how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
639 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
2 edits | Why this is a really stupid move on Hulu's part The problem with this is that at the core, most Home Theater devices are really computers. so unless the software is "locked" in such a way that consumers cannot add to it, Hulu is taking a big gamble. Rather than giving customers the option to use an "official" app, which will most likely play their commercials, they encourage the development of "underground" apps that are not endorsed by the makers of the original software OR by Hulu - and that (surprise, surprise) conveniently omit the commercials from the playback stream.
Now of course Hulu can continue to try to play a cat-and-mouse game to stop they content from being displayed but they have a fundamental problem - how can they distinguish between a third-party app and a standard Web browser (such as Firefox) if the app developer goes out of their way to make their app send all the same information and responses that a standard web browser would? If they can't tell whether a request is coming from a genuine web browser, or another program configured to look exactly like a web browser, then the risk of trying to block content becomes much greater, in that they could disable operation for many who are actually using web browsers (their intended target audience).
Right now the makers of the major HTPC software packages have every incentive to try to play nice with Hulu - in particular, by streaming the commercials. In contrast, the third-party developers, some of whom are probably located offshore (yes, you can access Hulu from outside the U.S. if you have a proxy server in the U.S.), have no incentive whatsoever to play nice with Hulu, and probably get some delight out of figuring out how to kill the ads.
Hulu is stupid anyway because they keep using Flash, which is horrible software if you have a low-powered "green" machine (and many of the coming video devices and "netbook" type computers already use, or will be using relatively "green" processors). I've seen at least three systems now that would run virtually any piece of HTPC software loaded on them and give smooth playback, EXCEPT Hulu Desktop. In all three cases, the machine owner really wanted Hulu Desktop to work, but it was like watching a slide show (a series of still frames). And strangely enough, one of the aforementioned third-party apps (no, I'm not going to say which one - I don't want it to become a target) plays Hulu content absolutely smoothly on those same machines. I don't know what the difference is, but virtually everything I have read suggests that Flash is the problem with Hulu's desktop client (it may also be that they hired incompetent programmers to write the client - I have no idea).
The real problem they have is that a modern HDTV set is really a large computer monitor with a TV tuner and multiple inputs added. So if their goal is to keep Hulu off the large screen, they are beating a dead horse. All anyone has to do is build or buy a Home Theater PC (NOT one dedicated to a particular piece of software), connect it to a HDTV set, and run Hulu in a web browser. Unfortunately, this still gives slide-show quality playback on some machines that play EVERY other stream encountered smoothly (solved for now by using more powerful hardware, though that should not be necessary). So it appears that the third-party developers are turning out superior software to Hulu's, AND they are smacking Hulu upside the head by removing their commercials. I guess that's what happens when you piss off the open source community by being STUPID.
If Hulu were SMART, they'd try to find the person writing one of the third-party apps, or someone like them, and hire them to create a decent Hulu client or app for the major home video devices (by decent I mean one that does NOT try to suck up every CPU cycle available and then some), and figure out a way to play nice with the device makers. They'd kick their current Hulu Desktop software (and especially Flash) to the curb, and try to rewrite it as if they actually wanted people with low-powered machines to be able to run it. And they'd accept the fact that computers and TV's are converging - I'm just waiting for the day when someone brings out a TV that contains a full-fledged PC inside (with remote that doubles as a keypad/touchpad, along the lines of the upcoming Boxee remote, but better designed) - and that's it's pure folly to try and keep their content off of one device while enabling it on the other, as the lines between the two become increasingly blurred. Oh, and they'd also realize that when you try to restrict content geographically, it doesn't work AND you don't have the opportunity to insert locally-relevant commercials.
(Slightly off-topic observation: It always gets me that the BBC won't stream their shows outside the U.K., even though they could easily earn revenue from advertisers in other parts of the world, particularly Canada and the U.S. - but then, they're in a country that still tries to levy a tax on every "television set", a holdover from the 1950's when most families only had one TV. I wonder how trying to tax each television set is working out for them now, when so many devices have screens that can be used to display video, and when any computer can be turned into a TV with the addition of a USB tuner stick?) | |
Reviews:
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·Clearwire
·AT&T Wireless Br..
 ·Comcast
·AT&T DSL Service
·RCN CABLE
1 edit | It always gets me that the BBC won't stream their shows outside the U.K., even though they could easily earn revenue from advertisers in other parts of the world, particularly Canada and the U.S. - but then, they're in a country that still tries to levy a tax on every "television set", a holdover from the 1950's when most families only had one TV. I wonder how trying to tax each television set is working out for them now, when so many devices have screens that can be used to display video, and when any computer can be turned into a TV with the addition of a USB tuner stick?
BBC has BBC America in the U.S which frankly has British shows available via iTunes and Zune (and maybe Netflix).
Poland (where I am from) has the same problem with government fees on TV sets. They collect a special monthly "abonament" on every TV set in household through a Postal Service. And it is just for OTA public programming that has nothing on it except for some old folks. Many people simply refuse to pay it and don't allow postal men come into their house for inspection.
Would you pay to government $20 monthly fee for owning a tv. I think not!!! Think how stupid this is! | | |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Isn't this much like England and the tax on TV.. or is it the antenna they tax? I don't know.. but Poland certainly isn't the only country that tax TV.. we do it here in the US, only, they don't really do a user-tax system which is more "fair".. we tax things SO unbalanced. In fact, they do tax Americans for TV, and then turned around and allowed the broadcasters to charge cable and satellite users each month for it.. now THAT'S the American way!  | |
| They just tax for owning tv, regArdless of having broadcast
They may tax here on bills but it's like few dollars. The real reapers are telco, cable who charge for having hd. | |
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | We also get taxes, in general, to operate the public television stations in this country too.. the FCC and all their cronies don't come for free.
And yes, I agree on the HD comment... they've been paying that bill off on the back of pay TV subscribers for years now, and no one seems to notice, or really care. Shame. | |
| how they deduct tax for these services? | |
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Federal Taxes... money is taken from that to fund the FCC. | |
|
