Hulu’s Obituary | Hacker News Reader

Hulu’s Obituary

gunaxin.com

23 pointsFlemlord23 comments

Overblown. It will likely move to a freemium model. Everyone made fun of Hulu before it launched, but it ended up being quite good - there's no reason to think they don't understand the impact of making it pay-only.

http://gizmodo.com/5387909/hulus-glorious-free-days-are-offi...

Don't worry, Hulu's mission has always been to help people find and enjoy the world's premium, professionally produced content. We continue to believe that the ad-supported, free service is the one that resonates most with the largest group of users and any possible new business models would serve to complement our existing offering.

Thanks,

Betina Chan-Martin

Hulu

I agree that this is much ado about nothing. I would expect that the pay version would remove the ads, or offer content sooner (eliminate the 1 day delay for most TV shows).

Or allow greater back catalog access. "want to watch that whole season you missed?" it would compete directly with Netflix and Amazon on demand that way.

Or to allow streaming to set top boxes. If they want to compete with netflix that'd be a great way to do it. What makes so great netflix (beyond selection and the ability to drop down to a dvd in the mail) is the ability to easily stream to a tv. Relaxing on the couch is a way better watching experience than in the chair in front of the computer I sit in all day.

Check out PlayOn (http://www.themediamall.com/playon/) if you want to stream Hulu to an XBox, PS3, etc. I use it and it works like a charm!

Hulu is competing against torrents and DVRs. Their entire value add is convenience. That makes me doubt the viability of a subscription model.

Other ways hulu could make money:

- allow viewers to purchase music played in the show (or even just related music)

- link to the products that have been not so subtly placed in the show. In all likelihood, seeing James Bond use an awesome new gadget will prompt a few people to click a link to see more of it.

- per show fees for things like HBO and showtime shows that cost extra already.

- sell dvds of the TV shows. If I can watch 4 episodes of Sons of Anarchy and am brain dead enough to like it, I might buy the first season on DVD.

Hell, I'd actually consider some of these "content" more than "advertisements".

Don't underestimate how much convenience is worth to people. Netflix's value add over Blockbuster was convenience, Amazon's entire business model is "convenience". I can get people to come to my house, take all my laundry, and return it after it's been cleaned.

People value convenience in different ways, for sure, but I suspect there are a ton of people who would value the sort of convenience that Hulu can technically offer. I'm one of them, but I'm not entirely optimistic about how good their execution will be.

Well, actually, that isn't true. Streaming content makes Netflix much cheaper than renting movies (if the content serves your entertainment needs, anyhow).

I agree that convenience is worth something, but so is stable technology that already works. If Hulu was anywhere near the cost of cable, I think most people will stick with cable. They already own the DVRs and they already know how to use it. If Hulu is much cheaper, it has a chance.

Also: Netcraft confirms, BSD is dying. That is to say, I'll believe it when they turn out the lights. Until then, headline hyperbole ftw, or something.

I don't know if anyone else noticed, but one of the things they're expecting to make available with their pay model is stuff like HBO's series (Entourage was specifically mentioned, which, while not my cup of tea, implies that more of their catalog will also be available). Hopefully, that would mean Showtime's series, too. This is something I, and a lot of other people, would happily pay for.

As others have mentioned, people are moving away from the cable/satellite model, and getting their teevee from the internet in increasing numbers. Hulu is incredibly well-positioned to make a stupid amount of money off that phenomenon, provided they aren't unmitigated idiots about it. (Say, putting all their content behind the pay wall, or charging subscription fees that are a substantial fraction of the typical cable/satellite monthly bill.)

For me to consider paying for Hulu the following would have to happen at minimum...

1. Content in HD

2. No commercials

3. ~ $10 - $15 per month

It would be good if they had more back catalog. With Hulu you can't start new series, just continue ones that you're already interested in.

Why no commercials? People pay for cable TV and almost every channel has them (save premium movie channels).

Because if I wanted to watch commercials I'd pay for cable and get a DVR to fast forward through them. Sure there are commercials on most cable TV but that is because there is no alternative. If hulu turns into a cable tv provider there is no compelling reason to choose them over cable/FIOS. Also I've been told that Netflix currently offer unlimited streaming in HD for a pretty low price commercial free.

That might be true, but those people are frankly stupid.

Ha, that seems a little strong. I know lots of intelligent people who purchase cable.

One thing, if they start charging for service, they better not try to go the cable way and charge for service but still air commercials on their content because most tv channels now offer free viewing of episodes of most of their shows on their website with similar viewing experience to hulu (except for linux users).

God forbid someone would charge money for a valuable service! Blasphemy!

This is my all-time number one gripe about the Internet. Users too often feel entitled to getting things for free.

They can and will get things for free because information goods' prices tend towards the marginal price, which is 0, not the cost of production. Or at least that's my understanding of Varian and Shapiro's "Information Rules".

There are few examples of truly getting content for free. Time is far more scarce for many of us than money is. The only times I even consider stealing content is when nobody is willing to take my money for it.

Of the top of my head, I downloaded Star Trek for my dad a couple months after it came out. He was bedridden and I wanted to see it with him. I would have delightedly paid the cost of taking a family to the theater--$30 to $50--to stream it online. Naturally, that wasn't possible so I spent an hour downloading it.

It's just seldom as easy as point and click and watch. I had to download 2 or 3 crappy cam versions first.

Only true if the goods are in perfect competition with each other which is not completely true of any information good, and especially not true for many of the TV shows that Hulu hosts.

That is true, but would you really want to pay for a service that also beamed ads at you?

Most people on the internet are willing to watch ads, plenty of people are willing to pay for stuff.

But when you start something that competes with something else that costs money and your selling point is that your service is free, how can you be surprised when people don't want to pay?

I just recently dropped my $80/mo satellite bill and switched to Netflix+Roku for the TV and Hulu and Netflix streaming on the computers. If Hulu really does start charging it needs to be a very low fee, I'm not interested in paying any more for entertainment than I already am.

+1. Got a Samsung BR a few months back that does Netflix and Pandora streaming. I've used the Netflix Watch Now since it came out a few years ago but I watch far more now than I ever had before. Contrary to conventional belief, their selection is really rather good. It of course wasn't always this way. But when they inked a deal with Starz that helped a lot. It also has always carried a lot of TV-On-DVD selections.

We use cable far less than before. I get free basic cable from my Association. The absolute only reason I haven't canceled is the HD content. Netflix BR selection is still sparse and there is no streaming HD.

When the day comes that I can stream HD, i'll be canceling my cable. Doesn't even have to be 1080. I'll settle for 720. And I'd be happy to pay $20-30 a month. It would be cheaper than Cable and I could use it away from home. Sign me up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com