Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses The Almighty Buck The Media Entertainment

Hulu Not For Sale, Time Warner May Join 48

Posted by timothy
from the business-model-is-to-annoy-with-ads dept.
HighOrbit writes "Engadget reports that the consortium behind Hulu have issued a press release and have taken Hulu off the market. The current owners will maintain their joint ownership of the video streaming service. Hulu is currently a joint project of Fox, Disney (ABC), and Comcast (NBC-Universal). Instead of selling off Hulu, the consortium will inject $750 Million to grow the streaming service. Slashdot previously reported possible buyers rumored to be Yahoo, DirecTV, Time Warner Cable, and Chernin Group/AT&T. Additionally Bloomberg reports that Time Warner Cable is still interested and seeks to join the current consortium by acquiring a 25% stake."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hulu Not For Sale, Time Warner May Join

Comments Filter:
  • Cable companies... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by loosescrews (1916996) on Sunday July 14, 2013 @08:30AM (#44276229)

    Only cable companies would think that they can serve ads on a premium pay-for video streaming service.

    • by Sponge Bath (413667) on Sunday July 14, 2013 @09:32AM (#44276429)
      No kidding. With big names like Comcast, Time Warner, Fox and Disney you KNOW every decision made will be brutally abusive of the customer. It's in their DNA.
    • by dnaumov (453672)

      Only cable companies would think that they can serve ads on a premium pay-for video streaming service.

      In what universe is 8$/month a "premium" service?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Most of the Streaming services offered out there - hboGO, TNT, Time Warner, ESPNsomethingorother require that you have the cable tv service with your provider. The idiots need to start selling it to the ISP users of the cabletv company too.

    • by Seumas (6865)

      Especially when it's all free of cost and commercials on the internet. I'm not necessarily supporting, condoning, or endorsing things like eztv.it -- but when you're trying to shove tons of commercials, limited and mixed and inconsistent content restrictions on people, and making them pay for it to boot . . . you have to remember that you're competing with a service that offers exactly what people want without the commercials they don't want and at no cost only one click away.

    • by nhat11 (1608159)

      What are you talking about? People pay for cable TV for years and we have ads on it lol. But yea that needs to go away since we're paying for it.

  • It is regular TV -- 3-4 commercials in multiple breaks. I can...and do, get that already on my normal TV and would rather fast forward thru them.

    Selling means its dying because of this and they wanna get money out of it from some sucker.

    • [I get ad breaks] already on my normal TV and would rather fast forward thru them.

      How much does it cost you per month to be able to fast forward through TV? TiVo still owns DVR patents, and TiVo devices still require a service with a recurring fee.

  • Time Warner, Time Warner Cable, Warner Music Group, and AOL are separate companies, despite formerly being part of one company. Time Warner owns the Turner channels (TNT, TBS, Cartoon Network, etc.), half of The CW, and the channel that's the subject of Obligatory Oatmeal [theoatmeal.com]. There's a difference between TW joining and TWC joining: one is more likely to bring series made for Turner channels.
  • by Registered Coward v2 (447531) on Sunday July 14, 2013 @09:37AM (#44276459)

    The cable companies are beginning to realize their model of providing a mix of premium and basic channels via their proprietary pipe is at risk from internet based providers and are setting themselves up for getting into the game. They have strong relationships with content providers they can leverage to bring what they now offer as cable as an ISP. Apple, and to a lesser extent, Google are who they fear. Apple because they have demonstrated they can deliver content independent of them and Google because they seem to be serious about becoming an ISP. While Google may be behind Apple's position technologically they certainly have the money and ability to create a similar infrastructure on a high speed backbone; or even partner with Apple. The cable companies cannot allow Apple or Google or both to make significant inroads into the premium channel delivery business since that would seriously cut into their revenue.

    So cable companies are taking a two step approach:

    1. Partner with web based content delivery companies such as Hulu and offer premium channels via the web for current subscribers through offerings such as HBOgo.

    2. Institute bandwidth caps to limit the access, or raise the cost of, to web based services.

    • by CaptBubba (696284)

      I'm not saying that you are wrong (because you are not), but I imagine Google, Amazon, Apple, and Netflix all are just itching for the perfect fact pattern to nail an ISP to the wall for anti-competitive practices to scare straight the others.

      It will be an interesting battle, but a ton of consumers will get caught in the crossfire.

    • 2. Institute bandwidth caps to limit the access, or raise the cost of, to web based services.

      Which is why, when Google enters a market serviced by cable companies, Google is going to destroy them.

    • by gmhowell (26755)

      Next line in that song is "nobody's right ifeverybody's wrong".

  • I hope the company and service fucking go away, so we can start focusing on real content delivery solutions, instead of this trivial bullshit. Why the fuck would you pay $8/mo for a service that presents just as many (and sometimes more) commercials than you would have on the free live television version of the programming? Why would you pay money for a service that makes you watch commercials, at all? Why would you pay for the service, when it forces commercials on you when you could avoid them by skipping

    • Why would you pay for the service, when it forces commercials on you when you could avoid them by skipping ahead with a DVR in other avenues?

      Because it's cheaper than the recurring fee that some DVR models require.

The number of arguments is unimportant unless some of them are correct. -- Ralph Hartley

Working...