Is this the end of HULU on Boxee?

[Slayher]

Looks like Hulu on Boxee might not last much longer.
From the article.


There's bad news for Hulu lovers as well. Murdoch also said News Corp is considering either a pay-per-view or subscription model for Hulu. "No final decision has been made," Murdoch said via Webcast at an investor conference today. The WSJ itself reports that subscription offerings will roll out for media content before the end of the year

http://www.tuaw.com/2009/09/15/wsj-to-start-charging-for-iphone-content/

[DPK]

I'd actually pay for a Hulu subscription if it gave me access to content quicker and more of it. None of this wait a month for another season of something to appear for a show that's been off the air for less than a year.

* cough * Stargate * cough *

The fee also has to be realistic, simillar to Netflix. If it's an exorbitant fee, count me out. Hulu has a great thing going, but it may suffer from corporate greed soon enough and falter off a cliff if they aren't careful.

[bmoura]

Looks like Hulu on Boxee might not last much longer.
From the article.

http://www.tuaw.com/2009/09/15/wsj-to-start-charging-for-iphone-content/

A bigger question is whether people will pay for Hulu. I have my doubts...

[marcel]

still a long way off yet ..

[vdubeau]

Could be good for Boxee. If they go with a reasonable subscription price, there should be nothing to prevent Boxee and Hulu coming to terms.

[samcraig]

I can say this, if they start charging i wont be using them. i will just use the content providers websites "nbc abc fox" why pay for hulu when we have this wonderful program called boxee that can put all the content in one place like hulu does

[boralyl]

I'd pay if it was reasonable. This would be the closest thing to À la carte cable, which will never happen with my cable provider. It's already a nice service, since I can watch what I want, when I want. If they kept seasons around with the paid version, I'd be fine w/ paying them instead of my cable company.

[DPK]

I can say this, if they start charging i wont be using them. i will just use the content providers websites "nbc abc fox" why pay for hulu when we have this wonderful program called boxee that can put all the content in one place like hulu does

What will you do if all the content providers decide to go a route where their content is only available via Hulu? Basically axing their free streams because it is costly to maintain it themselves and let Hulu do the work for them? If Hulu ends up paying the content providers more for the exclusivity of content, it all just ends up being dollar signs to the CEOs of these companies.

[kcc1982]

I would probably use torrents more. Also depends on the amount. It would probably be cheaper then what I pay for cable.

[DPK]

Torrents are a whole different issue. I was referring through "legal" channels.

;)

[samcraig]

the whole reason hulu has so many subscribers is because its free. i have an htpc that can record whatever i want yet i still use hulu instead of recording just because it saves me hard drive space. if the content providers start charging for free ota content i think they would lose more then they made. besides even if they do i still have newsgroups and bittorrent on my computer somewhere. guess ill have to whipe the dust off em and put them back to work :)

[majesticx]

I would be careful when flinging the word legal around.. Keep in mind that Boxee was created from a once illegal platform called XBMC. The concept of online streaming and video downloads was and is to this day created by hackers that felt that the corporations where not catering to their needs. This combined with their incredable need to gouge us at every oportunity they get is what started the whole digital movement. It has been prooven that if you don't price your product within what people are willing to pay, they will find other ways to get what they want.

If you provide a worthy product at a price they are willing to pay, there is no need to use illegal methods.

The idea of streaming videos online was started in the porn industry.:cool:

[Tom Dibble]

Hulu is where it is now because it is:

1. Convenient (moreso than a DVR which requires some level of forethought and media management)

2. Ubiquitous (can catch the next episode wherever you have an internet connection)

3. Free (duh)

4. Better than some competitive Flash players

On the other hand, it keeps the rest of the industry in business because it is:

1. Mediocre quality, high-CPU-demand Flash video

2. Sometime just a plain slow server

3. Ad supported.

Take away item (3) in the plus list and you'll need to take at least one away from the minus list. And, note: the difference between $1 / month and free is HUGE.

IMHO, if Hulu goes pay, I'll shift most of our Hulu viewing over to iTunes/AppleTV and DVD purchases. Hulu is nice for the I-don't-care-what-it-looks-like shows, but only because it costs us nothing.

[Constrictor]

A bigger question is whether people will pay for Hulu. I have my doubts...

I would.

I currently pay $60+ a month for Dish Network with DVR service only to watch and record maybe 8-9 shows. I have my favorites on the network channels, Discovery, and a couple other channels.

If Hulu (or someone like them) had a pay service where I had access to all shows on any channel where I didnt have to remember to program a DVR and I could access the shows from any computer, at any time, I would gladly pay $20-$30 a month for it. Even if it wasnt a "live" service in that I couldnt watch the shows as they air, that would be fine with me as I travel a lot and watch 90% of my shows after they air.

As you can see, there is a wide variety of people out there who have wildly different TV habits. The days of blocking off a time slot in your schedule to sit on the couch and watch your favorite show is over.

I would prefer hulu stay free, but if it can evolve to a service which allows me to cancel my satellite TV, I'll be the first to sign up!

[bmoura]

I would.

I currently pay $60+ a month for Dish Network with DVR service only to watch and record maybe 8-9 shows. I have my favorites on the network channels, Discovery, and a couple other channels.

If Hulu (or someone like them) had a pay service where I had access to all shows on any channel where I didnt have to remember to program a DVR and I could access the shows from any computer, at any time, I would gladly pay $20-$30 a month for it. Even if it wasnt a "live" service in that I couldnt watch the shows as they air, that would be fine with me as I travel a lot and watch 90% of my shows after they air.

As you can see, there is a wide variety of people out there who have wildly different TV habits. The days of blocking off a time slot in your schedule to sit on the couch and watch your favorite show is over.

I would prefer hulu stay free, but if it can evolve to a service which allows me to cancel my satellite TV, I'll be the first to sign up!

If Hulu charges, do the ads remain as well? Or would the charged version be ad-free?

[DPK]

If Hulu charges, do the ads remain as well? Or would the charged version be ad-free?

They'd be fools to charge you and then put ads in there still. I'm all for paying for Hulu (within reason), but I don't want to see any ads in my video or else I'll go find my media elsewhere.

Hopefully premium Hulu has no ads, perhaps better quality video, and better/more content access.

[KSU_ToeBee]

Yeah I think I could see paying a small fee for Hulu if it came to that. Especially if it got you 720p content without ads. I am already seriously considering dropping my $75/month cable service, mostly because their encryption of digital content prevents me from recording in HD on my mythtv box anyway. CableCard FTL!

[Slayher]

They'd be fools to charge you and then put ads in there still. I'm all for paying for Hulu (within reason), but I don't want to see any ads in my video or else I'll go find my media elsewhere.

Hopefully premium Hulu has no ads, perhaps better quality video, and better/more content access.

We pay for cable TV and still have to sit through 15 minutes of ads for a 30 minute show, I say we're the fools for letting them get away with this.

I have created a Hulu replacement for my own personal use, it has all of the latest TV shows and movies, it's 100X better than anything they'll ever provide even if I paid for the service, they can shove their business model up their ass.

[bmoura]

They'd be fools to charge you and then put ads in there still. I'm all for paying for Hulu (within reason), but I don't want to see any ads in my video or else I'll go find my media elsewhere.

Hopefully premium Hulu has no ads, perhaps better quality video, and better/more content access.

If the cost is minimal and the ads go away, it could be interesting.

My guess is the Hulu owners are not thinking of that. But rather of keeping the ads and charging. That wouldn't be of interest here.

[DPK]

If the cost is minimal and the ads go away, it could be interesting.

My guess is the Hulu owners are not thinking of that. But rather of keeping the ads and charging. That wouldn't be of interest here.

I agree completely, but I guess we'll have to wait and see. If they charge and they still throw ads in to the mix or something equally annoying I have no sympathy. They have a good thing going, but the internet is a fickle population that will turn on any one/company in a heartbeat when it feels it's been shafted.

I have noticed that Hulu is ramping up the ad numbers lately. Now you have to sit through sometimes 2 commercials before a show begins and there are usually longer and more frequent commercial breaks. They might be experimenting to see with what they can get away with in terms of ad sales before rolling out anything "premium".

[rgreen]

All the posts that cite one of the advantages of Hulu is "free" are totally wrong. You either pay cable, pay VOD or watch ads. Watching ads is not free. A subscription model would certainly eliminate the ads.

Hulu has done a terrible injustice to the entire model by educating the public that you can watch only 25% of the ads compared with network TV and make a business out of it. Well they can't and that is why subscription is coming.

Rights holders, content makers, distributors (this is boxee) need to make a living and so you must pay by watching ads or paying a subscription. Torrents are nothing more than going into a store and shoplifting.

[driverdave]

Torrents are nothing more than going into a store and shoplifting.

no, sharing certain content via BitTorrent can be in violation of copyright law.

nothing is stolen when copyrights are not adhered to.

stealing and being in violation of copyrights have nothing to do with each other.

[Slayher]

You either pay cable, pay VOD or watch ads. Watching ads is not free. A subscription model would certainly eliminate the ads.

I would say paying for cable is considered a subscription, and we still have to watch ads. Screw them! they got enough of my money.

[Kurelgyer]

Most here are probably too young to remember the beginning of subscription tv.

I grew up in Detroit. Before cable and the internet the only way to get tv was with an antenna. That's a metal rod on your roof that receives radio waves. TV was ad supported only.

In our area, the first subscription service was "On Tv". Late 70's to early 80's, I believe. On TV provided ad free content for a monthly fee via scrambled radio waves. You had to have a special antenna on your roof and a receiver. As the cable tv infrastructure was put in place, On Tv was quickly over run.

Cable Tv started as an ad free subscription based service. As it went mainstream and had a larger audience, ads started to creep in. Eventually, no one knew any different, and it became accepted.

Hulu started with very few ads. Over time the ads have increased, and will continue to increase. I'm sure there has been extensive study as to the maximum number of ads the majority of viewers will watch. I also believe it will move to a subscription service WITH ads. Just as has happened in the past.

The internet is just another means of delivery. First the antenna, then a cable, then a satellite dish, and now ethernet. The only difference today is the competition from easy to access bootleg sources. Only a small fraction of the population has the know how and drive to circumvent the legal delivery methods. My mom, dad and even younger sister don't have a clue what a torrent is. Present them with a no-brains delivery method and they'll, without question, pay a subscription and watch ads.

[rampantoctopus]

Today, Hulu's CEO Chase Carey announced that the pay model will happen, most likely in 2010.


Interestingly, at the TVWeek Innovation360 Conference last week, Jeff Bewkes, chairman and CEO of Time Warner, said that Hulu would eventually go to a pay model. "That's not an if," Bewkes said, "that's a when." Looks like "eventually" is coming sooner than later.

http://www.tvweek.com/blogs/tvbizwire/2009/10/hulu-to-charge-viewers-money-i.php

[gallatin]

I have noticed that Hulu is ramping up the ad numbers lately. Now you have to sit through sometimes 2 commercials before a show begins and there are usually longer and more frequent commercial breaks. They might be experimenting to see with what they can get away with in terms of ad sales before rolling out anything "premium".

This may be a stupid question, but if the ads got out of hand, could they be skipped in Boxee? As I understand it, there is a flash video stream for the show, and then the stream periodically changes to display an ad, and there is some flash code which is responsible for the countdown, etc. It seems like it would be easy for boxee to buffer ahead, and allow ff/rew.

Hulu on Boxee was too slow for me (atom, linux, shows took 2-3 minutes to start) and ff/rew never worked for me at all (regardless of commercial status), so I have my own hacked up solution where I "record" the streams from my playon server using my own UPnP client written in perl. This gives me an mpeg2 file that I can fast forward in, and allows commercial skipping.

Drew