 | | These companies don't want online video For all the lip service these companies give to putting content online, that's the last place they want it. They have cable, satellite, and, to a lesser extent, broadcast TV as their revenue streams, and they're quite happy with those. If they could somehow make the Internet go away, they'd do it in a heartbeat. But they can't, so they keep offering the absolute minimum that they have to, just in case their hand is forced, and they have no choice but to embrace online distribution.
And you'd think that piracy would push them to offer viable online options, but it doesn't. Instead, they employ the strategy of trying to crush piracy with a sledgehammer while not offering any real alternatives that people might want to use, since those would involve actually getting into online distribution.
So the question is why they do this. I think part of it is that they know what's worked for them for decades, and they figure they can bend the world to their business model, no matter what anyone else wants. However, I also think another part of it is ignorance of what they're missing out on. After all, many of the people at the top of these companies are older, and I'll bet a significant number of them are slightly out of touch with what younger people want. Certainly, there are people in these companies who do get it, but, if you aren't the boss, and the boss sees no value in something, even after you've tried to explain it, then you'd often be wise to keep your opinions to yourself after that. | |
|
 |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: These companies don't want online video You have to remember that these are the same businesses that wanted to kill the VCR because it would encourage piracy and costs jobs. It took them a awhile to finally realize there was actually money to be made with home video. | |
|
| | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: These companies don't want online video That is why i find their crusade against the VCR so funny, in the end home video made them more money than they had ever made before in history.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: These companies don't want online video Yeah but it took them over a decade and losing in the Supreme Court to realize this. Even after the VCR won the right to exist it was still years before anyone other than video rental stores bought movies on VHS. The reason was they cost over $100. Then someone finally clued them in that they could make more money by selling them at $20 a pop to the masses than just selling them to video stores for $100. | |
|
| | Reviews:
 ·Hargray Cable
| said by BF69:You have to remember that these are the same businesses that wanted to kill the VCR because it would encourage piracy and costs jobs. It took them a awhile to finally realize there was actually money to be made with home video.
Money to be made???? IT was a huge amount of money to be made in fact the movie industry never made so much. Rental income plus they could dump crappy movies in a video store and actually make money off of them. VCR's turned out to be the best thing ever for them. | |
|
| | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: These companies don't want online video said by Corehhi:Money to be made???? IT was a huge amount of money to be made in fact the movie industry never made so much. Rental income plus they could dump crappy movies in a video store and actually make money off of them. VCR's turned out to be the best thing ever for them.
Yes we I that. That was my whole point. Just like when the VCR came out the movie/TV industry was afraid to innovate and embrace a new technology out of fear it would reduce profits. especially when the old ways were still making them money. They could have made billions more if they had embraced the VCR sooner. They are making the same mistake here.
The exception is here people have an easy alternative to getting their content even if it's not legal. And these people will be hard to get back as customers once they go that route. And these people will teach their kids that not paying for content is the way to go. The music industry has learned this hard lesson. There is whole generation that will never pay for music again. Billions were lost and billions will continue to be lost because of that mistake. | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
·Hargray Cable
| Re: These companies don't want online video said by BF69:said by Corehhi:Money to be made???? IT was a huge amount of money to be made in fact the movie industry never made so much. Rental income plus they could dump crappy movies in a video store and actually make money off of them. VCR's turned out to be the best thing ever for them.
Yes we I that. That was my whole point. Just like when the VCR came out the movie/TV industry was afraid to innovate and embrace a new technology out of fear it would reduce profits. especially when the old ways were still making them money. They could have made billions more if they had embraced the VCR sooner. They are making the same mistake here. The exception is here people have an easy alternative to getting their content even if it's not legal. And these people will be hard to get back as customers once they go that route. And these people will teach their kids that not paying for content is the way to go. The music industry has learned this hard lesson. There is whole generation that will never pay for music again. Billions were lost and billions will continue to be lost because of that mistake. Most media is over priced which is also a problem. That's why Itunes did so well, reasonable price, easy to use still DRM problems but it worked and is profitable. | |
|
| | | | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: These companies don't want online video There is no DRM on iTunes music. many people still feel 99 cents is too much and many songs are $1.29. Also the way the music has been over the years with it's DRM and lawsuits and such many people wouldn't buy music it was 10 songs for a penny, just out of spite.
And yes the media is overpriced. They have lots of issues. Embracing online video would at least reduce the number of problems. Then they can work on the rest. | |
|
| | | | | | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: These companies don't want online video Fully embracing online video with minimal DRM or platform limiting headaches would also gain IP owners more sympathy from the tech minded people.
Right now there is a general attitude even from people who would never pirate that companies who refuse to adapt get what they deserve.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
 skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
·Cox HSI
 ·Clear Wireless
| Problem is content is elsewhere I already have Netflix and Crunchyroll and that everything I would want from Hulu, while there is lots on NF and CR that Hulu doesn't have.
And to add commercials on top of that, even if they're short, incomplete seasons, etc..there is simply nothing compelling on Hulu for free and certainly not for $8. | |
|
| | | Re: Problem is content is elsewhere I have all 3 and they all help me get all the shows,anime and movies i need. I do agree the commercials are a problem but nothing serious that would stop me from taking Hulu out. | |
|
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
| Hulu Plus...Tried it...hated it... I don't get the point of "plus", pay for service that still has commercials (like the free side), and only a very limited quantity of shows that you can watch on your TV. I don't want to watch on my computer.
Maybe if it was a couple of bucks per month, but at their price point, there are other alternatives available that are better.
Pass.
--
This Space for Rent... | |
|
| BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Hulu Plus...Tried it...hated it... said by nightdesigns:I don't get the point of "plus", pay for service that still has commercials (like the free side),
You pay for cable TV and it has commercials doesn't it? | |
|
| | | | Re: Hulu Plus...Tried it...hated it... Yes, but you are paying for cable to rebroadcast. You are not paying them for the ads as they get a little ad space as part of their agreement to rebroadcast.
See the difference there? | |
|
| | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: Hulu Plus...Tried it...hated it... But not all of your payment goes to the cable company to maintain the infrastructure. If that were true, then I'd agree with you.
We pay for "channels" that then also advertise. | |
|
| | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by Skippy25:Yes, but you are paying for cable to rebroadcast. You are not paying them for the ads as they get a little ad space as part of their agreement to rebroadcast.
See the difference there?
So whether or not you approve of commercials is based on how they are displayed? I think most people don't like commercials PERIOD regardless of the reason why they exist. | |
|
| | | | Actually, that's the primary reason why I don't have cable TV.
--
"...but ya doesn't hasta call me Johnson!" | |
|
|
1 edit | You should hook your computer up to an HD-TV.
[Edit:] If your computer isn't really good for that, then you could try what I'm planning to do--get that new $200 Acer Chromebook and hook it up (for my sister for Christmas). It's one of its advertised features, so I expect it'll work well enough.
--
"...but ya doesn't hasta call me Johnson!" | |
|
| | | | Re: Hulu Plus...Tried it...hated it... said by NotTheMama:You should hook your computer up to an HD-TV.
[Edit:] If your computer isn't really good for that, then you could try what I'm planning to do--get that new $200 Acer Chromebook ...
That won't be HD, tho, either way, will it?
Jim | |
|
| | |
1 edit | Re: Hulu Plus...Tried it...hated it... Well, non-Plus hulu doesn't have HD, but non-HD TVs don't have the connections for the hook up (VGA or HDMI/DVI). [Edit:] Of course, it's about the signal from the computer--which is assuredly "HD"--and not whether hulu is offering HD content.
--
"...but ya doesn't hasta call me Johnson!" | |
|
| | | | Mele20Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:4 | Re: Hulu Plus...Tried it...hated it... Why do you need a computer to watch Hulu Plus HD? You just watch directly on your Samsung Smart HD TV. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Hulu Plus...Tried it...hated it... I don't (seeing as I don't have hulu Plus). Nor do I have a Samsung Smart HD-TV. (I saw what you did there.  However, I did just get a Samsung Smart Blu-ray player--haven't played with the "smart" stuff yet.) I did try hulu Plus once, on my non-Samsung, non-Smart-but-smart-enough Sony netbox (which works great with Netflix); it could take hulu as much as a minute between going from content to commercial or vice versa. Whether it was something about hulu or about the netbox I don't know. At the time, though, a lot of shows were still "unavailable" for viewing on a TV--couldn't say how true that is now. Of all the features hulu Plus offers now, the only one that seems even a little interesting is being able to watch lots more episodes of all or mostly all(?) the shows. But the only time I ever watch hulu is to catch a recent show that I happened to miss (yep, like an always on VCR/DVR that catches everything). So, nothing really "value-added" there for me. And I hate commercials (which don't make TV "free" by the way--they just make everything we buy more expensive, so we wind up paying for it anyway).
--
"...but ya doesn't hasta call me Johnson!" | |
|
| |  SpectralLikes CookiesPremium
join:2002-05-03
Salem, OR | Or something like playon streaming wireless to a roku box/wii/whatever on the tv will get you the free version of Hulu. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Hulu Plus...Tried it...hated it... I don't need it myself. My sister, however, is technically inept; I was going to get her a Chromebook anyway--something she can just turn on and use for browsing (no worries about updating anything etc--a "web appliance" really). Hooking it up to the HD-TV for a larger screen would happen anyway. Accessing hulu isn't the reason--it's just along for the ride.  (Anyway, I like watching hulu on my computer just fine--nice big screen, good speaker system. I even like hulu's vanilla web interface better than hulu Plus on a netbox--no delay into/out of commercials.)
--
"...but ya doesn't hasta call me Johnson!" | |
|
| | | You can connect your computer up to your TV. You don't have to watch on a computer screen. | |
|
| | | | Re: Hulu Plus...Tried it...hated it... ECHO... Echo... echo... echo
--
"...but ya doesn't hasta call me Johnson!" | |
|
| | |  spewakR.I.P DadkinsPremium
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA
kudos:1
 ·SureWest Internet
| Re: Hulu Plus...Tried it...hated it... You should hook up your computer to an HD TV.
--
Romney becomes "the" Epic Failure! | |
|
| | | said by nightdesigns:I don't get the point of "plus", pay for service that still has commercials (like the free side), I didn't mind the limited commercials on H+.
said by nightdesigns:and only a very limited quantity of shows ...
That's what caused us to dump it. There was really very little on H+ that was of interest to us.
There are programs we DVR because they're on at inconvenient times. When we watch them we skip the commercials entirely. If they'd had them on H+, we'd have skipped recording them and watched them on H+, instead. They'd have gotten our advertising target eyeballs and our $8/mo.
I honestly don't get their thinking at all.
Jim | |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Why should they? We've seen what happened with the newspaper, printing, book and music industry. Why would any of the existing media players want to shrink the pie, or allow it to be disrupted, simply for the sake of new technology?
Unless a legitimate case can be made that the current beneficiaries of today's distribution model(s) can make greater profits by switching to a consumer-direct model, each party has their own turf to protect.
These companies exist because of profit potential. Without it, you get Pravda, Bill Moyers, Bob Ross and Masterpiece Theater. Not much else.
We've been "cordless" for years, but not because we're unwilling to pay - we'd gladly pay more, if we were allowed to pick the lineup. But I don't think the average household (Mom) wants to do the math or manage ala-carte billing, unless she thinks it saves money, which it can't.
Islands like Hulu/+ aren't going to work. So long as there are holes in the library, series and episodes disappear in the night, or we're forced to watch non-targeted serial commercials, they aren't going to attract critical mass. | |
|
|  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: Why should they? said by elray:ala-carte billing, unless she thinks it saves money, which it can't.
This statement is completely untrue. A la carte can be a success if implemented correctly. That means it cannot be shoe horned into the current model. Customers respond to value - they would love a true la carte model if providers are willing to offer it. | |
|
| | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: Why should they? Just to be clear, what we really need isn't a la carte channels but a la carte episodes. If a show is good, we pay for it. Otherwise we don't. What we have today is like all the "of-the-month" clubs. (Fruit, cookies, wine, whatever). Rather than every month looking at the available stuff and ordering what we want, we pay up front and then hope the periodic delivery we get is something we like. | |
|
| | | morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: Why should they? A la carte episodes is even more unlikely than a la carte channels. You can sort of do this with Amazon now - buy individual episodes. Do you do it? | |
|
| | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Re: Why should they? said by morbo:A la carte episodes is even more unlikely than a la carte channels. You can sort of do this with Amazon now - buy individual episodes. Do you do it?
Ala carte should allow lease in any increment, be it per- channel, episode, series, season, hour, week, month, annual, or perpetual.
There might also be cost variables for simultaneous and parallel ("social") viewing, density options, guaranteed delivery / priority bandwidth / full-double-buffering, 3D, screen size, numbers of viewers, type of viewer account (individual, family, disabled, commercial, office, bar, etc), and dozens of other factors not yet imagined.
But again, its quite unlikely any of this will happen. | |
|
| | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | There are lots of reruns where we may only want to watch specific "classic" episodes. I shouldn't have to subscribe to various collections of content services just to get access to all the content I might want. I should be able to pick what I want and pay for what I want. I'm not talking about purchasing them for infinite viewing. This is pay per view. If it only costs something like 10 cents per rerun (some more expensive than others), I can watch a whole lot of entertainment for a lot less than the monthly cable bill. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·Hargray Cable
| said by morbo:said by elray:ala-carte billing, unless she thinks it saves money, which it can't.
This statement is completely untrue. A la carte can be a success if implemented correctly. That means it cannot be shoe horned into the current model. Customers respond to value - they would love a true la carte model if providers are willing to offer it. The real problem is profits with al a carte. Let's say the cable company makes 20% in profits, if you bill is $100 a month they end up with $20. If your bill is $50 they end up with $10 in profit so it helps them to have a bunch of channels you never watch. Numbers are made up but that's the idea. They have fixed costs which won't change whether you have a bunch of channels or just a few, another problem as far as offering al a carte. | |
|
| | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Re: Why should they? said by Corehhi:said by morbo:said by elray:ala-carte billing, unless she thinks it saves money, which it can't.
This statement is completely untrue. A la carte can be a success if implemented correctly. That means it cannot be shoe horned into the current model. Customers respond to value - they would love a true la carte model if providers are willing to offer it. The real problem is profits with al a carte. Let's say the cable company makes 20% in profits, if you bill is $100 a month they end up with $20. If your bill is $50 they end up with $10 in profit so it helps them to have a bunch of channels you never watch. Numbers are made up but that's the idea. They have fixed costs which won't change whether you have a bunch of channels or just a few, another problem as far as offering al a carte. Nope. There is actually much greater profit potential in ala-carte. Simply put, if people have the choice of assembling their own content packages, they will buy more volume.
The cable industry isn't resisting ala-carte. As a last-mile distributor, they would make the same or greater margins for transport, delivery, and servicing the accounts.
It is the content owners who are reluctant to part from the status quo, who are afraid to let their wares compete for customers, even though many would make greater profits doing so. | |
|
| | | This.
The content companies don't care where they get their cash from, as long as they get it. But $8/month won't cut it for them.
Remember what happened with Netflix recently: when Netflix was an 'also' video service companies were scrambling to sell rights to Netflix; when it became an 'instead of' service they started demanding billions for rights or just refused to sell at any price.
I'm sure they'd rather get rid of the cable companies and the affiliates (though the cable companies will just screw us on internet access to make up the difference. It's the affiliates who are screwed in the long run.) But they're not going to buy in unless they see the same kind of money that they get now (which is less than they got 20 years ago, and they're really not happy about that). And every broadcast and cable executive is determined to go down fighting before seeing the market for TV go the way the music industry did -- panic over napster pushed labels to embrace iTunes, which destroyed the idea of album sales in favor of singles. | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | The issue they face is if they do not exploit it, the video will go to the net anyway via piracy.
It is completely impossible to keep content off the net.
in the end I think we will see product placement. Which already happens to an extent as for example on CSI I think all the CSI trucks are GMC/Chevy Tahoe.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
kicker
join:2001-03-07
Pittsburgh, PA | Hulu As a cord cutter (by choice) since 2006, I use Hulu as a glorified DVR service for major network TV shows. $9/month isn't too bad when my only bill is internet access @ $50/month (FiOS 15/5). I could very easily download episodes of TV shows from the usual sources but I'm trying to legitimately obtain the shows and properly support their production. I also like to make a statement that I refuse to pay ridiculous amounts for cable TV. | |
|
| | too bad It's too bad that Hulu isn't publicly traded because it would be a screaming short right about now. bye bye | |
|
 newviewEx .. Ex .. ExactlyPremium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1 | Does anyone actually WATCH Hulu anymore? I don't and never did ... it's garbage. | |
|
| | | Re: Does anyone actually WATCH Hulu anymore? Things that happen with various local stations:
(1) lousy reception--intermittent or constantly
(2) "late" returning to the show after commercial break
(3) network graphics over part of the screen
(4) local announcements continuously with or without broken aspect ratio
(all of which make watching a show on hulu preferable to watching a local broadcast, which isn't to say the shows aren't garbage [shrugs], but as long as the garbage is free...)
--
"...but ya doesn't hasta call me Johnson!" | |
|
| |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | Re: Does anyone actually WATCH Hulu anymore? said by NotTheMama:(1) lousy reception--intermittent or constantly
with digital tv theres no such thing anymore. its all or nothing.
--
Despises any post with strings. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Does anyone actually WATCH Hulu anymore? That's almost true. Pixelation happens when the signal strength drops enough. (Don't tell me you've never seen that.) And if it drops some more, then there's nothing.
--
"...but ya doesn't hasta call me Johnson!" | |
|
 PacketeersPremium
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY
kudos:1 | SNL on Hulu is a Fail ever try to watch full SNL after it airs on Hulu?
you can't, and the show is chopped, rearranged,
and so full of commercials as to be unwatchable.
bye bye Hulu - your new owners want you gone. | |
|
| | I might ditch H+ for Amazon Prime soon Where I live broadcast stations are not available but 10 Meg DSL is so I've subsribed to Hulu+ for a few years now. The commercial content is a fraction of the networks 4 minute breaks. I used to have DishNetwork but that was to much for my meager unemployed budget. | |
|
|
|
