Hulu Not For Sale, Time Warner May Join 48
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."
Cable companies... (Score:5, Insightful)
Only cable companies would think that they can serve ads on a premium pay-for video streaming service.
Re:Cable companies... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
It also costs more for the Japanese ad-free service. From what I can tell, it's a little under $20 in Japan. From what I can tell, it's a little under $20 in Japan
From what you can tell? I'd love to know how you worked this out. It's less than half the figure you quoted.
Re: (Score:2)
From what you can tell? I'd love to know how you worked this out. It's less than half the figure you quoted.
It was introduced at ~$19/month in Japan and was later reduced to ~$12/month.
Was it reduced below ~$12/month since then or are you talking out your ass?
Re: (Score:2)
Simple math man, you take the last digit (9) and compare it to the last digit (2), and since 9>2*2, it's less than half. What do they teach you in school these days?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's because anything multiplied by 1 is anything.
Re: (Score:3)
I find it sad that there's a Hulu Japan before a Hulu Canada.
Re: (Score:1)
Not unexpected. We are on the US's "Copyright Thieves of the World" list.
I still find it funny that they were trying to sell Hulu with the condition that the new owners not be able to stream new episodes.
It's like, "I'll sell you this car, but I need to keep the engine for myself."
Re:Cable companies... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hulu is a living organism? Wow. :P
Re: (Score:2)
Only cable companies would think that they can serve ads on a premium pay-for video streaming service.
In what universe is 8$/month a "premium" service?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ours?
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
I haven't used Hulu in 2 years (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Except that they aren't selling it, they're putting more money into it instead... You didn't have to even read TFA to see that.
Of course, adding more money into it will likely mean even more ads..
Not necessarily - it depends on their strategy.
Hulu asks what ads are relevant to you. So, they're targeting folks who are actually interested in the ads and watching them (usually - I mark all ads as not relevant because I am not buying anything because I was canned when my job was sent overseas and have no money).
Knowing that your ad is being watched by someone who is actually in the market for your product is VERY valuable to a marketer. So, valuable that they'll pay a premium for it.
Also with less ads
Cost of a DVR (Score:2)
[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.
Try Netflix (Score:2)
I'd LIKE to pay for some service that let me watch the few tv shows i want without commercials.
Try Netflix. It's $16/mo, and whatever they don't have streaming, you can rent on discs.
Re: (Score:1)
I would frame that a different way. Netflix is $8 per month, produces original content now, and you can opt to pay more if you want to rent discs. We don't even have a DVD player in our living room any more.
Re: (Score:1)
For about a decade, I haven't had a DVR or a cable subscription or even over-the-air television. It just isn't worth the $100-$200/mo for what little content is actually worth watching. Netflix is a damn good deal. Hulu could be a good deal, if they did away with the commercials and were more consistent with the content they actually do have. If I have to go hunt around the internet to find the seasons you are missing on a show you yourself are providing, then your service has already failed.
How is TV "gotten for free"? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, but with a HDhomerun and some PVR software such as MythTV, it's only a minimal fee. Or a one-time investment for a Channel Master DVR.
Channel Master and TiVo patents (Score:2)
No, but with a HDhomerun and some PVR software such as MythTV, it's only a minimal fee.
You'd first have to build a PC for your living room, and if comments like these [slashdot.org] are to be believed, not a lot of people are willing to do so.
Or a one-time investment for a Channel Master DVR.
Thank you for the recommendation. I wonder how they designed around TiVo's patents though.
Re: (Score:3)
Now I am not condoning (or condemning, for that matter) Hulu, but I thought the point of Hulu+ was that you got access to extra shows, a larger backcatalog, and the ability to watch on devices. That is worth nothing to you? There are other (legal) ways to watch TV shows without commercials, some of which — like iTunes — will cost you much more.
So I can see a place in the market for what Hulu+ is offering
The alleged death of the PC (Score:3)
the ability to watch on devices
And this is one thing that the "nobody needs a PC anymore" tablet fanboys replying to the "death of the PC" story of the week seem to forget: a lot of video providers routinely block users of mobile operating systems from their service. I've seen it on other services as well: YouTube blocks a lot of videos that include music, Vimeo blocks videos whose uploader doesn't pay the recurring fee for Vimeo Plus, and Amazon blocks phones not made by Apple and tablets not made by Apple or Amazon.
Re: (Score:1)
Have you ever actually used Hulu? Their assortment of content is random as fuck. Most of the shows I have checked out do not have all of the episodes. They only have the new ones or they only have the old ones. Or they only have seasons 1, 4, and 5. It's ridiculous. It's pointless. And on top of that, they charge for it *and* cram more commercials down you than you'd get if you were dumb enough to still watch live broadcast television.
The headline is misleading (Score:3)
Battle lines are being drawn (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Next line in that song is "nobody's right ifeverybody's wrong".
Hulu is total shit. (Score:1)
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
TiVo subscription (Score:2)
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.