Hulu for Apple iPad likely to be a pay-only service - report

12357

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 137
    igeniusigenius Posts: 1,240member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DoctorBenway View Post


    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.



    I lived East of Rutland VT, on the side of a mountain, and we got a NYC channel on the TV (sort of). Certainly no 20 story buildings for at least 100 miles, in Albany NY, and even there, probably not.



    I think that the signal probably was able to go through the Hudson Valley on its way north.
  • Reply 82 of 137
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sranger View Post


    And you know this how????



    They've only been talking about doing exactly that for about 6 months now. Well before anything was murmured about the iPad.



    http://gizmodo.com/5387909/hulus-free-glory-days-are-officially-numbered

  • Reply 83 of 137
    igeniusigenius Posts: 1,240member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Porchland View Post


    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.



    The .torrents are available for seasons 3 and 4. If you want them, let me know.
  • Reply 84 of 137
    sheffsheff Posts: 1,407member
    Makes sense, since there won't be any way of dishing out custom commercials over h.264, plus they need to cover the costs of dishing out their content in two formats. A small fee per show (less then iTunes) would be ok in my world, but if they want 1.99 or 2.99 per episode I doubt this will be very sucessful. I think 10 cents would be a price most would be willing to pay to watch hulu on an iPo(a)d.
  • Reply 85 of 137
    People will pay for value. Most content is utter crap. It's made into mind-blowingly useless crap though commercials, cross-promotions, product placements, and idiotic presentations (such as the way FOX ruined the perfectly lovely game of baseball, or the way the history channel takes a 15 show and turns into an hour by endlessly "reviewing" what happened before the commercial break).



    So I dropped my cable. I rarely watch baseball (never watch the NFL or NBA). That's that. We are swilling too much bilge water from corporatopia without even so much as a peep. That is the real issue here. So hulu or anybody can charge what they want but they had better make it worth my dollar or they can suck it.
  • Reply 86 of 137
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


    No one cares?!



    That's one of the reasons I bought a pvr. Other than sports, I record everything. That way I can skip through the moronic ads. People mention that they can't find 10 programs worth watching in a month... let's try that with ads and see how long it takes to find one worth watching.



    right...



    so you PAY for the TV service, then you PAY AGAIN for the ability to not see commercial which finance the content you are watching.



    It's your option. And paying for a device to perform a task (ie: recording a show that you can play back later to SIMULATE not having commercials) is one thing. Having to pay the cable company to watch their shows, then pay AGAIN to watch the same thing on a 10 inch screen... not so attractive.



    and back to the most important point. Hulu is free. So if I buy an iPad, now I have to pay for what everyone else gets to watch for free???



    STUPID. Just plain stupid.



    Basically this is a slap in the face to anyone who buys an iPad. This is definitely NOT the wave of the future. it reminds me on Microsoft products during the initlal dotcom boom. people spending money all over the place just to make things work right.



    Hulu works already and it is free. the ONLY way they should add a pay model is as an OPTION for those who are so annoyed by ads that they are willing to pay Hulu to not show them.
  • Reply 87 of 137
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post


    And you're ok with waiting half a year+ to see the stuff that everybody else has already watched and moved on from.



    I didn't mention anything about a timeframe of when anything is available.
  • Reply 88 of 137
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Woohoo! View Post


    loser comments



    Why get all rude and offensive over a simple comment?
  • Reply 89 of 137
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sheff View Post


    Makes sense, since there won't be any way of dishing out custom commercials over h.264, plus they need to cover the costs of dishing out their content in two formats.



    1) I have doubts that Hulu will support OGG. They are already supporting H.264 which is supported in HW by Intel, in browsers by Apple and Google, in plugins by Adobe Flash and MS Silverlight, and it's just more efficient for their growth. Doubling their storage for Firefox doesn't seem likely to me. Not that it's an issue now since Flash for be the default for desktop browsers for awhile.



    2) I think there is a way to putting tailored ads into the video. (A) If you're streaming, you just break up the video into sections and call each section after a tailored commercial(s) has(have) aired. (B) If it's a download you can still add them by having the video seperated on tr server and having the pieces stitched with tailored commercials upon request. This would be nearly instant and invisible to the customer.
  • Reply 90 of 137
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Luiso View Post


    I'll pay to get the Hulu app, not a monthly fee, regardless what that fee might be. I hope they consider this option better, this way they can get money without screwing us for something I can watch in my computer free.



    If I have to pay a monthly fee, it better be without commercials and HD included.



    Get EyeTV from Elgato for about $150. Their iPhone app will almost certainly be adapted for the iPad. There is no monthly charge and you can watch all the major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, PBS) in HD both live and recorded. It depends on being in a large city in most cases (to have all the networks on local stations) and a decent roof mounted TV. The best characteristic is that you have no monthly bill.
  • Reply 91 of 137
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post


    I didn't mention anything about a timeframe of when anything is available.



    I was piggybacking onto your comment - didn't mean to counter your point simply to add another reason why Netflix <> Hulu
  • Reply 92 of 137
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sheff View Post


    Makes sense, since there won't be any way of dishing out custom commercials over h.264, plus they need to cover the costs of dishing out their content in two formats.



    1) I have doubts that Hulu will support OGG. They are already supporting H.264 which is supported in HW by Intel, in browsers by Apple and Google, in plugins by Adobe Flash and MS Silverlight, and it's just more efficient for their growth. Doubling their storage for Firefox doesn't seem likely to me. Not that it's an issue now since Flash for be the default for desktop browsers for awhile.



    2) I think there is a way to putting tailored ads into the video. (A) If you're streaming, you just break up the video into sections and call each section after a tailored commercial(s) has(have) aired. (B) If it's a download you can still add them by having the video seperated on tr server and having the pieces stitched with tailored commercials upon request. This would be nearly instant and invisible to the customer.
  • Reply 93 of 137
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sheff View Post


    Makes sense, since there won't be any way of dishing out custom commercials over h.264, plus they need to cover the costs of dishing out their content in two formats. A small fee per show (less then iTunes) would be ok in my world, but if they want 1.99 or 2.99 per episode I doubt this will be very sucessful. I think 10 cents would be a price most would be willing to pay to watch hulu on an iPo(a)d.



    The video codec has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to dish out custom commercials.



    Perhaps the point you're trying to make is that a web-page consisting of a stand-alone movie, won't handle embedded commercials as elegantly as the way hulu currently does. This is true. That type of functionality requires more than just a video codec. However this doesn't mean that flash is required.



    I'm not trying to say one way is better than the other. Just that flash isn't the only option, and that h.264 is completely irrelevant to the topic.
  • Reply 94 of 137
    foo2foo2 Posts: 1,077member
    The iPad is going to be locked down tighter than a drum: proprietary hardware (re: A4 processor), locked down OS, and DRM.
  • Reply 95 of 137
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Foo2 View Post


    The iPad is going to be locked down tighter than a drum: proprietary hardware (re: A4 processor), locked down OS, and DRM.



    They are going to have an iPad only music store where everything is DRM?!?!



    Also, does the hardware really matter? Were you planning on taking apart you iPad and putting in another processor?
  • Reply 96 of 137
    cmf2cmf2 Posts: 1,427member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post


    Hulu works already and it is free.



    Works for who exactly? For you? Of course, since it's free and you want free stuff. Is it a successful product from a business perspective? The fact that they have been considering going to a paid model for quite some time means at the very least that the service can be improved.



    I want a cable replacement service through the internet because content can be distributed much more efficiently and to many more devices than you could ever hope for with cable service and it separates your tv provider from your ISP. If that is going to happen, companies will need to look into paid models.



    Also, ignored for the ridiculous use of over sized text in multiple posts. Grow up a little.
  • Reply 97 of 137
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post


    [CENTER]Hmmm?



    Strange, and clearly not the direction HuLu should be going, yet I do believe that this was inevitable once they entered into talks with Cupertino.[/CENTER]



    I don't think this has anything to do with Apple, this is what happens when the studios step in & start bullying companies. Even though Apple & many others have proven they can make a lot more money by dropping prices & offering services competitive with netflix these geniuses just want to raise prices on a successful product & try to squeeze more money out of it. Bunch of morons, I'm getting so sick of TV & all the crap they now try to peddle to everyone.
  • Reply 98 of 137
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post


    Hulu for free on a laptop/desktop or pay for it on the iPad? I think I'll stick with free.



    Hulu was never intended to be free forever, and even now it has advertisements so it isn't really totally free. It's very very likely that by the time it's in a subscription form on the iPad, it will also be a pay situation in the browser, or that one will be free with ads and the other paid but without ads.



    Also, since Hulu is USA only, the largest part of the market can't see it for free anyway. Not being in the USA myself, I could care less since I can't see it anyway and it's NBC, which to me is just garbage. There is not a single show that I care for on that channel anyway.



    On the other hand, if a European station did the same thing (free in Europe but small fee for international), I would probably be interested enough to pay for it. So we can assume that there may be some non USA-ians that might pay for NBC even though it's free in the USA.
  • Reply 99 of 137
    dualiedualie Posts: 334member
    I dunno about anybody else, but after ditching cable last year and going on-line for my TV products, Hulu is the one service I use the least (if at all). There are way, way better services and repositories for viewing than Hulu, and most of them have stuff Hulu never has.
  • Reply 100 of 137
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


    Hulu was never intended to be free forever, and even now it has advertisements so it isn't really totally free.



    This doesn't seem like a safe assumption. Broadcast television has been free for many decades and running a website is waaaaaaaaaaaaay cheaper than running a dedicated continent-wide broadcast system.



    And yes, hulu is "free". Free is the correct term because viewers are not paying to view. Sure, there is advertising and advertising is annoying. But being annoyed isn't the same thing as paying money.



    Perhaps you're confusing the concepts of "revenue supported" and "viewership fee supported". Hulu is getting paid, but not by the viewers. Hence it is free to the viewers.
Sign In or Register to comment.