Hulu's live TV service may cost $40 per month, with full cloud DVR functions extra

AppleInsiderAppleInsider
Posted:
in General Discussion
Hulu's incoming live TV service is rumored start at $39.99 per month, but cord-cutters wanting access to all features including a fully-functional cloud DVR will probably have to pay extra.




The base package will also offer access to Hulu's on-demand content, according to TechCrunch sources. Prices could change, but if so may only go down given competition and an earlier claim by CEO Mike Hopkins that the service will cost "under $40" per month.

The entry package should offer some cloud DVR space by default, but may impose restrictions like no fast-forwarding. Hulu is considering a paid add-on to unlock full DVR options, among them 200 hours of storage and unlimited at-home streams. There may be a cap on outside streams -- possibly three. Pricing should slot under $20.

In any case, access to "premium" channels will cost extra. Showtime, already a Hulu partner, is expected to be joined by HBO sometime shortly after the initial launch.

Hulu will meanwhile continue to offer its cheaper on-demand tiers, and is also reportedly considering a live-only plan for which pricing is still in flux.

Live streaming is due to launch sometime this spring, which could be as late as June. While Hulu's cloud DVR support will likely fall short of PlayStation Vue or YouTube TV, the company may have an advantage in being the only service to combine live TV with a Netflix-style on-demand catalog.

Supporting platforms should include iOS, Android, Xbox, the fourth-generation Apple TV, and possibly others.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 19
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 3,063member
    Competition and choices are good for everyone.

    That said, this isn't for me. No thanks.


  • Reply 2 of 19
    mrboba1mrboba1 Posts: 276member
    Meh. That's the most expensive option unless you go nuts on PS Vue. I doubt I'll even give it a look.
  • Reply 3 of 19
    ktappektappe Posts: 824member
    $40 a month is a lot, considering it won't bring you all the content.  I think I'd only pay that much if it were a complete solution. As it stands, $11/month for Netflix plus $9/month for Prime (which I may drop) give me more than I can watch.
    edited April 2017
  • Reply 4 of 19
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 3,063member
    Don't forget the tax, and possibly more "fees," "access charges" and other miscellaneous costs that will mysteriously show up on your bill.
    dysamoriapscooter63
  • Reply 5 of 19
    falconairefalconaire Posts: 6member
    So, for Cox Cable I can get 200 channels for $120/mo, Netflix for 11/mo, Prime for 9/mo, and Hulu for 40/mo. And for a 150 one time charge I can get a DVR and local channels OTA. Hmm, I think I will take my OTA and Netflix/Prime and call it a day. These a-la-carte options are such a huge money sink, we have to get the networks to open it up and get the cost down to a bundle of like 5 stations for $5 otherwise you might as well just buy Cable and watch the 5 channels that you really want.
    pscooter63
  • Reply 6 of 19
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,294member
    $20 for a DVR option with no fast-forwarding? No thank you. 
  • Reply 7 of 19
    FatmanFatman Posts: 513member
    1. No support for Roku, they should be getting worried at this point. 
    2. If DirectTV Now adds DVR and CBS they could really make Hulu, Google and Sling non options.
    3. If PSVue adds missing networks ABC and Fox (all markets) they could really cleanup.
  • Reply 8 of 19
    robbyxrobbyx Posts: 479member
    falconaire said:
    So, for Cox Cable I can get 200 channels for $120/mo, Netflix for 11/mo, Prime for 9/mo, and Hulu for 40/mo. And for a 150 one time charge I can get a DVR and local channels OTA. Hmm, I think I will take my OTA and Netflix/Prime and call it a day. These a-la-carte options are such a huge money sink, we have to get the networks to open it up and get the cost down to a bundle of like 5 stations for $5 otherwise you might as well just buy Cable and watch the 5 channels that you really want.
    I'm ready to just go back to cable at this point.  A-la-carte has not proven to be a better solution, mainly because the networks don't truly support the concept.  The only thing that would make me subscribe to Hulu's live TV service is if they offered a commercial-free option (like they do currently, but for live TV).  I don't want to DVR and skip commercials.  I want to watch commercial free.  I'm fine with all of the commercials being shifted to after the program or shown before the program starts in order to stay in sync with broadcast times.
  • Reply 9 of 19
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    Fatman said:
    1. No support for Roku, they should be getting worried at this point. 
    Where does it say that? 
  • Reply 10 of 19
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 3,063member
    I still don't get how I am expected to pay for delivery of ad filled content. 

    And no, I don't intend for anyone to try to explain it to me.
    dysamoriapscooter63
  • Reply 11 of 19
    paul turnerpaul turner Posts: 222member

    All this cord cutting. I think it is dubious really.

    I cut my cord to Comcast 5 years ago but I didn't save all that much. I still had to pay $70 a month for fast internet, subscribed to Netflix and Amazon. But you know the content iusn't that good. The main issue is live sports. So I got MLB at BAT and NFL. but there are too many local restrictions and using VPN to fool the app is not easy and it a pain to get working sometimes. Bottom line you might be able to save $40 a month but is it really worth all the hassle? I think many oftheof these se so called cord cutters are just fooling themselves and making political type comment s to justify their decision. Hey I'm no fan of Comcast but it ain't as bad as many people say imho


  • Reply 12 of 19
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    sog35 said:
    Playstation Vue blows this away.

    Having restrictions on DVR sucks. No fast fowarding commercials? Then i'll fast forward you Hulu
    But you have to also have a Playstation. That's extra.
  • Reply 13 of 19
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    Ha ha ha ha ha, Hulu. 
  • Reply 14 of 19
    smaffeismaffei Posts: 237member
    SpamSandwich said:
    sog35 said:
    Playstation Vue blows this away.

    Having restrictions on DVR sucks. No fast fowarding commercials? Then i'll fast forward you Hulu
    But you have to also have a Playstation. That's extra.
    No you don't. Not any more.

    mrboba1
  • Reply 15 of 19
    smaffeismaffei Posts: 237member
    I had to go back to cable because I couldn't get my elderly father who lives with me to accept streaming TV. It was too unreliable (and trust me I've tried every service, PS Vue had the least problems) especially during live sporting events like Monday Night Football. And the interfaces were odd in there own ways.

    Streaming really needs some company like Apple to step in get it's act together.
  • Reply 16 of 19
    jvmbjvmb Posts: 59member

    All this cord cutting. I think it is dubious really.

    I cut my cord to Comcast 5 years ago but I didn't save all that much. I still had to pay $70 a month for fast internet, subscribed to Netflix and Amazon. But you know the content iusn't that good. The main issue is live sports. So I got MLB at BAT and NFL. but there are too many local restrictions and using VPN to fool the app is not easy and it a pain to get working sometimes. Bottom line you might be able to save $40 a month but is it really worth all the hassle? I think many oftheof these se so called cord cutters are just fooling themselves and making political type comment s to justify their decision. Hey I'm no fan of Comcast but it ain't as bad as many people say imho


    I think we should stop using the word cord cutting. The point for me to drop Comcast/Dish/Direct TV was not to cut the cord. I don't watch sports and other live TV, which are the main reason cable packages are expensive and loaded with commercials. By switching to the Hulu no commercial planning I am saving a lot of money and I don't have to watch commercials.

    I would call it live TV cutting instead of cord cutting. There are plenty of people who like sports and who want to see shows as soon as they come out. People who can't wait a few days to see their TV programs will end up paying more for the content. People that are willing to wait for a week can watch original Hulu, people that are willing got wait for a year can watch Netflix.

    I am thankful for all the people who don't want to wait for their shows. They end up subsidizing the TV shows that I watch. If no one was willing to pay $40 a month to either a cable provider or an online TV package and still watch commercials, then the production companies would not get enough money to make the shows that I watch.

    I am also thankful for the ratings companies like Nielsen that only focus on first day or first week viewers. Thanks to their short term view, the market value of shows is almost eliminated a week after the show first airs.
    edited April 2017
  • Reply 17 of 19
    mrboba1mrboba1 Posts: 276member
    paul turner said:

    All this cord cutting. I think it is dubious really.

    I cut my cord to Comcast 5 years ago but I didn't save all that much. I still had to pay $70 a month for fast internet, subscribed to Netflix and Amazon. But you know the content iusn't that good. The main issue is live sports. So I got MLB at BAT and NFL. but there are too many local restrictions and using VPN to fool the app is not easy and it a pain to get working sometimes. Bottom line you might be able to save $40 a month but is it really worth all the hassle? I think many oftheof these se so called cord cutters are just fooling themselves and making political type comment s to justify their decision. Hey I'm no fan of Comcast but it ain't as bad as many people say imho


    $40? I'm saving $100+.

    With CenturyLink, I was paying $215/month for phone, PrismTV in 3 rooms, and 10mb internet. I also paid the $18+ for Netflix/Amazon which I still do. I don't really use much Amazon Video, though. That's not why I have it.

    Now, I pay $50.66 for 50mb internet, 0 for ooma phone, and $29.99 for PS Vue. I bought 1 $25 OTA antenna and put it in my attic, connecting it to all 3 TVs.

    I could have gotten CL down to 185 (after tax/fees) and I pay a grand total of $80.65 now with better internet. I have T-Mo so I have MLB.tv for free, and I don't need NFL because I get all the networks that show the games with OTA and Vue.

    Consider me fooled into an extra $1250/year.

  • Reply 18 of 19
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,597member
    The Hulu app on Apple TV absolutely sucks!!!! Constantly breaking. These clowns need to fix their platform before launching further expansion of services.
Sign In or Register to comment.