Soon, You'll Have to Pay for Hulu

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
It is a bad sign when the Chief Digital Officer of News Corp, co-owner of Hulu, says he sees a future where people are paying for Hulu.

Jonathan Miller, News Corp.'s newly-installed chief digital officer, said he envisions a future where at least some of the TV shows and movies on Hulu, the premium video site co-owned by News Corp. (NWS), NBC Universal and Disney (DIS), are available only to subscribers.
Click to expand...
 
lol and people will go back to getting it through other means

this is a great idea if they want hulu to go the same route as vongo
 
Yea, give it for free and lots of advertising, then BAM! Pull the rug out from under them and start charging. Oh well, I didn't use it much anyway. Only when I missed an episode of Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles or Fringe. T:SCC is over, and Fringe isn't on until Fall, and I don't plan on missing any.
 
If they offered the service with say subscription access from the start, then it wouldn't be so bad. But you don't offer something like this FREE to everyone for however long, and then start charging them for it. Premium content or not. They will look for other means as mentioned to continue getting it free.
 
Hulu is pretty awesome. It doesn't surprise me that they'd go to a subscription model at some point. I'll say this: As long as the prices are reasonable, it beats the shit out of Cable, FIOS, or U-Verse video on demand.
 
It probably should have been subscription-based from the start. Ad-supported online video just isn't sustainable.

I hope this doesn't happen, however. I watch the Colbert Report on Hulu every night.
 
hulu would be nothing right now if it wasn't free to begin with. same dumb crap happened with cable TV. it hits the market with a paid sub, but NO commercials. everyone loved it. then, suddenly... theres a couple commercials here and there... then eventually theres more ads on cable then there is network tv.
 
HOCP4ME said:
It probably should have been subscription-based from the start. Ad-supported online video just isn't sustainable.

I hope this doesn't happen, however. I watch the Colbert Report on Hulu every night.
Click to expand...

why not? they sustain it with network broadcast tv... and hulu has potentially a much further reach.
 
As long as they don't charge for everything, it should be okay. Skits, commercials, older shows, and sitcom with low ratings should remain free.
 
So the content makers think they can turn Hulu into an IP-based cable company? No thank you.

Miller: I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.
Hulu User: (checks P2P network for TV programs)
Miller: WTF?
Hulu User: Pwned!
 
Being as I don't use it currently, the change wouldn't affect me. I can see WHY they'd want to do it though. I wish them the best of luck when they do make the shift.
 
Hulu sometimes freezes up on me, and I generally forgive it because its a free service. If it becomes a paid service I might be less forgiving. At the same time, if its something small like $5 a month I'd be more than willing to pay it.
 
450 said:
Hulu sometimes freezes up on me, and I generally forgive it because its a free service. If it becomes a paid service I might be less forgiving. At the same time, if its something small like $5 a month I'd be more than willing to pay it.
Click to expand...

Pause the video and then hit resume play. That always works for me.
 
qwerty30 said:
lol and people will go back to getting it through other means

this is a great idea if they want hulu to go the same route as vongo
Click to expand...

Yeah, like the TV...for free. If they expect people to pay there had better be no damned commercials!
 
It'll work just as well as if YouTube tried to go from free to pay, as in not at all.

That being said, I would be more than willing to pay 50$ a month to be able to have access to a library of on-demand of every show and new show ever made and every movie ever made all on demand. I would also instantly cancel my cable.
 
It depends on how they do it. If they offer ad free everything on their site to subscribers then still offer the same content with ads for non-subscribers then I think it'll still work. But if they start doing the you don't pay us and you can't access certain content, then I am sure people will balk and just bypass them altogether and get things by other means.
 
bboy said:
Yeah, like the TV...for free. If they expect people to pay there had better be no damned commercials!
Click to expand...

We've demonstrated we are stupid and gullible by paying to watch commecials with cable TV, why not expand upon that by getting us to pay to watch online videos with commercials?
 
Moving to a subscription service is a very bad idea. The great thing about hulu is it's free with about a tenth of the adds of pay services. Going to a pay service will probably wreck it. add another ad or two wouldn't be so bad, but making it a pay service will sink them.
 
so much for advertisments.

so when are we going to start paying for free over the air tv guys? lol

this is what will happen:
a. its free, yay... everyone watches ads. everyone is happy. money comes in from ads
b. its not free... everyone goes back to pirating, nobody signs up, theres no more ads... and voila.. your back to blaiming the economy on pirates
 
qwerty30 said:
lol and people will go back to getting it through other means

this is a great idea if they want hulu to go the same route as vongo
Click to expand...

I am going to fully agree with this statement. It is too easy to get tv shows on the net. Hulu just made it easier. I guess it is back to the old method.
 
I actually didn't see it coming but I guess I was hypnotized by Hypnotoad. I will be pissed when they change it, couple that with Tiered bandwidth caps, I am going to have to fly the Red Star of Socialism.
 
PunditGuy said:
So the content makers think they can turn Hulu into an IP-based cable company? No thank you.
Click to expand...

well i think that was hulu's original goal. and i guess thats fine and someday they could have some sort of sub service, as iptv will be wildly popular eventually... but hulu needs to have a dramatic increase of content and LIVE streaming channels before they should ever think about taking money from consumers.
 
I only used it because it was faster than other means. So long Hulu, hello usenet.
 
Part of the reason that cable tv is still kinda pricey is the infrastructure. A lot of it is still very expensive as it is not exactly high production, more of a medium to low production.

Considering this, the cable companies not only have to work out deals with the networks, they also have to maintain and upgrade their own distribution infrastructures. Sure, with some migrating to fibre optics it will cost less in the long term, but it is not quite there yet.


So what?

Well, hulu uses a significantly lower cost infrastructure: the internet. The internet costs a hell of a lot less to distribute data compared to say coaxial or aerial television (not even including HDTV or HDTV + HDCP).

Is the subscription option fair?

no

Why?

Because bandwidth is cheap.


Stick to your ads hulu.

Oh, and some day maybe you'll open your markets TO CANADA :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
 
I stopped watching Hulu when I got Blockbuster and then switched to Netflix; TV is soooooo much better on DVD. And if there is actually a recent show that I really really can't wait to catch up on, most of the networks stream from their sites now.

I have no need for Hulu.
 
PunditGuy said:
So the content makers think they can turn Hulu into an IP-based cable company? No thank you.

Miller: I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.
Hulu User: (checks P2P network for TV programs)
Miller: WTF?
Hulu User: Pwned!
Click to expand...

More or less exactly what I was thinking when I read this news post.
 
Personally I think its a bad sign for Hulu when your head used to run AOL.....

I gotta agree with a little bit of what everyone is saying here. You have to do these things from the beginning and if I pay it has to be worth it no ads, 1080p for HD content and every show and movie that a signed on Network/company has (at least for the same period of time a movies in theatre) on demand.

If they fail no huge loss.
 
I only think hulu is 'ok" because they only have 15 second ads as opposed to 1, 2, 3 minute commercials. Paid will make me never bother typing hulu.com again. I know they have to make money somehow, but I thought they already were.
 
Dan_D said:
Hulu is pretty awesome. It doesn't surprise me that they'd go to a subscription model at some point. I'll say this: As long as the prices are reasonable, it beats the shit out of Cable, FIOS, or U-Verse video on demand.
Click to expand...

Until broadband providers start capping/metering service that is; then you'll end up paying double for the service...

:(
 
I don't see anything wrong with having to pay for it... IF the pay means they improve the service to the point where it really is a completely viable substitute to paying for cable TV (i.e. HD quality streams, nothing missing, stability, etc) and for a lower cost.
 
I used Hulu a lot back 3-4 months ago. Suddenly it started freezing and loading everythign horrible slow so i just started d/ling stuff to thumb drive
 
OHS NOES! This is terrible news! This sucks because I totally can't go to one of their competitors and watch the shows for free instead.
 
MikeTrike said:
I only think hulu is 'ok" because they only have 15 second ads as opposed to 1, 2, 3 minute commercials. Paid will make me never bother typing hulu.com again. I know they have to make money somehow, but I thought they already were.
Click to expand...

If It costs like $5-$10 a month I'd pay it. Anything more and it is not worth it.
 
Can anyone list a Hulu competitor we can check into if Hulu does this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top