Hulu Is Popular, But That Wasn't the Goal | Hacker News Reader

Hulu Is Popular, But That Wasn't the Goal

latimes.com

36 pointsgatsby45 comments

One of the stupidest restrictions on streaming that I've seen comes courtesy of HBO Go. Here's a service I would gladly pay $5 a month for unlimited access to, and yet hbo won't let me buy it outside a cable subscription. So they've left me with a choice, pay $65 for comcast + hbo, or grab their content from bittorrent.

Speaking of HBO, I'm really looking forward to Game of Thrones, but as far as I can tell, there's absolutely no legal way for me to watch it in Germany. There's Sky Atlantic in a few other countries, but not here.

I'll buy the DVD, of course, but...why won't you take my money now? It makes no sense. Whatever other broadcast deals you make, you should also be selling episodes or online subscriptions for a fixed price to everyone.

Looks like most HBO shows are available on the German iTunes store. My guess, though, is that they don't post their video there until the DVD's are available. Can anyone confirm how that's worked for HBO in the past?

Yes, HBO's general strategy is to encourage subscription, not DVDs or a la carte downloads.

I find Hulu kind of ridiculous... They make me watch (a lot of) ads after I pay them money. And they go out of their way to limit how I stream my Hulu content. There is an expectation that if you pay for something online it will be ad-free.

Yes, clearly those are your only two options. It's inconceivable that you would do without these shows.

That is not an option for watching the shows, so it's not in the category under discussion.

As an aside, if you wanted to make an actual point, articulating it would work better than barely related snark.

From what I understand, the "Most Popular" shows on Hulu and the shows I normally watch off Hulu are mostly prime time network shows. These shows are all available for free in HD over the air. Why aren't cable companies blaming their diminishing subscriptions on this as well?

Cable is so incredibly overpriced that Hulu was almost a legal godsend of an alternative for many consumers, even the paid version. It's just how people watch TV. We watch shows. We watch 30/150 available channels. Occasionally we just watch "what's on". Cable companies realize this and though it is not necessarily costing them more to provide content, they're losing potential money from overpriced cable so now they're looking on hiking the prices of content available and soon Hulu will be just as expensive as cable and we'll have to resort to illegal watching until an alternative comes out again.

I considered buying an OTA DVR, but then I discovered that there's one model on the market and it's $350. Hello Hulu!

If you have Windows Vista/7, it's built in. Just get an OTA tuner card -- USB HD OTA tuner cards go for $100 if not cheaper.

It's the best DVR on the planet, bar none. Just not very popular as people don't think of using their computer as a DVR.

Or grab a networked tuner like the HDHomeRun. It does OTA and unencrypted cable. Watching 1080i over 802.11n works well.

There's also DVRs for Linux like XBMC/MythTV and a couple for Mac too.

I didn't realize the HDHR now had two tuners at $149. Good deal. Also looked up an internal OTA tuner card. Only $59... see http://store.hauppauge.com/hardware2.asp?product=hvr1150

Problem is, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. If they cripple Hulu because its popularity is threatening traditional TV, people aren't going to forget that it existed. They like watching via the web. The question is whether the networks want to provide the content or let someone else do it.

The thing is they still treat Hulu like it's cable / network TV with a crippled DVR. The most recent 2-4 episodes for a lot of content, and they randomly drop episodes with little warning.

Granted, I watch a lot of Hulu content, but mostly it's amine that's not on cable TV. I also have a full cable TV subscription (HBO etc) even though I watch vary little content. I would pay 100+$ a month to watch Hulu without commercials and an extra 100+$ a month to add the missing cable content. Technically there is nothing preventing them from making a lot of money off me, but instead they added a pointless hulu+ subscription which literally added less than 6 hours of content I have any interest in seeing.

I would pay 100+$ a month to watch Hulu without commercials and an extra 100+$ a month to add the missing cable content.

You'd pay more than two hundred bucks a month just to watch TV? That seems like a lot.

My FIOS bill is just over 200$ a month for TV + 35/35 mbps internet and most channels have commercials.

Yeek. I pay $45 a month for internet and... nothing for TV.

Well, I pay $15 a month for Netflix and that ensures that there's always something I can watch when I feel like watching something.

Well I do have a roommate so I am only really spending 40$ a month more than you. Anyway, compared to our 3+k/month rent it's just not that important IMO.

PS: First time I saw a 200+$/month electric bill we had a chat about running so many servers ;-)

Right now consumers who watch regular TV have to either set aside time to watch the shows they want or DVR them. They get to pay for and watch a lot of commercials for this privilege. Meanwhile consumers who watch TV shows on Hulu can watch current episodes, and often previous ones they may have missed for free, with only a few minutes of commercials per episode. They have the option of paying(a lot less) for more previous episodes and even whole series. There will always be the people who don't want to/wont pay for anything.

To me it seems like the best deal for consumers is Hulu. If Cable networks focused more on making shows people really like to watch, plus things that require live viewing and also invested more into infrastructure to deliver content to consumers in more than one convenient way, everyone wins. The networks may even be able to get some of the people who generally only download content to use their legitimate channels of distribution if they make it easier.

On top of all of that, if they would offer this service in non US areas, the amount of eyes on their shows, ads and even people willing to pay would be enormous.

"Technology is changing so fast, and, as a direct result, so is consumers' behavior," said Jordan Levin, chief executive of the TV and Internet studio Generate. "One of Hulu's problems was that it accelerated changes in behavior faster than the companies were prepared for."

Hulu didn't change behavior, people were watching TV online long before, now they're just doing it legally.

It's not all the same people, though. I mean, maybe within HN/the tech community it's the same people, but I know plenty of people who didn't regularly pirate TV (if at all) but who now watch the large majority of their TV content through Hulu/Netflix.

Maybe it's a Northern California "no I don't have cable TV, puhleeze... but I secretly watch a ton of it online!" thing, I don't know, but I'm often surprised to visit a non-tech-minded friend for the first time in years, and see that they have a Netflix-enabled Blu-Ray player or HDTV, Hulu loaded up on their laptop, and no cable service in sight.

Some people were watching TV online before, now lots of people are watching TV online. Hulu has played a big part in that. I suspect the number of people watching Hulu every week dwarfs the number of people who were "illegally" watching content online before, at least in the US market. Most of the rest of the world is still forced to find extra-legal methods to obtain the same content.

So why not add more ads to Hulu and make it bring in as much money as traditional channels? I don't mind ads and let those that do mind them pay to skip them.

The issue with normal television is that I may not want to or be able to watch that show at 8pm. And there's no technical reason anymore that I have to. So why not give consumers a legal and profitable for the content owners option to consume shows whenever they want?

I just don't comprehend their thinking.

As the article says, when the content comes to you via traditional TV, there's more money going on there than "more ads," including content and broadcast licensing agreements which bring in additional revenue.

Personally, I've got pretty good at avoiding ads when I watch hulu. As soon as one comes on I note how many seconds I need to wait, mute the sound, and switch to another tab. Bingo, no ads.

I suppose I could do the same thing with TV if I had a DVR.

I upvoted you, but I wholly disagree with the idea. I mean, for many shows, I'm sure it would work. Most sit-coms, or reality shows, things of that ilk, I can't imagine being too much different for having more ads. They tend to have LOTS of ads on television, and I honestly don't think that their appeal is lessened on Hulu if their ad content approaches that of television.

For many other shows though, I'm reminded of an interview with Joss Whedon (I couldn't find it in a quick Google search) in which he argues against the commercial break, and I agree. For dramas and serial episodes, it really sucks to break the flow of a story for an arbitrary break. ANY break, even for just a few seconds, sucks horribly. Having to write your stories in a way where you plan out where the commercial breaks are is an art form. Making sure that the breaks are carefully planned takes skill. Networks like TBS (I think they still do it) which put arbitrary breaks in that were not intended screws this all up.

The first season of Alias made this work, in that they were able to work in the commercial break, along with old-fashioned cliff-hangers at the end of each episode, but they eventually gave that up.

I would gladly pay Hulu for commercial-less shows. What I've been doing lately, however oddball that it is, is finding shows I never watched before that are highly regarded, and watch those shows in serial form.

I've been buying the DVDs for the shows (small cost, really) and then ripping it to disk. I've recently gone through a slew of shows this way, and without commercial interruption, it's SO much easier to get into.

Their subscription only lets you watch the latest season. However, many shows are stories that are best watched in order from the first episode.

Instead, they should provide the first episodes of every show for free, and all seasons get unlocked by the monthly subscription.

I would pay upwards of $50/month for that. Far be it from me to give them business advice, though. I'm sure they have much smarter people figuring this shit out for them.

This is why NetFlix with Hulu+ is a godsend. NetFlix generally has the back catalogue and Hulu+ has the latest season that NetFlix doesn't have yet.

I stream all of my TV from NetFlix and Hulu, I technically pay for cable because I pay for cable internet, but it is only the basic package. I don't have a TV hooked up to Coax at all...

Agreed. I don't even watch shows if I can't watch them from episode #1.

At some point, Comcast and its buddies are going to be felled by somebody, somewhere who figures out how to offer premium content a la carte. It's hard for Hulu to do that now because they don't want to upset the cable people, but if they hang around and keep growing, they may get their shot. And when they do, it's a win for consumers because great content will be rewarded (consumed) and bad content will die much quicker than it does now.

Apple iTunes sells episodes of many TV shoes the very next day, without commercials.

There is no way I will ever spend $70/month for cable, but I would happily spend $70/month for Netflix + Hulu + iTunes because timeshifting is that important to me.

Yeah, I'm happy to pay $30 a season for Mad Men, since that's the only show I'd be watching on cable anyway.

Well, that plus Doctor Who. Is there any legal way I can legally get Doctor Who without shelling out a thousand bucks a year to Comcast for a million hours of other shite I don't want?

Well, there's Netflix: http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Doctor_Who/70142441

Do you mean brand-new episodes? I suppose you could go to the BBC site (http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/dw) and fake a UK HTTP header.

I looked into this once, and to watch all the various TV shows we get on Hulu or satellite would cost us somewhere around 3x the cost of satellite. $2-3 an episode is just too much if you follow more than a handful of shows.

Good point on Apple. I was more thinking of specific channel content and making it available a la carte. So, say, $7/month for an ESPN stream.

Comcast is in an odd position in that they own the pipe to many homes, plus are the cable provider, and own NBC and a bunch of cable channels. Seems unlikely they can be snuck up on. I think the only for it to happen is for the government to hold one arm behind their back.

OR some independent web-based channels just take off in a huge way. Tough though since I think most of the best writers, directors, and actors are beholden to the networks and major studios. No one wants to give up their livelihood so that you can watch free TV.

Also a good point on Comcast. But just because they own both pipes doesn't mean a revolution couldn't be kindled in one of them (the net pipe).

Well what I suspect will happen is that the Comcast pipe will become less important. LTE bandwidth is pretty incredible (at least with little congestion). The Verizon pipe becomes a lot more important. Comcast and Verizon join forces and stifle net neutrality to keep any such revolution from happening. :-)

A revolution will still happen, Comcast and Co will just lose out on it. Whenever people want something bad enough, they will find a way to get around the bars that stop them, and get it.

Really? Where's the huge revolution on getting us off of fossil fuels? Where are the fuel cell cars? Big oil has largely single handedly stopped a revolution over the past 30 years and I see no signs of change.

Never underestimate the power of money in stopping revolutions -- especially when it comes to leisure activity.

I was thinking more about prohibition-style rebellion

I think the networks are missing the point, the alternative to Hulu and other online offerings isn't cable or satellite it's P2P. Hulu allows them to get _some_ money from people who otherwise would be worthless to them.

Paying $2 per episode on amazon or iTunes for a show you are only going to watch once makes very little sense as does paying $60+ for a cable subscription (assuming the content you want to watch is not HBO etc.) if you only want to watch a couple of shows.

I like many people here am a tech geek, as such if Hulu started charging a whole lot more than they currently do, or if shows start being delayed, I have no trouble going back to an RSS feed from eztv.it.

Commercials don't sway me in any way shape or form, I don't buy a product because I saw a commercial, I tend to go for bargain brands anyway, so ultimately nothing is lost by me downloading something over bittorrent rather than watching it on TV or on Hulu.

Hi, I am somewhat interested in the latimes naming convention for their pages. For this story, the part before the date is:

la-fi-ct-hulu

la, and fi are rather self explanatory, but the 'ct' I can't account for, and am wondering if perhaps some editor tossed this in as an in-joke. Anyone know what 'ct' stands for? Additional classification of article as 'consumer techonology'?

I think it stands for Company Town, which is a section of the site/paper devoted to covering "the industry."

Actually, I'm almost certain that's it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com