Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Television Advertising Entertainment

Subscription-Based 'Hulu Plus' Is Now Official 434

itwbennett writes "After months of rumors, Hulu officially announced its $9.99/month Hulu Plus service. Invites will soon start rolling out in weekly batches. So what will you get for that $9.99? 'Full access to a bunch of current shows (Hulu lists 40 but adds 'and more' to that list) as well as complete series collections of some older titles such as The X-Files, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and the wonderful and mostly-ignored Eli Stone,' writes blogger Peter Smith. 'HD content sources will be streamed at 720P but Hulu mentions that the service is ad-supported.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Subscription-Based 'Hulu Plus' Is Now Official

Comments Filter:
  • Re:netflix? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Rinikusu ( 28164 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2010 @04:15PM (#32735938)

    While the back catalog is nice, my primary usage of hulu is to watch current shows. I don't have cable, nor netflix. Does netflix have current episodes or do you have to wait for the DVD set to come out?

  • by fermion ( 181285 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2010 @04:16PM (#32735962) Homepage Journal
    Unless they are going to pull the free service and make everyone pay 9.99, this is not really competitive with Netflix. Netflix is 8.99, has iPad support, and allows one disk at a time for the large amount of content, for instance Star Trek, which is not available for streaming.

    Now, if for the $10 there are no commercials, and there is not silly wait time, and the full season is available, then that might be an incentive. But then Hulu Plus is going to have ads, will likely have the same time delay as now, and will likely limit the number of shows, so I wonder what the $10 buys? The ability to watch shows on the iPad? I suspect that once again these people have missed a grand opportunity to stop unlicensed file sharing. I think for $10 many people would give up downloading files they could get for free anyway with a DVR. It is incomprehensible why the broadcasters would not take advantage of such an opportunity.

  • Re:Wait... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by AdmiralXyz ( 1378985 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2010 @04:23PM (#32736054)
    Can you say "entitlement complex"? Compared to all the digital offerings from Hollywood up until now, this is a godsend: for a fraction of the price of a cable subscription, you are getting unlimited streaming, on as many devices as you want, over Wi-Fi or 3G, and (for some shows) access to not just current episodes but the entire back catalog. Three years ago I'd have sworn the seas would boil before we would get something like this. As several other comments are pointing out, providing these shows means that both bandwidth and content have to be paid for: the fee does one, the ads do the other. You know, the way television has worked for decades.

    And for god's sake, the ads on Hulu are as un-irritating as advertising can possibly be. Over the course of a 40-minute show, you have to watch maybe five 30-second spots, as opposed to eight or ten per break on television.

    Get off your high horse and understand that things need to be paid for, and that this is as fantastic a deal as we're ever going to get.
  • Re:Wait... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by COMON$ ( 806135 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2010 @04:38PM (#32736272) Journal
    Hulu isn't competing against cable, Hulu is competing against torrents.

    this statement is....well how do I put it...WRONG!

    Most every Hulu user I know uses it as a replacement for cable and DVR. Maybe in your group of friends you enjoy the hassle of torrents. As for me, being able to browse through my shows via remote control is nice. No searching for the latest torrent, in the quality I want, without commercials...in the amount of time it takes to find the show I can have watched all the commercials and the episode a couple times over.

    Hulu cannot compete with torrents in any fashion though, with torrents we get to keep the files forever, organize them the way we want, and display them with our chosen software. Hulu is a streaming source, torrents are a file download service. It is like all those idiots trying to compare iPads and eInk devices...

  • by TooMuchToDo ( 882796 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2010 @04:40PM (#32736312)

    If Hulu could actually replace cable you might have a point. It can't.

    But Hulu and Netflix get pretty damn close. And that's what, $20/month total for both plans?

  • Re:Nice for Netflix (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Confusador ( 1783468 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2010 @05:00PM (#32736660)

    This was exactly my thought; they're not competing with cable, they're competing with Netflix. Netflix is cheaper and has no ads, and has movies as well. Hulu's only benefit seems to be quicker access to shows (don't have to wait for them to be out on DVD), but my backlog is big enough that that's not a big deal for me. I guess we'll see how big of a selling point is is for a more 'typical' audience.

  • Stutter? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lymond01 ( 314120 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2010 @05:03PM (#32736704)

    So when I blow hulu up to a 55" LCD with a DVI cable and gaming computer, it stutters like claymation. Doesn't buffer, etc, it's just not a smooth playback whatever the resolution. YouTube has no such problems even when watching 720p video.

    Will that $9.99 give me decent performance?

  • by natehoy ( 1608657 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2010 @05:06PM (#32736762) Journal

    Access to older episodes of certain shows is worth paying for, even if they have ads.

    Last year, I bought the entire X-Files series on DVD. Cost me $250. I was done watching it in about 8 months. I may watch it again someday, but most likely not.

    With Hulu+, I could have watched the whole damned thing for $80, had access to other shows to watch at the same time, and saved about $170. True, I would have had to put up with ads which the box set did not have, but that's something each person has to decide for themselves.

    I think you'll find some people will gladly pay for access to older episodes, even if they still have to deal with the ads. I don't know if Hulu+ is worth it for me at the moment, but it certainly would have been last year.

  • Re:Wait... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 29, 2010 @05:15PM (#32736896)

    Unlimited streaming?

    Try telling that to Comcast. What'll happen when people hit their 250 limit with hulu and netflix all in the same household?

  • Re:Wait... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2010 @05:40PM (#32737312) Journal

    You can fast forward or skip through ads on Hulu if you've recorded the show with RTMPDump.

  • Re:HD Sources (Score:3, Interesting)

    by N0Man74 ( 1620447 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2010 @06:51PM (#32738130)

    Heroes wasn't the only show, but you're right that it's not common.

    I started watching Legend of the Seeker several months ago. I watched the older shows on Netflix, and was surprised to discover that Netflix was even getting the current episodes *BEFORE* Hulu did. I think Netflix was ahead of Hulu by nearly a week. I haven't found many shows like that, but it's something that I wish they'd advertise.

    I prefer to watch on Netflix, whenever I can, just because I don't like ads. To be honest, I barely even use their DVD service... I've had the same DVD at home for almost a year now (and need to get around to finishing it), but I view their streaming content several times a week.

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...