10 shows a day, every day of the month.
And you're ok with waiting half a year+ to see the stuff that everybody else has already watched and moved on from. Oh, and any reality series is pretty much pointless as it's nearly impossible to avoid hearing about who won survivor or american idol or biggest loser or (insert TV show here). Don't get me wrong - Netflix has it's purpose but that purpose really doesn't interfere with Hulu's. Hulu you have to wait, at most, 8 days; Netflix you have to wait for it to be on DVD which, as I said, is months upon months.
Hulu is going to fail, because the cheapest paid content you can't beat the 3¢ a TV show*, view anytime you want, commercial free streaming from Netflix.
*based upon viewing 300 shows a month for $9 a month basic DVD service.
Netflix streaming is a great service, looks phenomenal on my HD, and I use it a lot, but don't expect to see newer content on it anytime soon.
Netflix has licensing mostly for movies and TV seasons that are well outside the new release window. I just finished watching Season 1 and Season 2 of Dexter on Netflix, but Season 3 -- which aired on Showtime more than a year ago and came out on DVD six months ago -- is not yet available.
250 miles? Holy CATS - no hills or buildings over 20 stories near you?
Farthest I ever watched TV was 60 miles and, thanks to hills, we needed a ham radio (height) antennae. Seriously - the thing was tall enough that the ancient video game console of the day (those RF modulators were crap) leaked signals right up the tower and broadcast "Atari TV" to the whole town on channel 3.
That's strange, I'd pick up fuzzy channels from a good 100 miles away using a pair of rabbit ears attached to my mom's old PowerMac (when I wasn't allowed to watch TV I'd just watch it on the computer mwahahah)
Of course I was sitting at the top of a hill in Ohio so that might have something to do with it.
I see Hulu et.al. as free advertising for the networks. That is why, for example, you can watch Lost for free at the Network's web site. They want you to consume their product, so that you will get hooked, and then watch the show every week and consume TV ads.
I'm not sure why the network's investment in their own website is different from a network's support (financial and otherwise) of sites like Hulu.
I see no need for these content aggregators to charge the consumer when they are in large part benefiting the providers.
In the old days, record companies used to pay DJs to play their records. I don't understand why TV producers wouldn't want modern content providers to similarly advertise their products.
I would base it on the fact hulu has come out and stated they are looking at a pay subscription model in the near future, but than again that's just me and I keep up on these things. Say hello to tekstud in ignorville for me.
*Based upon sitting on your ass for 10 shows a day, every day of the month.
And your mother pays me for sex to do it too, smartass.
Forget that there is typically more than one person in a household, but you don't know that apparently, typing away all alone in your studio basement apartment.
FYI: Perhaps it's just me, but your "unique" formatting does make your posts stand out, but it also makes me skip over your posts entirely.
What posts? I don't see any posts. I do occasionally see some odd blank posts, are they the ones? - where you look on the left for the biggining of a sentence and find nothing, so you then just skip to the next post. \
Comments
Hulu is going to fail, because the cheapest paid content you can't beat the 3¢ a TV show*, view anytime you want, commercial free streaming from Netflix.
*based upon viewing 300 shows a month for $9 a month basic DVD service.
*Based upon sitting on your ass for 10 shows a day, every day of the month.
I remember when free TV programming included "The Brady Bunch Variety Hour", "SuperTrain", and "Pink Lady and Jeff". Small wonder cable took off shortly afterwards.
I remember getting 2 1/2 snowy channels from 60, 100 and 250 miles away, respectively.
Now I get several hundred. Still nothing worth watching, however.
Let's see, nobody wants to pay for ANY content online. And everybody installs ad blockers so they don't have to watch ANY advertisements on the "free" sites.
I don't think that either of these statements are true.
Oh fscking please
Hulu doesn't need to "enter in talks" with Apple. All they is need it make their content displayable in HTML5.
And you do realise that the subscription will kill the ads, don't you?
I don't care if a subscription will kill ads or not ... I will not pay to watch over the air broadcasts. There are enough bittorrent sites where I can download the shows I want to watch.
No, you won't. Hulu will be paid only for new content within the year. Mark it
What do you base that on?
I see Hulu et.al. as free advertising for the networks. That is why, for example, you can watch Lost for free at the Network's web site. They want you to consume their product, so that you will get hooked, and then watch the show every week and consume TV ads.
I'm not sure why the network's investment in their own website is different from a network's support (financial and otherwise) of sites like Hulu.
I see no need for these content aggregators to charge the consumer when they are in large part benefiting the providers.
In the old days, record companies used to pay DJs to play their records. I don't understand why TV producers wouldn't want modern content providers to similarly advertise their products.
Actually this makes sense for Hulu... Apple customers are used to paying too much for everything... Nothing new to see here....
How would you feel if your company told you they didn't value your work any more, and they were going to stop paying you?
I'd feel the same way Steven Root did in Office Space. I'd want my damn stapler!
No, you won't. Hulu will be paid only for new content within the year. Mark it
And you know this how????
I remember getting 2 1/2 snowy channels from 60, 100 and 250 miles away, respectively.
Now I get several hundred. Still nothing worth watching, however.
250 miles? Holy CATS - no hills or buildings over 20 stories near you?
Farthest I ever watched TV was 60 miles and, thanks to hills, we needed a ham radio (height) antennae. Seriously - the thing was tall enough that the ancient video game console of the day (those RF modulators were crap) leaked signals right up the tower and broadcast "Atari TV" to the whole town on channel 3.
*Based upon sitting on your ass for 10 shows a day, every day of the month.
And you're ok with waiting half a year+ to see the stuff that everybody else has already watched and moved on from. Oh, and any reality series is pretty much pointless as it's nearly impossible to avoid hearing about who won survivor or american idol or biggest loser or (insert TV show here). Don't get me wrong - Netflix has it's purpose but that purpose really doesn't interfere with Hulu's. Hulu you have to wait, at most, 8 days; Netflix you have to wait for it to be on DVD which, as I said, is months upon months.
Most people on this board can't fathom not wanting (or needing) a laptop so they can't understand why the iPad will be successful.
I'd pay like a whole $1 to watch a good show on an iPad.
Hulu is going to fail, because the cheapest paid content you can't beat the 3¢ a TV show*, view anytime you want, commercial free streaming from Netflix.
*based upon viewing 300 shows a month for $9 a month basic DVD service.
Netflix streaming is a great service, looks phenomenal on my HD, and I use it a lot, but don't expect to see newer content on it anytime soon.
Netflix has licensing mostly for movies and TV seasons that are well outside the new release window. I just finished watching Season 1 and Season 2 of Dexter on Netflix, but Season 3 -- which aired on Showtime more than a year ago and came out on DVD six months ago -- is not yet available.
250 miles? Holy CATS - no hills or buildings over 20 stories near you?
Farthest I ever watched TV was 60 miles and, thanks to hills, we needed a ham radio (height) antennae. Seriously - the thing was tall enough that the ancient video game console of the day (those RF modulators were crap) leaked signals right up the tower and broadcast "Atari TV" to the whole town on channel 3.
That's strange, I'd pick up fuzzy channels from a good 100 miles away using a pair of rabbit ears attached to my mom's old PowerMac (when I wasn't allowed to watch TV I'd just watch it on the computer
Of course I was sitting at the top of a hill in Ohio so that might have something to do with it.
What do you base that on?
I see Hulu et.al. as free advertising for the networks. That is why, for example, you can watch Lost for free at the Network's web site. They want you to consume their product, so that you will get hooked, and then watch the show every week and consume TV ads.
I'm not sure why the network's investment in their own website is different from a network's support (financial and otherwise) of sites like Hulu.
I see no need for these content aggregators to charge the consumer when they are in large part benefiting the providers.
In the old days, record companies used to pay DJs to play their records. I don't understand why TV producers wouldn't want modern content providers to similarly advertise their products.
I would base it on the fact hulu has come out and stated they are looking at a pay subscription model in the near future, but than again that's just me and I keep up on these things. Say hello to tekstud in ignorville for me.
*Based upon sitting on your ass for 10 shows a day, every day of the month.
And your mother pays me for sex to do it too, smartass.
Forget that there is typically more than one person in a household, but you don't know that apparently, typing away all alone in your studio basement apartment.
FYI: Perhaps it's just me, but your "unique" formatting does make your posts stand out, but it also makes me skip over your posts entirely.
What posts? I don't see any posts. I do occasionally see some odd blank posts, are they the ones? - where you look on the left for the biggining of a sentence and find nothing, so you then just skip to the next post.