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.
I don't have the link right now but I'm fairly certain that Hulu itself has indicated that it wont be free forever, or that the free part is an experiment or some such. You're categorising my statement as a simple assumption on my part, but I don't think it's that clear, which is why I used the "very very likely" statement. It certainly seems very likely based on simple economics that it won't be free forever. The analogy to broadcast TV is faulty because through the magic of cablevision, we have already left the model of the advertising revenue being the only support for programming a long time ago. A network that gives away all it's content on the internet for free by putting ads in, is a network that won't be around for very long.
As for your analysis of "free" it's mostly semantics. I could construct a similar but opposite argument, but I won't get into it in too much detail here as I don't think many are interested.
One part of one argument to that end is to say that if the content is defined as the shows themselves, and "free" is defined as simply "free of payment" then the shows are "free" if you are thinking that the money you are paying is the only "payment" you make. There are other forms of payment besides money. If you consider that you don't want to watch the ads and only want to watch the show, then the forced watching of the ads are in fact the "payment" you are making to get to watch the show.
The point is that if the content is the shows, then the consumers are not free to watch that content without "paying" by being forced to watch the advertisements. In other words it's not an equivalent experience to simply watching the show, or you are not getting the "actual" show by watching the ad supported version.
Another way to look at it is to define "free" by revenue categories as is done in the app store. "Free" in that context is a different category than "free with ads." Hulu is quite obviously in the "free with ads" category and thus to be differentiated from another situation where the content is actually just plain old "free." If this isn't the case, then there is no way to differentiate the actually free content from the content that obtains it's money from the advertisements.
Primarily, what I meant to point out is just that these two types of "free" are structurally dissimilar, and not the same thing. Which is pretty much unassailable because they certainly are not the same thing.
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.
Clearly you are getting ripped off. It's less than a penny a TV show if you watch 1000 shows a month.
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.
Did not know that Hulu uses h.264 for their video, and I agree that OGG is not gonna be used.
The analogy to broadcast TV is faulty because through the magic of cablevision, we have already left the model of the advertising revenue being the only support for programming a long time ago.
You are right that ad only supported streaming is a money losing proposition. However, your analogy to cable vision (at least here in America), means that, "it is very very likely" that if Hulu goes to a pay system, there will be two pricing tiers.
"Standard cable" which means you get to watch the shows with commercials, and
"Premium cable (e.g., HBO, Showtime)" which means TV shows without commercials.
They are going to have an iPad only music store where everything is DRM?!?!
Wow, why on Earth would the music be DRMed? Did you forget iTunes videos are still DRMed, though, and potentially books sold through the iBook store will be, too?
Quote:
Also, does the hardware really matter? Were you planning on taking apart you iPad and putting in another processor?
Replacing the processor would be silly, wouldn't it! I was actually thinking along the lines of what a hardware cloner or jailbreaker might be thinking: proprietary hardware makes it more difficult to disrupt the Apple-controlled economy.
Replacing the processor would be silly, wouldn't it! I was actually thinking along the lines of what a hardware cloner or jailbreaker might be thinking: proprietary hardware makes it more difficult to disrupt the Apple-controlled economy.
It's based on arm reference designs, they didn't build a new CPU from scratch or anything. Arm processors power a lot of mobile devices.
I don't have the link right now but I'm fairly certain that Hulu itself has indicated that it wont be free forever, or that the free part is an experiment or some such. You're categorising my statement as a simple assumption on my part, but I don't think it's that clear, which is why I used the "very very likely" statement. It certainly seems very likely based on simple economics that it won't be free forever. The analogy to broadcast TV is faulty because through the magic of cablevision, we have already left the model of the advertising revenue being the only support for programming a long time ago. A network that gives away all it's content on the internet for free by putting ads in, is a network that won't be around for very long.
I agree that it isn't unlikely that hulu will go to a fee-based model. But history has clearly shown, and continues to show, that ad-supported is also a viable model. My comment was about what hulu may have intended at one time, not what is likely in the future. It doesn't seem like a safe assumption that hulu never intended an ad-supported model. It would be astounding if they hadn't prepared for both scenarios as well as a combination of both.
I agree that it isn't unlikely that hulu will go to a fee-based model. But history has clearly shown, and continues to show, that ad-supported is also a viable model.
Is that true? I read many articles on how Internet based ads for media isn't nearly as profitable as the prior method is/was.
Is that true? I read many articles on how Internet based ads for media isn't nearly as profitable as the prior method is/was.
You're right, when the country only had 3 networks, mass advertising was certainly more profitable.
But that doesn't mean that ad-supported isn't a viable model. Keep in mind that a website costs a couple orders of magnitude less money to run than does a dedicated, nationwide network of broadcasting facilities.
As the viewing audience fractures even further in favor of more niche markets, many of those markets won't be large enough to support TV series production as common on major networks today. But it seems like an impossibility that the ad-supported model will disappear altogether. I can't imagine the market for free viewing ever disappearing.
This is yet another blow to iSteve's lie that the 'Pad is the best way to experience the 'web.
Love the trolls who hate Apple, but take time out of their day to read and comment on Apple related news. Apple owns you cuz they're in your head.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147
Hulu for free on a laptop/desktop or pay for it on the iPad? I think I'll stick with free.
Sorry to break your cheapness level, but Hulu is going to charge on their website too. Most if not all their services are going to be pay subscription only - that's been rumored for months and it's finally coming to fruition. Free Hulu is coming to an end for all.
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.
Funny you say this. I just got the Eye TV like 2 days ago, but I have not set it up yet. Still Eye TV is good for current TV shows. Hulu is good for watching old seasons and older TV shows. My point is that is free on my computer, why do I have to pay a monthly fee for something that I can already do for free? I think that at least they should give you the option free with commercials or paid without them.
Sorry to break your cheapness level, but Hulu is going to charge on their website too. Most if not all their services are going to be pay subscription only - that's been rumored for months and it's finally coming to fruition. Free Hulu is coming to an end for all.
and as with most services that change their operations from 'free' to charge, they will lose customers to torrents.
Why get all rude and offensive over a simple comment?
Because you said to me:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA
*Based upon sitting on your ass for 10 shows a day, every day of the month.
Perhaps that could have been said better to not to be taken as a personal attack.
Example: "Sure if one sits and watches 10 shows a day for 30 days..who does that?"
See, not so personal. Using "one" means general, using "your" makes it personal.
I always take a second and use the Preview to make sure any post can't be misinterpreted as a personal attack. Read my own posts through the eyes of others first, helps a lot.
User CP toward upper right => Edit Ignore List from lefthand column.
Unfortunately the Ignore List only works when there is a flood of good posters and you want to drown out the few bad ones to make them leave.
But when there are a lot bad posters, like it is here, it just makes a mess of ignored, ignored, ignored and the ones responding to the ignored, so you see their post anyway.
A post rank system would be better...quality posts move up for more eyeballs to see and other to comment on and the trolls get modded down, down and out of sight...
Huge difference. He's a public figure. I object to personal attacks on forum members, not on folks who parade in front of the media. They are fair game.
YMMV.
Sorry as you say "dog' still personal attack and this is public forum, so if you make a comment you are open for response, personal or not.
Comments
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.
I don't have the link right now but I'm fairly certain that Hulu itself has indicated that it wont be free forever, or that the free part is an experiment or some such. You're categorising my statement as a simple assumption on my part, but I don't think it's that clear, which is why I used the "very very likely" statement. It certainly seems very likely based on simple economics that it won't be free forever. The analogy to broadcast TV is faulty because through the magic of cablevision, we have already left the model of the advertising revenue being the only support for programming a long time ago. A network that gives away all it's content on the internet for free by putting ads in, is a network that won't be around for very long.
As for your analysis of "free" it's mostly semantics. I could construct a similar but opposite argument, but I won't get into it in too much detail here as I don't think many are interested.
One part of one argument to that end is to say that if the content is defined as the shows themselves, and "free" is defined as simply "free of payment" then the shows are "free" if you are thinking that the money you are paying is the only "payment" you make. There are other forms of payment besides money. If you consider that you don't want to watch the ads and only want to watch the show, then the forced watching of the ads are in fact the "payment" you are making to get to watch the show.
The point is that if the content is the shows, then the consumers are not free to watch that content without "paying" by being forced to watch the advertisements. In other words it's not an equivalent experience to simply watching the show, or you are not getting the "actual" show by watching the ad supported version.
Another way to look at it is to define "free" by revenue categories as is done in the app store. "Free" in that context is a different category than "free with ads." Hulu is quite obviously in the "free with ads" category and thus to be differentiated from another situation where the content is actually just plain old "free." If this isn't the case, then there is no way to differentiate the actually free content from the content that obtains it's money from the advertisements.
Primarily, what I meant to point out is just that these two types of "free" are structurally dissimilar, and not the same thing. Which is pretty much unassailable because they certainly are not the same thing.
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.
Clearly you are getting ripped off. It's less than a penny a TV show if you watch 1000 shows a month.
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.
Did not know that Hulu uses h.264 for their video, and I agree that OGG is not gonna be used.
Its wonderful that those guys are there to make our decisions for us. We are not competent to make them ourselves.
Our competency in making decisions is reflected in the state of our government. It's a democracy after all.
The analogy to broadcast TV is faulty because through the magic of cablevision, we have already left the model of the advertising revenue being the only support for programming a long time ago.
You are right that ad only supported streaming is a money losing proposition. However, your analogy to cable vision (at least here in America), means that, "it is very very likely" that if Hulu goes to a pay system, there will be two pricing tiers.
"Standard cable" which means you get to watch the shows with commercials, and
"Premium cable (e.g., HBO, Showtime)" which means TV shows without commercials.
(Welcome to my ignore list)
Please tell me how you did that.
They are going to have an iPad only music store where everything is DRM?!?!
Wow, why on Earth would the music be DRMed?
Also, does the hardware really matter? Were you planning on taking apart you iPad and putting in another processor?
Replacing the processor would be silly, wouldn't it! I was actually thinking along the lines of what a hardware cloner or jailbreaker might be thinking: proprietary hardware makes it more difficult to disrupt the Apple-controlled economy.
Replacing the processor would be silly, wouldn't it! I was actually thinking along the lines of what a hardware cloner or jailbreaker might be thinking: proprietary hardware makes it more difficult to disrupt the Apple-controlled economy.
It's based on arm reference designs, they didn't build a new CPU from scratch or anything. Arm processors power a lot of mobile devices.
I don't have the link right now but I'm fairly certain that Hulu itself has indicated that it wont be free forever, or that the free part is an experiment or some such. You're categorising my statement as a simple assumption on my part, but I don't think it's that clear, which is why I used the "very very likely" statement. It certainly seems very likely based on simple economics that it won't be free forever. The analogy to broadcast TV is faulty because through the magic of cablevision, we have already left the model of the advertising revenue being the only support for programming a long time ago. A network that gives away all it's content on the internet for free by putting ads in, is a network that won't be around for very long.
I agree that it isn't unlikely that hulu will go to a fee-based model. But history has clearly shown, and continues to show, that ad-supported is also a viable model. My comment was about what hulu may have intended at one time, not what is likely in the future. It doesn't seem like a safe assumption that hulu never intended an ad-supported model. It would be astounding if they hadn't prepared for both scenarios as well as a combination of both.
I agree that it isn't unlikely that hulu will go to a fee-based model. But history has clearly shown, and continues to show, that ad-supported is also a viable model.
Is that true? I read many articles on how Internet based ads for media isn't nearly as profitable as the prior method is/was.
Please tell me how you did that.
User CP toward upper right => Edit Ignore List from lefthand column.
Is that true? I read many articles on how Internet based ads for media isn't nearly as profitable as the prior method is/was.
You're right, when the country only had 3 networks, mass advertising was certainly more profitable.
But that doesn't mean that ad-supported isn't a viable model. Keep in mind that a website costs a couple orders of magnitude less money to run than does a dedicated, nationwide network of broadcasting facilities.
As the viewing audience fractures even further in favor of more niche markets, many of those markets won't be large enough to support TV series production as common on major networks today. But it seems like an impossibility that the ad-supported model will disappear altogether. I can't imagine the market for free viewing ever disappearing.
This is yet another blow to iSteve's lie that the 'Pad is the best way to experience the 'web.
Love the trolls who hate Apple, but take time out of their day to read and comment on Apple related news. Apple owns you cuz they're in your head.
Hulu for free on a laptop/desktop or pay for it on the iPad? I think I'll stick with free.
Sorry to break your cheapness level, but Hulu is going to charge on their website too. Most if not all their services are going to be pay subscription only - that's been rumored for months and it's finally coming to fruition. Free Hulu is coming to an end for all.
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.
Funny you say this. I just got the Eye TV like 2 days ago, but I have not set it up yet. Still Eye TV is good for current TV shows. Hulu is good for watching old seasons and older TV shows. My point is that is free on my computer, why do I have to pay a monthly fee for something that I can already do for free? I think that at least they should give you the option free with commercials or paid without them.
Sorry to break your cheapness level, but Hulu is going to charge on their website too. Most if not all their services are going to be pay subscription only - that's been rumored for months and it's finally coming to fruition. Free Hulu is coming to an end for all.
and as with most services that change their operations from 'free' to charge, they will lose customers to torrents.
User CP toward upper right => Edit Ignore List from lefthand column.
Let the AI elitists and their so-called "ignore" list have their own chat while we with common sense have ours.
Why get all rude and offensive over a simple comment?
Because you said to me:
*Based upon sitting on your ass for 10 shows a day, every day of the month.
Perhaps that could have been said better to not to be taken as a personal attack.
Example: "Sure if one sits and watches 10 shows a day for 30 days..who does that?"
See, not so personal. Using "one" means general, using "your" makes it personal.
I always take a second and use the Preview to make sure any post can't be misinterpreted as a personal attack. Read my own posts through the eyes of others first, helps a lot.
Carry on.
User CP toward upper right => Edit Ignore List from lefthand column.
Unfortunately the Ignore List only works when there is a flood of good posters and you want to drown out the few bad ones to make them leave.
But when there are a lot bad posters, like it is here, it just makes a mess of ignored, ignored, ignored and the ones responding to the ignored, so you see their post anyway.
A post rank system would be better...quality posts move up for more eyeballs to see and other to comment on and the trolls get modded down, down and out of sight...
Oh well, back to Slashdot I go...
Huge difference. He's a public figure. I object to personal attacks on forum members, not on folks who parade in front of the media. They are fair game.
YMMV.
Sorry as you say "dog' still personal attack and this is public forum, so if you make a comment you are open for response, personal or not.
Let the AI elitists and their so-called "ignore" list have their own chat while we with common sense have ours.
You history on AI suggests you're not in either of those camps. Glass houses, Tekstud . . . glass houses.