4745863
story
Comments: 313 +- Entertainment: Hulu May Begin Charging For Video Content on Thursday June 04 2009, @01:14PM
Posted
by
timothy
on Thursday June 04 2009, @01:14PM
from the might-even-pay-for-more-southland dept.
from the might-even-pay-for-more-southland dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topictv.gif); width:50px; height:50px;
tv
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicmediaall.gif); width:73px; height:59px;
media
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicentertainment.gif); width:62px; height:44px;
entertainment
An anonymous reader writes "According to Jonathan Miller, News Corp's CDO, Hulu may soon begin charging subscription fees for some of their online content. News Corp is the parent company of Fox, which owns a huge portion of Hulu. When Miller of Newscorp was asked if Hulu would begin charging for online content during an Interview with Daily Finance, he said that 'the answer could be yes.' He went on to say that he doesn't 'see why over time that shouldn't happen.'"
Related Stories
Submission: Hulu To Begin Charging For Video Content by Anonymous Coward
One person's error is another person's data.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Still not available (Score:5, Insightful)
Since we still can't watch Hulu in Canada, I won't be paying anything. It's probably cheaper than cable anyways.
Re:Still not available (Score:5, Interesting)
My initial reaction was to buck against this, but on second thought (and depending on how it's implemented) maybe it wouldn't be that bad. The thing I hate about cable is that there is no "a la carte" option where I can selectively pay for the channels I actually want and not have to pay for the other 90% of the programming that comes in the packages. Depending on how they swing this, if they offer cable-based content as individual subscriptions at prices that are cumulatively less than my current cable bill, it may actually be a better option for me and allow me to cancel cable altogether.
Parent
Re:Still not available (Score:4, Interesting)
Agreed. Why do I have to pay for four separate "shopping channels" that are nothing but end to end commercials? I hate golf, but I have to pay for the golf channel. And the Disney channel. And Lifetime. And BET. Hell, if it wasn't for Mythbusters I wouldn't even watch the Discovery channel.
If my $30/month payment was divided between the channels I do watch, I'd pay less than five bucks a month. Whay do I have to subsidize golfers and parents of little kids and housewives? Whay would a single man want FAM? I'm just glad I can program my TV to skip these channels when I surf. I wish I didn't have to pay for them!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You really think you are paying for the shopping channels? Really?
Really?!
Re:Still not available (Score:5, Funny)
In capitalist America, shopping channels are paying for you.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only time i watched the shopping channel was when they were selling star trek merchandise with John de Lancie on the show. He was making fun of all the products. Unfortunately i don't think they ever had him back again. With Ala Carte would we be paid for having the shopping channel? Can we have a plan with only shopping channels and get a check in the mail each month? :D
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Four?
There are a LOT more infomercial channels than that. I used to subscribe to an 80 channel cable service. One night, around 1:30AM, I counted that over 75% of those channels were broadcasting infomercials. The cable companies are double-dipping. The infomercial businesses have to pay cable to get their ads on cable, and the consumer has to pay to watch them.
I got tired of it and dropped my cable service. I got a converter for my one analog TV and and built to HD antennas as decribed on the YouTube
Re:Still not available (Score:4, Insightful)
1)They charge for for the popular channels - So, the big channels still sub. the little ones and your bill remains the same or more.
2)They charge more for the un-popular channels to maek them worth offering. You find out that some of the channels that you like (like discovery, sci-fi, and others) are not as pupular as Lifetime and you end up paying more to get those channels and you bill remains the same or more.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think this is the wrong way to think about cable service pricing. The marginal cost of providing you with an additional channel of cable is essentially zero. The pricing here is completely demand-driven and is about segmenting the market (price discrimination). In this, cable service tier pricing is closer to pricing different versions of Windows (Home, Business, Premium, etc, which all have the same marginal cost) than it is to bundling discrete goods.
Once you see it that way, you'll see that what you
Re:Still not available (Score:4, Funny)
| Burma |
| Shave |
+----------+
| |
| |
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You guys make me glad I'm divorced!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm already paying NBC Universal News Corp for access to their content in my Comcast Cable bill. Why should I have to pay for their content twice?
A la cart is an awesome and great goal, but paying for the full swath and then paying extra for a la cart on top of the combo sucks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
they provide the entire current season.
IF
they stop showing comercials.
IF
they make every show on the network available, regardless of ratings
Then I may be interested in paying for Hulu. If not, then back to torrents for me. I already pay for cable, and I have a open source DVR [mythtv.org] that can record OTA network TV fine.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Still not available (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Worst Source Ever (Score:5, Informative)
I think what works for consumers most likely -- and this has to be tested, frankly -- is bundles. I think you have to figure out what are the right bundles that people buy and what's contained in that bundle. For example, you could have -- and I'm making this up entirely -- you could have a New York bundle, and that could consist of various papers or publications that are relevant to the audience in New York, and you could make that all, potentially, a bundle to a consumer at one price.
For what it's worth, he also made this statement:
I went from paying $14 to The Wall Street Journal to paying $10 to Amazon. Now the splits there, and I think this is relatively well known, are very, very much in favor of Amazon. So I became very much less valuable to The Wall Street Journal. That's part one. Part two is they don't know I exist. I went from being someone who's their subscriber to being someone who is an Amazon subscriber, which The Wall Street Journal has no visibility back to and cannot manage that customer relationship. . . . So they've lost both the customer management and, trust me, the lion's share of the economics.
You know I hate to be voice of calm reason, folks but this is all the original source reported:
Asked specifically about the future of online video joint venture Hulu, which is currently advertising-supported, he said it "is an environment for premium content." Pointing to the popularity of iPhone applications, he added: "We're seeing the beginning of a very strong app economy."
From there, you can trace a very hilarious wave of the telephone game from blog to blog of people slowly blowing it out of proportion as it's put together that this guy is talking about paid subscriptions and he's in charge of Hulu therefore Hulu must be becoming a paid subscription service.
Re:Worst Source Ever (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Worst Source Ever (Score:5, Funny)
So you're confirming that we'll have to pay for hulu, even if we don't use it?
Parent
Re:Worst Source Ever (Score:4, Funny)
Great, just great. Now what am I supposed to do with all these torches and pitchforks!? Ass.
Parent
I suggest the "telephonegame" tag (Score:3, Interesting)
See subject.
Alt title: How to kill an extraordinary service (Score:5, Insightful)
Do they feel the need to add a subscription fee when they already show commercials....? Isn't that what drives dissatisfaction with cable?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I think what drives dissatisfaction with cable is that you can only watch what is currently on.
Oh, and you're forced to watch ads.
I'd gladly pay $10/month for on-demand commercial-free access (under Linux) to any episode of every show currently offered in Hulu's library.
Throw in Dr. Who, Torchwood, and Top Gear, and I'd pay $20/month.
I also might be persuaded to watch commercials if you did it on something that wasn't as dog-slow as flash (video tag anyone?) Hell, throw in Linux codec licensing as part
real headline should be... (Score:5, Funny)
real headline should be "Hulu expects viewership to drop off significantly."
Not Smart (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not Smart (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactamundo. I download a lot of TV shows, and recently, I'd taken to watching available programming on Hulu. No skin off my back to go back to Bittorrent.
Parent
Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fine, but it's either subscription or ads. You don't get to do both.
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not true.
It's MUCH more complicated than that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not? Why shouldn't ads subsidize some of the content so that subscription fees are manageable?
It doesn't have to be an either/or situation.
Why not offer ad-free content to "gold" subscribers, limited ads to "silver" subscribers, and normal ad levels to "brown" (free) subscribers.
Then everybody wins, since it's the choice of the subscriber.
I know that the magazine-subscription model is very different, largely due to the cost of prod
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It'll change when somebody offers something better. Fiber service is helping in some areas... competition is a wonderful thing. If only people didn't use their video content provider as their ISP, I think competition would be even better. Nothing like the cable cos (and the telcos who offer fiber) limiting internet volume to keep people from downloading their video content.
There are a lot of IFs, such as:
...IF regulatory hurdles to video content d
Can't use it... (Score:4, Informative)
Many of us outside the US can't use Hulu anyway; so it doesn't matter ;-)
Nice while it lasted (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd welcome it...but (Score:3, Interesting)
Also if the subscription meant the option to watch a full series without commercial interruption that would be great too.
I have to admit the only reason I downloaded a few Stargate episodes was because I didn't have a TV set I could watch it on. If instead I had the option to pay a minimal monthly fee and pick and choose the shows I wanted to watch with the plus of seeing the show the day it aired, I would have had zero desire to download anything. As it was, a few times I downloaded something, there were no sound or special effects added in, and many times I opted to just buy the video off iTunes, due to the quality of the content. A subscription fee on the range of $10-$15 month would be nice. Anything more, good luck with that Hulu, I'd rather just buy DVDs and episodes of iTunes.
Bastards (Score:4, Interesting)
Bye Hulu! (Score:3, Funny)
Too bad. You spent all that money on TV and movie ads about evil alien plots to get eyes on your site, just to screw it all up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, now people, DO NOT PAY and it will pass... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously I try to get this through people's heads all the time... for geeks we sure can be dumb. It is and has been free. If everyone ignores the service if/when it goes pay or even if only parts go pay only IGNORE them, also make it known you are NOT going to pay for the content... ads are enough to deal with for the content. Then Hulu (which is already successful) will find alternate avenues for revenue. If everyone just jumps in right off the bat you have instantly ensured all future video services like this will be pay-only. Wake up! Please.
Cable? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll pay for Hulu if... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll gladly pay for a service like Hulu if I can watch it from outside the US. No silly "this video isn't available in your region". Just show the damn thing and take my money. Preferably, there's a choice between a small fee per episode or a subcription model.
But I expect they won't do that. So in effect, they don't want my money, they like to trouble me online and would rather see me download tv series.
I wouldn't pay for streaming... (Score:5, Interesting)
For a download based service, sure, I can see that. But streaming sucks, more so on video. Unless connections get a whole lot better, I'm not the least bit interested in streaming. With downloads, I can do HD, no problems. About 1GB per hour at the standard illegal sources last time I checked. It doesn't take a whole lot to screw up a stream with those sorts of bandwith requirements. Downloads just go a little slower for a bit. Unencrypted, 720p or 1080p, h264 video (3Mbit/sec minimum, probably about 6Mbit/sec for 1080p), AC3 audio, MKV container preferred.
Sell me that, with a fast server to download from and an RSS feed I can automate the process from, for a reasonable price, and I *WILL* buy. Reasonable price would be about half what the season goes for on Blu-Ray. I'm not getting media, packaging, shipping, etc., so I won't pay for it either. And if I'm paying, it must be ad-free. If I'm not paying, or getting a significant discount, ads would be acceptable. I personally wouldn't take any more than about 5min/hour of ads though. If I'm paying, it must also include re-download rights. Perhaps restricted to off-peak, or with a small fee for using up said capacity, but a very small fraction of the original purchase price. I would also require that the episodes be made available by midnight of the original air date. If they want to compete with PirateBay and friends, they have to provide all of the above. People will pay for the convenience, quality, and knowing they are legal. Cause paying customers issues, and they will go elsewhere, or just not bother. The studios have the ability to take the online market by storm and keep it. They just have to step up. Not that they will.
Streaming crap quality with encryption... Not interested.
Here are the conditions under which I will agree t (Score:3, Interesting)
Here are the conditions under which I will agree to pay my money for Hulu:
1. No ads in the paid content. AT ALL. Not now, not ever.
2. Cheap, a-la carte subscriptions for individual shows. If I only need a few shows from Discovery, Nickelodeon and Food Network, I should be able to sign-up for only those shows.
3. Compatibility with an inexpensive hardware device of some sort (Apple TV, Xbox or PS3 will do).
4. Content is served in _at least_ 720p with high encoding quality.
These conditions are not negotiable. If all four are fulfilled, I, for one, will welcome our money charging overlords.
I would pay if... (Score:5, Interesting)
If Hulu got rid of the stupid 5 trailing episodes thing and had full catalogs of the shows, got some decent movies, and got rid of the commercials I would pay. I *will not* pay for a special section that gets a few bones thrown in every month or if I have to put up with their 8 commercials over and over and over..holy crap water torture over and over.
Go big, do it right, and I would pay.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
The first hit's always free...
it's a great business model if you can afford front the startup costs without any initial customers. Attracts a lot more initial customers because you get a lot of people that normally would not pay for your service, but once they've had a sample of it they change their mind. Of course you'll lose a bunch of people when you switch to pay, but the only hit you'll take on that is what you've already fronted them with so it doesn't come as a surprise or a bad hit you didn't see coming or couldn't calculate/prepare for.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well- they don't exactly "give away their content for free forever" .
Commercials are interspersed throughout every movie and show. Also, for most shows, they only make a handful of episodes available at a time.
Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well I think ultimately the issue is this: Everyone sees the writing on the wall. TV shows and movies are going to have to be offered available online, or else people will get it through pirate channels. So the movie studios and everyone are starting to reluctantly jump on board, but they don't have the business model all worked out.
So can they make enough money from advertisements? Can they make enough money from subscriptions, or a la carte sales? Can they work out some kind of combination, or will consumers balk at the idea of paying for a subscription and still watching ads? People already do that with cable (pay for it and still watch tons of ads), so it's not unthinkable.
iTunes is doing the a la carte sales, Hulu is doing ads. If someone else isn't doing subscriptions, someone will probably try it soon.
Parent
Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
What, you mean like broadcast television?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
AFAIK, all of the content on Hulu was made for original broadcast on TV. Of all the things on the torrent circuit, too, most of it was probably on TV the first time around. If you watch any professionally made video, odds are it was originally either a TV or cinema show the first time around.
TV over the airwaves/cable is 70 year old technology, and hasn't changed fundamentally at all in that time (just got higher quality and more plentiful). Its big draw back is the scheduling, being forced to wait until a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Then I see myself watching Hulu less and less
Really? If having paying customers allows them to post a better range of content, I'm all for it, especially if there is little to no advertising in the paid content.
My biggest frustration with Hulu today is that they don't have the full archive of shows that I'd like to watch. Since I don't want to start a new show in the middle, I have to find the earlier episodes elsewhere or wait for the DVD. I'd gladly pay, say, $15/month if it meant access to the whole archive of every show they have.
The long-term
Re:Over time (Score:5, Informative)
My biggest frustration with Hulu today is their use of horrendously inefficient and technically inferior player implementations.
Adobe Flash Player is a resource hog - I've had issues with 720p video playing smoothly even on a Core 2 Quad with a GeForce 9800GT under Linux.
The same video plays smoothly on my old Athlon XP 2800+ with a GeForce 7800GS if I use rtmpdump on a CBS high def stream and then play it back with mplayer. (Not an available option for Hulu.)
If they used a player that were:
1) As cross-platform as the existing solution (MacOS, Linux, Windows - this kills Silverlight for which Linux support typically lags at least one full version behind on)
2) Played back 720p video smoothly on my old Athlon XP 2800+ and 480p video smoothly on my Asus Eee 1000HE.
I would consider a subscription if reasonably priced and ads were removed. I would NOT consider pay-per-view.
Parent