Hulu Plus announced, coming to iPhone/PS3 2010, Xbox 360 2011, $9.99/mo
- Thread starter devildog820
- Start date
- Status
Warm Machine
Member
infinityBCRT said:
Actually, with OTA in Windows Media Center all you have to do is say you live in the US and you can view what is free right outside your window. I don't understand why MS makes it work that way but they do. There isn't any legal issue with it as far as I am aware and most other UI's that come with tuner cards will get OTA to work.
Hulu is probably running into the CRTC and licensing deals, same with Netflix. If MS could sell to Canada and make money on it I'm sure they would love to.
charlequin
Banned
I have a lot of trouble figuring out what the value proposition of this is supposed to be. What exactly does this have to offer that a $9 Netflix sub doesn't? Full current seasons of TV? Not feelin' it. I'd need to see a pretty hefty content lineup (that was constantly being added to, not reduced) to even start getting excited.
Why, exactly? How is it to the benefit of the content producers who license streaming content to Netflix now to pull it and lose out on the licensing revenue?
Damn straight.
While we're at it, could someone at the fucking NFL come up with a worthwhile streaming solution for their games? I'd pay for Season Ticket in a heartbeat on its own if it meant computer/360/PS3 access, but not when I'd have to buy bullshit satellite TV I don't want and wouldn't ever use otherwise and then pay an extra fee on top of that to stream.
garrickk said:
Why, exactly? How is it to the benefit of the content producers who license streaming content to Netflix now to pull it and lose out on the licensing revenue?
Draft said:
Damn straight.
While we're at it, could someone at the fucking NFL come up with a worthwhile streaming solution for their games? I'd pay for Season Ticket in a heartbeat on its own if it meant computer/360/PS3 access, but not when I'd have to buy bullshit satellite TV I don't want and wouldn't ever use otherwise and then pay an extra fee on top of that to stream.
From what I can gather, it's essentially a $10 monthly fee for accessing Hulu on mobile devices. I don't see any mention of Plus-exclusive contentcharlequin said:
Edit: I would expect Plus subscribers to have access to all seasons of, for example, Arrested Development, though. Right now the free site limits you to one season which rotates every month or so. So there's that. But like you said, Netflix already covers that angle
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Because a decent amount of the content probably belongs to disney or news corp or NBC, so they would rather take a bigger chunk of that money from Hulu subscriptions.charlequin said:
I don't see Hulu+ as being a good thing as far as Netflix content goes.
Will get.
The Hulu content will definitely compliment my Netflix instant streaming, I really won't have much need for cable anymore. I'd go with the 360 version since I already have a gold subscription but if PS3 comes significantly sooner I'll have to go for it.
The Hulu content will definitely compliment my Netflix instant streaming, I really won't have much need for cable anymore. I'd go with the 360 version since I already have a gold subscription but if PS3 comes significantly sooner I'll have to go for it.
TheChewyWaffles
Member
Bandwidth caps are going to become more and more of a problem. They're going to stifle the number of services that I can subscribe to even if I wanted to. Problem is Comcast won't want to compete with Hulu, so they have no incentive to get rid of them.
I don't use OTA or Media Center, so I don't know anything about that, but yeah, it's all in the licensing, the Canadian networks own the full distribution rights in Canada so MS would have to go through them, but they seem to be dragging their feet into the world of internet streaming.Warm Machine said:
I do think MS and Sony should be doing more to try to put some kind of streaming service together here though, even if it's on a per network basis.
Netflix streaming has huge gaps in older televised content and almost no current television. The value proposition is that they will serve "much" more content than normal Hulu or Netflix. How much more is unknown. Plus mobile device support.charlequin said:
The value proposition will vary wildly depending on what you watch and how you watch it. For example, most past seasons of Top Chef aren't available on DVD, aren't on Netflix streaming, and only the most recent episodes are on Hulu or Bravo's website.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
the magic of kinect means you can fast forward by waving your arm around, right? does that mean you have to watch the videos with lights on all the time then?
PhoncipleBone
Banned
To those that have used the iPad app, is it supporting video out? Either through the VGA or the AV Cables? I have been playing with the app on my iPad, but dont have the video cable to see if it works.
charlequin
Banned
Struct09 said:
Oh. Y'know, the idea that HD was a distinguishing factor in this didn't even occur to me. :lol
poppabk said:
Or... they could get paid by both services, which aren't going to overlap entirely in userbase or content and therefore will provide them with more revenue overall.
Zachack said:
I'm not seeing any evidence of the "much" there yet, which is why I'm skeptical. The blurb on the site is bragging about "over 120 seasons of television," and the list they have of Plus content is pretty small. Netflix's streaming offering might be lacking too, but paying for Netflix means you also get DVD rentals, for the same total $10/mo price -- which makes it much easier to justify the gaps in their content.
If this becomes like a classic TV clearinghouse, with hundreds of different classic shows available in their entirety, all watchable on demand (even with ads included), I can see how that's worth $10/mo or even more. But I can't see the offering they're describing on the site right now being worthwhile at all.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Even though this has to do with gaming consoles, I kinda feel like it doesn't have anything to do with gaming and there's a parallel thread in the OT discussing the same thing. I'm probably going to merge the threads together with the resulting thread being in the OT.
Does anyone have any objections?
Does anyone have any objections?
jamesinclair
Banned
dudeguy24 said:
How much do you pay for your antenna? I pay zero a month, and get better HD than cable or Hulu.
bu bu but basic cable!
Yeah, america gets screwed over there. Many countries have cable which follows the disney channel model. Breaks, yes, but filled with ads for other TV shows OR mini shows.
Old example:
When Inuyasha was huge (in the US an latin america), US cartoon network would air one episode a week. They would cut the opening credits to run ads.
Meanwhile, cartoon network latin america would run 5 (five) episode on Saturday from 11pm to 1:10am. Wait, you say, thats 5 episodes in a 2 hour slot, what did they cut? The commercials. Full opening credits, full ending credits, full episode....almost no commercials. Thats what pay-cable is supposed to be.
Metalic Sand
who is Emo-Beas?
davepoobond said:
Doesnt need light.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Please join them. Jumping between the two is annoying.Stumpokapow said:
Grady Durden
Member
I'm torn here. I don't watch enough tv to justify cable & I already have Netflix on my iPad.
Edit: no objection here to merging thread in OT.
Edit: no objection here to merging thread in OT.
red shoe paul
Banned
No thanks.
I enjoy Hulu for the 4 shows I watch on my computer and that's it.
I enjoy Hulu for the 4 shows I watch on my computer and that's it.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Threads merged in OT. I realize the preceding pages will be a little tough to read. Sorry about that. Still better than locking one and cutting off discussion altogether.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Thank you.Stumpokapow said:
PhoncipleBone
Banned
That is my hope as well. Half the shows I watch are up next day, the other half are on the 8 day delay. Give me something without the delay and I am fine.Calantus said:
SuperPac
Member
jamesinclair said:
Yes, because I'm sure those executives running CN Latin America decided yes, let's not sell ads during this time because InuYasha fans deserve better. I sincerely doubt it. More likely: No one was watching at that time and they couldn't sell the ad space, so they used it to burn off InuYasha episodes.
If a cable network in the US doesn't have ads or doesn't have a wide variety of ads, they aren't doing that well. Do you think most cable networks would survive solely on what subscribers pay cable companies in subscription fees?
jamesinclair
Banned
SuperPac said:
Considering CNLA ran 7 hours of Inuyasha a week (1 hour daily, 2 on saturday)....Im going to guess it was incredibly successful. And it wasnt just cartoon network. ALL cable channels ran with minimal ads. So, for example, Sony (yes, the sony channel) would run hit shows like Friends (or whatever was popular) during prime time with the standard ad breaks....but just show ads for frasier, or whatever else was on. The only commercial ads would be "this show brought to you by Ford"....and thats it.
Note: Im using old shows as examples because thats what was on when I lived there.
Again, ever watched the Disney channel in america? Zero commercial ads. And yet theyre the 3rd most watched cable channel.
How about HBO? Showtime? Thats what cable is supposed to be. Youve just be suckered into paying AND watching ads, and then forced to pay a premium for non ad channels.
SuperPac
Member
jamesinclair said:
OK but seriously you're basing how the TV business should work on The Disney Channel, pay channels, and the Latin America cable biz which may be (and probably is) a whole lot different than the situation in the US.
This is the "I only like video game magazines that don't have ads every other page" argument. Or "why can't US video game magazines be like this magazine in the UK that has no ads and 400 pages."
morningbus
Serious Sam is a wicked gahbidge series for chowdaheads.
I don't think it is a terrible deal, just one that doesn't work for me at all.
Things Hulu can't really help:
1) I barely watch network t.v.
2) Hulu doesn't currently have access to any Viacom-owned properties, or most other networks not owned by Hulu's parent companies.
Things Hulu can help, but Hulu Plus does not seem to address:
1) Hulu doesn't even have the full catalog of networks owned by Hulu's parent companies! Where is Bravo? They put up like 3 episodes of random shows every few weeks and then take them down a few weeks later. What about FX? Every network wholly owned by Hulu's parent companies should be available through Hulu
2) There may or may not be a significant delay from air date to when you are give access to a show. It needs to be a day after the episode airs at most.
Things Hulu can't really help:
1) I barely watch network t.v.
2) Hulu doesn't currently have access to any Viacom-owned properties, or most other networks not owned by Hulu's parent companies.
Things Hulu can help, but Hulu Plus does not seem to address:
1) Hulu doesn't even have the full catalog of networks owned by Hulu's parent companies! Where is Bravo? They put up like 3 episodes of random shows every few weeks and then take them down a few weeks later. What about FX? Every network wholly owned by Hulu's parent companies should be available through Hulu
2) There may or may not be a significant delay from air date to when you are give access to a show. It needs to be a day after the episode airs at most.
jamesinclair
Banned
SuperPac said:
I have no idea what point youre trying to make.
Lets look at the magazine example:
Magazines with ads are generally given away for free. Yes, yes, they say 4.99 on the cover.....but ask anyone on this forum how many decades of gamepro, game informer or egm they have/had left on their free subscriptions. Go to amazon.com right now and purchase a year of nintendo power (or a dozen or magazines) for $4.99. Aka: You pay shipping, the magazine is free.
Ride the subway? Compare the amount of ads in your free paper (Metro, the express etc) and the pay paper.
Meanwhile, magazines like the economist sell for $7, but offer almost no ads.
Generally, paying for something means less or no ads.
morningbus
Serious Sam is a wicked gahbidge series for chowdaheads.
Calantus said:
I hope that's the case, but why aren't they advertising all the new programing they will be getting then? In the promotional video they show a ton of television show logos... for stuff already on Hulu. Even a logo for Top Chef or something would be enough to stress the benefits of a paid subscription.
Anyway, I'll wait and see.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Yup that sounds exactly like cable companies and media conglomarates. Share the wealth, don't leverage your license to force people to use the service you control, take a smaller cut of revenue. They own Hulu, they take a ~100% cut from the $10 a month, and they control the pricing structure, why would they leave their content on netflix in the long term?charlequin said:
JonathanEx
Member
So... as an outsider - you can watch these shows on Hulu, with ads, for free, on your PC. You pay a tenner a month to watch them on things that isn't a PC, with ads.
Seems shit to me. I hope I'm not missing something or this really is a dumb deal.
Seems shit to me. I hope I'm not missing something or this really is a dumb deal.
charlequin
Banned
poppabk said:
What you're basically suggesting is equivalent to the idea that MSNBC and CNBC would be pulled from Charter and Time Warner now that NBC is owned by Comcast. Has that happened?
Lots of companies behave in what is basically a customer-unfriendly way, but they're not (all) staffed entirely by idiots. Just pulling content from one service would result in only a loss of revenues while playing hardball on licensing costs (as Disney's already been doing with Netflix) lets them make use of their stake in Hulu to make more money from every side.
somuchwater
Member
According to this site, Hulu Plus will require Playstation Plus:
http://technologizer.com/2010/06/29/playstation-plus-required-for-hulu-plus/
http://technologizer.com/2010/06/29/playstation-plus-required-for-hulu-plus/
badcrumble
Member
Well that's horseshit.somuchwater said:
badcrumble
Member
I really don't understand why Netflix and Hulu are honestly okay with having their services kept behind someone else's paid gateway. I mean, do they LIKE being told that they can only sell their service to a certain percentage of 360/PS3 owners instead of to all of them? Are Sony and Microsoft honestly okay with missing out on a way to make their consoles far, far more appealing to casual consumers? I honestly don't get it.
Apple would never do this. Hulu+ and Netflix On Demand will never require a second subscription service from Apple just to gain access to their wholly separate subscription services on iOS. Because that's stupid and doesn't make sense.
Apple would never do this. Hulu+ and Netflix On Demand will never require a second subscription service from Apple just to gain access to their wholly separate subscription services on iOS. Because that's stupid and doesn't make sense.
- Status