Rumor: Hulu To Require Paid TV Subscription Soon

[Albino Boo]

That's fine. I got used to no longer having cable, I can get used to no longer watching Hulu.

Well you would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. Its only Fox show that require authentication, without it you have to wait 1 whole week to see the show. Other Networks are plaining similar moves. Hulu plus isn't effected by the move.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/27/business/media/fox-to-limit-next-day-streaming-on-hulu.html?_r=1

 

[RvLeshrac]

That's fine. I got used to no longer having cable, I can get used to no longer watching Hulu.

Well you would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. Its only Fox show that require authentication, without it you have to wait 1 whole week to see the show. Other Networks are plaining similar moves.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/27/business/media/fox-to-limit-next-day-streaming-on-hulu.html?_r=1

Because there's absolutely no other way you could ever find to grab those episodes.

Seriously, they can post them same-day and get ad revenue from us, or they can delay them and get nothing.

 

[thisbymaster]

The cable companies just don't understand, no one wants cable anymore. They are only forced to have it. Those who refuse to be bullied and controlled by bad business practices are labeled pirates. Well I say, Arr.....

 

[Albino Boo]

Because there's absolutely no other way you could ever find to grab those episodes.

Seriously, they can post them same-day and get ad revenue from us, or they can delay them and get nothing.

So your argument is sell it at loss or we steal it?

 

[RvLeshrac]

Because there's absolutely no other way you could ever find to grab those episodes.

Seriously, they can post them same-day and get ad revenue from us, or they can delay them and get nothing.

So your argument is sell it at loss or we steal it?

They aren't selling it at a loss, they're just not selling it at all. Why aren't they charging the same rate for streaming ads that they charge for televised ads?

They're trying to self-impose losses so they can make everything less convenient, so they can then whine about how much money they're losing.

If I throw out one of every Widget I manufacture, I'm not "selling it at a loss," I'm retarded.

 

[Greg Tito]

That's fine. I got used to no longer having cable, I can get used to no longer watching Hulu.

Well you would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. Its only Fox show that require authentication, without it you have to wait 1 whole week to see the show. Other Networks are plaining similar moves. Hulu plus isn't effected by the move.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/27/business/media/fox-to-limit-next-day-streaming-on-hulu.html?_r=1

Thanks for the PM on this, but the rumor is that Hulu will do this with every piece of content (not limited to Fox) and there won't be a delay mechanic either. You'll either be a paying cable or Hulu customer or you get nothing.

Greg

 

[Albino Boo]

Because there's absolutely no other way you could ever find to grab those episodes.

Seriously, they can post them same-day and get ad revenue from us, or they can delay them and get nothing.

So your argument is sell it at loss or we steal it?

They aren't selling it at a loss, they're just not selling it at all. Why aren't they charging the same rate for streaming ads that they charge for televised ads?

They're trying to self-impose losses so they can make everything less convenient, so they can then whine about how much money they're losing.

If I throw out one of every Widget I manufacture, I'm not "selling it at a loss," I'm retarded.

Small point game of thrones costs 5 million per show, so for 10 episodes a season thats $50 million. Hulu made $420 million or enough to pay for 4 and bit seasons of Game of thrones. Admittedly game of thrones is expensive, so if you half the cost per show thats only enough money to make 80 hours of content per year. As people stop paying for cable networks, they have 2 choices cancel shows like game of thrones and replace them with low budget shows or increase revenue from other sources. Its customer choice if you wont pay for it, guess what they wont make it.

 

[darthzew]

If this is somehow true, then I have only one thing to say to Hulu and the cable companies:

Fuck you.

I don't use words like that every often. When I do, I mean them.

Then again, this is one rumor that I don't think is true. It just doesn't seem very plausible. Maybe that's me living in denial, but I'm sticking with skepticism. Or hope. Yeah, let's call it hope.

 

[BrotherRool]

Because there's absolutely no other way you could ever find to grab those episodes.

Seriously, they can post them same-day and get ad revenue from us, or they can delay them and get nothing.

So your argument is sell it at loss or we steal it?

They aren't selling it at a loss, they're just not selling it at all. Why aren't they charging the same rate for streaming ads that they charge for televised ads?

They're trying to self-impose losses so they can make everything less convenient, so they can then whine about how much money they're losing.

If I throw out one of every Widget I manufacture, I'm not "selling it at a loss," I'm retarded.

I don't think Hulu really works in Britain(?) but aren't the adverts on Hulu much reduced in duration to TV ads? I know services like 4oD only have maybe a minute, minute and a half of adds compared to the 5 minute + add breaks on TV. People on the internet aren't willing to watch so many adverts.


I have to admit I don't see the problem with this. The situation before was 'these are our programs, you have to pay if you want to watch them' and that's just the situation you're reverting too. I don't know if you have free channels in the US but I presume you do so already for years the cable companies have deliberately forgone the 'make it free but use advertising route' so it was strange that they even considered this whole 'make it free' route whilst at the same time charging. You won't watch it then? Cool that's the business model they were working on before the internet.

All my tv watching is on the i-player and you're meant to have a TV license with that, which I'm fine with doing because it supports the BBC and the BBC is awesome

 

[willbailes]

Come on, when will these people get that the old formula of forcing people to watch something at a certain time on Television is a dying trend? I'm never going to buy cable, ever. If my shows become only available with a cable subscription, guess I won't be watching TV.

 

[subtlefuge]

If Hulu accepts money or makes any concessions to the cable companies in exchange for this check, it's several types of illegal.

I'm calling complete BS on this.

That's total and utter horseshit. If the cable companies were going to provide such a service themselves I would understand, but forcing that kind of bullshit onto other companies is really sleazy. Cable TV is going the way of the dinosaurs, and cable providers just need to come to terms with the fact their role in the future will be primarily as ISPs.

Hulu is *OWNED* by the cable and content providers. Cable and content providers are the ones who started the service in the first place.

They proceeded immediately to the "Let's destroy Hulu" phase, but still.

You see, that's not entirely at all even remotely close to the the point though. My only cable option in my city is Suddenlink. Back in the city I was in before, it was Time Warner. Although Dish and DirecTv exist, they are practically different services.

Part of this makes sense from a practical standpoint, because once one company has run wires for a neighborhood, it doesn't really make sense for another company to do the same. Here's where the problem comes in: price fixing and territory division. In competition, companies are forced to produce value and lower prices. However, if you are guaranteed a certain area, all you have to do is keep prices low enough to prevent being run out of town by a mob. Since satellite companies typically only have to compete with one cable company per area, they can maintain their price at the exact same as the cable company and catch people who are fed up with their local option.

Since cable companies are notorious for vacationing in the monopoly area of the law and never leaving, this opens up a chance to not only remove their competition, but divide the digital distribution market by territories. The only difference is that the internet is very much not a series of tubes, and therefore cannot be used as a shield from anti-competition and anti-trust lawsuits.

 

[RvLeshrac]

If Hulu accepts money or makes any concessions to the cable companies in exchange for this check, it's several types of illegal.

I'm calling complete BS on this.

That's total and utter horseshit. If the cable companies were going to provide such a service themselves I would understand, but forcing that kind of bullshit onto other companies is really sleazy. Cable TV is going the way of the dinosaurs, and cable providers just need to come to terms with the fact their role in the future will be primarily as ISPs.

Hulu is *OWNED* by the cable and content providers. Cable and content providers are the ones who started the service in the first place.

They proceeded immediately to the "Let's destroy Hulu" phase, but still.

You see, that's not entirely at all even remotely close to the the point though. My only cable option in my city is Suddenlink. Back in the city I was in before, it was Time Warner. Although Dish and DirecTv exist, they are practically different services.

Part of this makes sense from a practical standpoint, because once one company has run wires for a neighborhood, it doesn't really make sense for another company to do the same. Here's where the problem comes in: price fixing and territory division. In competition, companies are forced to produce value and lower prices. However, if you are guaranteed a certain area, all you have to do is keep prices low enough to prevent being run out of town by a mob. Since satellite companies typically only have to compete with one cable company per area, they can maintain their price at the exact same as the cable company and catch people who are fed up with their local option.

Since cable companies are notorious for vacationing in the monopoly area of the law and never leaving, this opens up a chance to not only remove their competition, but divide the digital distribution market by territories. The only difference is that the internet is very much not a series of tubes, and therefore cannot be used as a shield from anti-competition and anti-trust lawsuits.

If you own the company you're colluding with, that's not collusion. You can't engage in anti-competitive practices with yourself, because you were never competing in the first place.

 

[RvLeshrac]

Because there's absolutely no other way you could ever find to grab those episodes.

Seriously, they can post them same-day and get ad revenue from us, or they can delay them and get nothing.

So your argument is sell it at loss or we steal it?

They aren't selling it at a loss, they're just not selling it at all. Why aren't they charging the same rate for streaming ads that they charge for televised ads?

They're trying to self-impose losses so they can make everything less convenient, so they can then whine about how much money they're losing.

If I throw out one of every Widget I manufacture, I'm not "selling it at a loss," I'm retarded.

Small point game of thrones costs 5 million per show, so for 10 episodes a season thats $50 million. Hulu made $420 million or enough to pay for 4 and bit seasons of Game of thrones. Admittedly game of thrones is expensive, so if you half the cost per show thats only enough money to make 80 hours of content per year. As people stop paying for cable networks, they have 2 choices cancel shows like game of thrones and replace them with low budget shows or increase revenue from other sources. Its customer choice if you wont pay for it, guess what they wont make it.

So you're saying that only Hulu exists, there are no longer any other methods for distribution, or revenue streams?

 

[Azuaron]

Put you right foot in, take your right foot out, put your right foot in, and take a giant leap backward.

Seriously, this is my exact complaint against HBO Go. I want to give you my money. I do. But you make it impossible.

If Hulu Plus requires a cable service, I'm dropping it faster than you can say, "Illegal but not immoral."

Captcha: know your rights

I don't know if I'd call it a right...

So your saying NBC intends to make their consumers jump through...

*puts on sunglasses*

...Hulu hoops?

My favorite part of that is how you link to an RIT mirror.

 

[Nurb]

They expect this will get them customers?

people are getting sick of monthly fees for everything, and they'll start deciding this piddly hulu shit isn't worth it.

Besides, XBL customers will already be paying for a service that's going to give them TV-like commercials and now they'll have to pay for more stuff they thought the yearly 60 dollar was suppost to cover. Now 60 bucks just gets you in the door before having to pay for more things on the service and put up with commercials.

I have a counter-offer, hulu

 

[subtlefuge]

If you own the company you're colluding with, that's not collusion. You can't engage in anti-competitive practices with yourself, because you were never competing in the first place.

Untrue. Hulu is not competing with cable companies, it's allowing an alternative to the market division. There is no competition for cable companies, because they have already divided everybody up to prevent competition (the cost of laying multiple sets of cable has shielded cable companies in the past).

Also, Comcast is the only cable distributor who is a significant owner of Hulu. If they decide to honor accounts from other companies, that is most definitely collusion. I would assume that they make less money through Hulu than subscriptions, and this will force people to come running back to their local cable provider, who may or may very well not be Comcast.

The benefits are incredible. You don't have to provide quality customer service, you can charge what you want, you can impose data caps... In fact, the only thing you have to do is provide the channels that people want.

With collusion on as broad a scale as the cable companies, every practice is anti-competitive.

 

[Baresark]

Ridiculous. I know it's a rumor, but I can see it being totally infuriating. It just doesn't make sense though. They will probably lose customers this way. Paying more fees doesn't make it more attractive to people who don't use it yet, and less attractive to people who do use it. I'm calling BS on this, but it's a good thing I have no use for Hulu. I watch like 5 TV shows a year. Getting rid of cable was the best thing I could have done for myself. It's just a waste of money. I mean, I was paying like $200/month for a premium package because I never watched what was on basic, and then I said forget about it. Best thing I ever did.

 

[Robert Ewing]

Hurray for making their format even more unacceptable and even more unappealing than it otherwise already was! Great job Hulu!

 

[poiuppx]

If the rumor is true- a big if, as anyone looking at the numbers would likely try desperately to explain to the decision makers -this would be a massive mistake. No one I know is hooked enough on Hulu to follow along on this inane ride, plenty enough have cut the cord and have neither the budget nor desire to ever go back, and recent years have provided plenty of alternatives to conventional film & television, which could easily fill the void.

...

No, not piracy, you strange person! I'm talking about the kinds of free programming done on YouTube and blip.tv and other places, stuff done by people who just wanna make quality work and entertain. You're not gonna get HBO-quality out of them, but you ARE going to get entertainment. And honestly, that's all a lot of folks want; entertainment. We want to get a laugh or a scare or pump our fist triumphantly. The budget used to GET us there isn't the point. So if the budget is crippling you, find either additional revenue streams- like, say, the ad-driven views on Hulu -or accept lower budgets. But for the love of Pete, don't try this kind of insane self-destructive bullshit. It's only going to damage your one reasonable in for the internet-loving cord-cutting crowd.

 

[ThunderCavalier]

:/ tbh, I haven't been actively engaged in watching anything on TV for... quite some time, really. Sure, I'm missing out on some genuinely good articles, like Avatar: The Legend of Korra and Game of Thrones, but I'll get to watching them when I get to watching them - when irl stops screwing me over on when I can have some free time.

I haven't really watched TV at all partially because there's very little on the TV that interests me (or that I can't just see on YouTube) or is playing when I happen to be using the TV. Having specific times that I need to be watching a network in order to catch a show is inconvenient to me, imo, since I can't always be 100% free at that certain time. It's why I like video gaming and even fricken reading more as a recreational hobby; you don't have to be at the exact place and time in order to catch what you want to watch, or have to slog through crap before what you wanted to watch comes on.

I haven't really tried out Hulu, but from what I'm gathering from the article, Hulu won't be allowing people to watch videos unless they have an active cable subscription, which doesn't really make sense until you realize that Hulu's content is given by all of the major networks, meaning that whether they like it or not, THEY have to oblige to their wishes and demands or they'll be out of content (and out of business). It's almost the same as the relationship between cinemas and Hollywood: Either accept our lopsided business deals or you find some other movie studio that has a blockbuster movie to gather revenue for you. If you're willing to make that extra cost to watch your shows, then more to you, but tbh, there haven't been a lot of shows in recent years that I've actively WANTED to watch.