Hulu Will Eventually Just Be An Uninteresting Ad For Cable TV Especially If NBC Management Gets Their Wish We've talked a lot about how Hulu will never truly be disruptive, given that as an extension of the cable industry -- they're designed not to be. The company has made a lot of silly decisions, from blocking Google TV and other devices from accessing their content (and ads), to buckling to companies like Fox and blocking consumer access to content during retransmission disputes. Hulu has also struggled with a pay Hulu tier that lacks value, so they're apparently looking at shaking up their business model once again. An interesting Wall Street Journal piece highlights the continual rift between the company's CEO and NBC executives, and indicates the company wants Hulu to look just like cable TV: And in what would be a major shift in direction, Hulu management has discussed recasting Hulu as an online cable operator that would use the Web to send live TV channels and video-on-demand content to subscribers, say people familiar with the talks. The new service, which is still under discussion, would mimic the bundles of channels now sold by cable and satellite operators, the people said. Of course the benefit of Hulu was its a la carte nature, and the fact that the service was ad supported but free. With NBC and company not wanting the service to be more appealing than traditional cable, they're going to continue to do everything in their power to dumb the service down until it's little more than a big, blaring advertisement for traditional television.
|
  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 |  Hulu just source for TV everywhere cable offerings
| |
|  | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Hulu just source for TV everywhere cable offerings said by Linklist:... Hulu will probably turn in to just another source of paid TV online.
which is exactly what comcast wants it to be. no disruption of the current model, no innovation, no reason for it to exist. | |
|
tpkatl
join:2009-11-16
Dacula, GA | It already was a waste, this is nothing new When Hulu was free, one could make the case that it had some value. When they charged $10 for (essentially) nothing special, one couldn't make a case that was delivering value, because it was *never* all encompassing - it only held selected shows from selected networks. And - worse yet - you still had to watch their advertisements.
Even when the lowered the price to $8.00, same problems.
And of course, every Hulu download was charged against your internet cap (Comcast - 250gb) which meant that you ate up your allotment that much more rapidly.
Let Hulu die quietly. It has no value remaining alive. | |
| | bn1221
join:2009-04-29
Cortland, NY | Re: It already was a waste, this is nothing new That and the quality sucked when using a Roku. On 768K I got 2 dots and decent level quality with Netflix. Hulu stalled, and since the commercials don't buffer it took my 80 minutes to watch a 60 minute movie.... | |
|
 MurdocPremium
join:2009-02-08
Manitowoc, WI | When will the tv industry fall? When and how hard? Hopefully we don't have to bail their sorry arses out then. | |
| | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: When will the tv industry fall? It's not going anywhere so long as people continue paying money, which a majority still are. Throw in live sports and content companies' death grips on content, and I believe pay TV, in some form, will be around for quite some time. | |
| | | MurdocPremium
join:2009-02-08
Manitowoc, WI | Re: When will the tv industry fall? With the constant rate hikes, I am wondering how long it can go without masses dumping it. | |
| | | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: When will the tv industry fall? So long as the rate increases are relatively small, even if they're semiannual, I don't believe consumers will feel much impact. If prices rise by 20+% in a single pop, we might see more defections. Until them, we'll continue having plenty of TV zombies with their wallets wide open. | |
| | | | | | | Re: When will the tv industry fall? I don't agree. We've reached the price threshold where people are deciding it's not worth it. Cord cutters are real, they are what we would have called yuppies 2 decades ago. The young urban professionals who don't watch a lot of TV to begin with. The thing is the yuppies have identified trends long before they went mainstream. I don't think we are that far away from a slide in TV revenues and viewers. It starts with the yuppies, moves into the financially constrained and will ripple down the entire demographic ladder as prices cascade with the drop in number of subscribers. At some point the TV providers will try to drop prices to stop the slide, if they are aggressive they might be able to halt it, but the damage to revenues will be so substantial I believe they won't cut as far as necessary and all they will do is slow the slide.
Don't get me wrong, there is a core group of people that will pay whatever it costs for TV. But IMO that group isn't large enough to sustain the whole pyramid by themselves. Without the mass market revenues the CC's can't sustain their business models on the backs of this group. This doesn't even factor in what will happen if a good chunk of the population is priced out of pay TV. I wouldn't be surprised if congress got involved at that point. | |
| | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: When will the tv industry fall? The young urban professional huh?
Anyway....
... yuppies don't identify trends.. they are generally mindless monkeys who have no direction of their own but when they see one of their own do something, the rest have to follow. I'm sorry, but I don't call that a trend. Trends come and go.. TV has been around for decades.
I won't even go into a long explanation as to why I think you're 100% wrong, and more trying to realize a prophecy that you'd like to see come true - but you're just wrong.
This is the kinda talk that generally comes from those arm-chair analysts who like to talk a lot, are often wrong, yet just up high and loud when one of their predictions to do actually come true.
Why would congress get involved with entertainment? Have you not seen the "trend" of many many years already? Congress and government HAS gotten involved, as far as they will.. the local tier 1 level. The rest you get is entertainment. Tickets to the big theme parks cost upwards of $80 a piece but congress doesn't get involved there do they? I'd like to no be forced to pay for unlimited rides.. I'd like to get in for a very small cover charge and then pay-per ride.. hasn't happened yet, just as congress won't get involved in the pay TV model. It's a pipe dream, as it should be. | |
|
 kdwycha
join:2003-01-30
Riverview, FL
 ·Bright House
| I dunno... I should probably cancel my service because I pay the 7.99 a month and never use it anyway. Most stuff is on Netflix and is commercial free. It kinda pisses me off that I pay 7.99 for a service and get bombarded with commercials.
It is a good idea to have a central location to access content from the major networks but its bound to fail.
I bet pretty soon you will have to pay on fox.com nbc.com abc.com for past episodes.
Now that I think about this deeper I will cancel my Hulu Plus subscription now and update my uTorrent software and just steal the shows off the interwebz. Screw these idiots. | |
| |  GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:5
 ·Dish Network
| Re: I dunno... said by kdwycha:Now that I think about this deeper I will cancel my Hulu Plus subscription now and update my uTorrent software and just steal the shows off the interwebz. Screw these idiots.
You and boat loads of others. You're right, they are idiots--shortsighted and stupid. | |
| | | | just use sites like scene source »www.scnsrc.net/
No torrents, all direct downloads like hotfile.com, fileserve.com, ect...
You don't mind waiting 15 - 30 seconds to download do you? | |
| | |  Matt3All noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: I dunno... said by DataRiker:just use sites like scene source »www.scnsrc.net/
No torrents, all direct downloads like hotfile.com, fileserve.com, ect...
You don't mind waiting 15 - 30 seconds to download do you?
Hrm, a web server log file of every file you downloaded? No thanks. | |
| | | |
4 edits | Re: I dunno... said by Matt3:Hrm, a web server log file of every file you downloaded? No thanks.
This is simply not true.
The files are not hosted on the site, and the site is not affiliated in any way with hotfile, fileserve, ect.
As for the direct download servers, I am not aware of any agency ever seeking downloader's information. Possibly the uploaders, but they are all done anonymously anyway. | |
| | | | | Matt3All noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: I dunno... said by DataRiker:said by Matt3:Hrm, a web server log file of every file you downloaded? No thanks.
This is simply not true. The files are not hosted on the site, and the site is not affiliated in any way with hotfile, fileserve, ect. As for the direct download servers, I am not aware of any agency ever seeking downloader's information. Possibly the uploaders, but they are all done anonymously anyway. Your IP and all sorts of information is captured in the log file. As for the sites linking to the download sites, see the torrents sites ... they record a log of your exit URL unless it is disabled.
This is a very dangerous suggestion and is a worse idea than a private torrent tracker. | |
| | | | | | GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:5 | Re: I dunno... I say screw all of that nonsense and go usenet. | |
| | | | | |
1 edit | You have absolutely no idea what your talking about.
No one has ever, or ever will be "caught" using a DDL service, as your not uploading anything. When you click on the hotfile (ect) link your not taken directly to the download page. So how would exit logs do anything??? Please stop spreading FUD simply because you don't know how it works.
For people wondering how it works:
1st - some person makes a random account on hotfile or another DDL
2nd - posts the link on any forum like scene source
3rd - a million or so people download the file
4th- the file gets taken down by a DMCA request, the uploader
gets banned
5th - another user posts a new hotfile link
repeat cycle about 500 times for each file. | |
| | | | | | | GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Dish Network
| Re: I dunno... Downloading isn't legal either. The xxAA may not come after you for downloading, but it's still not legal if that's what you're implying by saying that "your [sic] not uploading anything." They certainly would have the legal right to prosecute for downloading.
And when I say downloading, I mean downloading content that the copyright holders have not given permission to be downloaded. | |
|
| | | Without distribution its a non issue.
There has, to my knowledge, never been a single case of that,ever. | |
| | | GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:5 | Re: I dunno... Non-issue in what way? I agree if in terms of being prosecuted (at least presently) since it's not worth the expense.
It's still copyright infringement regardless and the possibility (however remote) of being prosecuted is still there. | |
| | | |
1 edit | Re: I dunno... Yes, but "prosecuted" to what end? Without the distribution its a worthless, and losing endeavor. There is no money in it.
Mark my words, It has never, and will never happen period. | |
| | | | | GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:5 | Re: I dunno... I'm certainly not disagreeing. My point was it's not worth the money to go after downloaders, but it's still illegal to download copyrighted materials without the copyright holder's permission.
No marking of words necessary. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: I dunno... Yes it is illegal.
And no you will never be sued for it, unless lawyers start working for free. | |
| | | | | | | GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Dish Network
| Re: I dunno... I agree. I'd never take on a case against an individual for downloading. They'd never be able to come close to paying the statutory damages, which would be the only real damages worth anything. But, I could see lawyers chasing after a corporation where people were caught downloading illegally obtained materials. You could probably get some hefty damages from that. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: I dunno... Without any distribution, what exactly would are the "statutory" damages?
I'm not trying to be smart, I really don't know? I mean, how much could you sue them for?
All the other cases have been for X times of "distributions" times Y amount of money. | |
| | | | | | | | | GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Dish Network
| Re: I dunno... Up to $150K if willful infringement.
§ 504. Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits
(a) In General.— Except as otherwise provided by this title, an infringer of copyright is liable for either—
(1) the copyright owner’s actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); or
(2) statutory damages, as provided by subsection (c).
(b) Actual Damages and Profits.— The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing the infringer’s profits, the copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer’s gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work.
(c) Statutory Damages.—
(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.
(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: I dunno... The way it reads I don't think a copyright holder could claim statutory damages with a straight face without any distribution.
Even when as you say the user was on a corporate network. I can't see a judge issuing any statutory damages of any consequence really.
Again, the money is just not there. | |
| | | | | | | | | | GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Dish Network
| Re: I dunno... When I worked in a law firm, statutory damages were always pleaded either primarily or as an alternate.
Getting some type of statutory damage is likely easier than proving up actual damages and certainly possibly worth more if it's a download only case. At the minimum, $750 per infringement can become a lot of money. Of course, stopping an uploader serves a more valuable purpose in the long run.
By their very nature, statutory is pretty binary. Did the person infringe? If yes, then statutories come into play automatically. | |
|
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
1 edit | Re: heres the deal ... yea, because House is quality programming, right? I guess Fox doesn't have American Idol which is one of the highest viewed shows and one of the longest running most popular "reality TV" series, right? And, their Sunday lineup of Family Guy, The Simpsons (which has been around longer than many regulars to BBR have been alive) and some of their other shows...
.. but fox has nothing.
The fact that all the shows you watched are gone or being canceled just says that you're not part of the latest fad is all. Shows come and go for many reasons.. very few last very long because the crowds that are watching have the attention span of a gnat.
corrected a typo | |
| | |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | Re: heres the deal said by fiberguy:... yea, because House is quality programming, right? I guess Fox doesn't have American Idol which is one of the highest viewed shows and one of the longest running most popular "reality TV" series, right? Ratings for idol have dropped since simon cowell left this season.
--
The shortest distance between 2 points adds 1.5 stars to T. want $25? solve »coord.info/GC20A37 for me | |
|
| | Now I get it! Hulu is designed to fail! I've wondered why the TV companies seem intent on relegating Hulu to being a walking corpse, and now I finally figured it out. First I thought it was pure greed--that they're trying to make that golden goose lay more and more eggs--and I do think that may be part of it, but there may be a more sinister reason. The TV companies want Hulu to fail so it can serve as a cautionary tale to anyone thinking of launching a similar service. After all, if the major TV companies can't make a go of this Internet video thing, what chance does a startup have? Naturally, the savvy folks will see through this scheme, but many investors won't. All they'll see is the fact that Hulu died a slow, painful death, despite being backed by experienced companies with lots of content. No, Internet video won't work. Better to continue to put money into what works: cable and satellite. | |
| | | Hulu plus worthless Try to find half content of good shows you find on pc that you won't on roku, Sony blue-ray, iPhone, etc. It's always sunny in Philadelphia is one of the shows you can't access. | |
| | | Hulu did serve a purpose for me... It has allowed me to wean myself off of TV shows almost entirely after discontinuing cable TV. As they tighten the screws further, they do me further favors. As SyFy cancels good shows and Fox restricts shows like House to +8, I am watching less and less. As soon as Chuck is cancelled, I will be free of TV entirely!
/Dr. Who notwithstanding
//Netflix | |
| | | Content isn't free Oh the horror, a company trying to make money from its intellectual property. The horror I tell you!!! | |
|  Cito
join:2008-09-22
Quitman, GA | Thats why sites such as icefilms continue to prosper That's why sites like »icefilms.info continue to prosper and grow after nearly 4 years.
Course if you have a hacked google tv or a jailbroken apple tv you can stream hulu
but I stream icefilms.info via my media server to my tv and icefilms has high def stream movies, movies still in theaters as well as every tv show from 80's to today | |
| | Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Thats why sites such as icefilms continue to prosper as well as every tv show from 80's to today Hardly. I just looked and there are dozens of shows that aren't on there.
Adventure Inc., Soldier of Fortune/Special Ops Force, Honey I Shrunk the kids, Still Standing, Run of the House, Listen Up, Sleepwalkers, Dead Last, Space Cases, Beyond Westworld, Roundhouse, So Weird, Mission Genesis, Welcome to Paradox, The Starlost, Land of the Lost (original), Not Going Out, The Famous Jett Jackson, Adventures in Wonderland, Cybergirl, Elly and Jools, Mirror Mirror, The Fantastic Journey, The Darkroom, Night Visions, Night Gallery, Misfits of Science, Perversions of Science, The Immortal (either one), and so on.
Even most of the shows that they do have, don't have all the episodes. Some of them don't even have half. | |
|
| | Scared themselves Hulu has become an internal fight, the owners who are also the Movie studios and TV Networks that provide the content. Have begun to pull back on the Hulu management. There is a great article in the WSJ -
»online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142···472.html
Outside of that, I don't mind the $7.99 fee, that coupled with the $8 at Netflix, a $25 internet connection and I pay $35 a month, TOTAL for more content than I can watch. Used to pay 240.00 per month to Comcast and could never find anything! | |
| | NyNexit
join:2009-11-01
Huntington, NY | Re: Scared themselves Thats like getting a raise ! Congrads ! | |
| | | | | Re: Scared themselves I know, better than that. I haven't had to cover a car payment since we cut the cord. The difference saved is almost the whole payment. Once people realize the savings associated with cutting cable services and moving to internet tv there will be mass exodus from Cable services.
Right now we use a regular PC, but there a couple really cool companies with internet tv components for Cord Cutters. One is a company called WhiteHatt, which looks promising. | |
|
| |  huh? i love hulu...
it's not perfect but they have a good amount of content. most shows i can watch the entire current or previous season and they have a few movies as well. i havent had many complaints | |
|
| |
|
|
·
heres the deal
