• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Free Era Of Hulu Ends May 24

HULU blows. Everytime I tried to use it, the videos would be all jerky and look as if they were playing frame by frame. Other websites with videos...no problem. And now they wanna charge for their crap?
 
Am I misreading this, or does it only apply to old episodes? I've always watched Hulu to watch recent things I missed on TV, and it doesn't sound like that's covered by this subscription deal.

- Trip
 
After reading this story I can honestly say goodbye to hulu!

Nice knowing you hulu!!
 
Hulu was one of the better streaming sites albeit far from perfect but with the Comcast/NBC merger looming this was a fairly foreseeable end result. No website can sustain giving away all that bandwidth to move video to millions of viewers with 2 :30 seconds ad for Dove soap and Target. With a content distributor soon to be linked with a network gateway, Hulu serves Comcast no purpose as a free model. It's precisely why they want control of both.

Hulu will need to make a substantial catalog available to it's paying members to justify the price tag. Personally, I think their timing is off with the flux the economy is in. Few are looking to add on yet another subscription model in addition to their all ready ballooning cable+cellular+internet+Netflix/Gamefly/etc expenses when keeping the lights on, the mortgage paid and insurance premiums also inch up into the stratosphere.

Hulu needs us a lot more than we need them and they will learn just as former AOL/Time-Warner did that the pay to play model for content is a difficult next to impossible chestnut to crack. So long Hulu, you won't make it past 2013 at best.
 
What will happen is as other sites make their streaming shows available for free, viewers will just
start bypassing the networks all together, along with the cable companies/websites
who charge for them. FreeSitCom.com will just draw the viewers who used to go to their
local NBC station through Comcast cable or on Hulu.

One day you will see the #1 most popular program in the country being a free web show.
 
Robnoxious said:
Personally, I think their timing is off with the flux the economy is in. Few are looking to add on yet another subscription model in addition to their all ready ballooning cable+cellular+internet+Netflix/Gamefly/etc expenses when keeping the lights on, the mortgage paid and insurance premiums also inch up into the stratosphere.
Click to expand...

Kinda how XM is acting since I let it expire on my car radio? First they offered to renew it for $12 a month, then $7, then $4.99, then with several months free. On their next telemarketing call I suspect they are going to pay ME to take it.
 
I think a lof people knew that the days of free website content would eventually come to an end. We are starting to see that now, not only with Hulu, but with rumblings that Foxnews may do the same. I think it could go two ways...it could snowball and everyone will jump on the pay bandwagon, or it could fail by those who attempt it, and then everyone will be hesitant to move in that direction. Should be interesting the next couple of years. One thing to be sure is web platforms have marketing this brilliantly, getting everyone hooked on free content and then adding the pay component. One positive might be better quality content overall.
 
I recall USA Today trying a pay model back in the late-1990s, when they first launched their website -- it was unsuccessful, as many people protested, preferring to get their news for free. As a result, USA Today's website became free, funded by ads.
 
The syndicated newsmagazine based on USA Today from the 1990's can be considered more successful than the pay-per-surf USA Today website.
 
I just paid $163 for a year of The Charlotte Observer. I pay close to $30 a year extra for the TV section, which I prefer over trying to navigate TiVo's listings when I want to tape something, plus there are stories, plus i get to keep it if it's on paper. And I'll need it when I go on vacation! No guarantee there will be a TV Guide Channel.

For $3.99 a month extra they'll let me read the news online! It looks just like the real paper.

Huh?

I rarely use the paper's regular web site, but I hope this isn't a sign of things to come. I rely heavily on the online papers because reading the real ones at the library is time-consuming (mostly for local news, since the Observer is my source for national and world news), and it's cheaper to print articles from the web site (by copy and paste, so I can take out all the excess) than to Xerox them, plus there's no guarantee I'll ever see the actual paper since libraries sometimes miss a few issues. This e-edition concept is becoming a concern for me because there's a history column that doesn't make it into the real paper I look at or online on the regular site. supposedly it'll be in the e-edition. I'm NOT paying for it. I hope the libraries will provide free access or at least request that section with the history column. The editor of that section has been emailing me the columns since the online database where I saw them was too expensive for libraries to continue.

The real worry I have is The Washington Post. The one library that keeps the papers long enough for me to read them hasn't been getting them lately. One other library keeps them a week but I don't go there every week. But Lisa de Moraes and Tom Shales have interesting TV columns. I read David Broder too, but the Observer doesn't print all his columns and other papers don't either. Another library keeps them longer but I don't go there much; it's too far.
 
It may be a little later than originally reported, but the subscription era of Hulu has officially begun:
http://www.techtree.com/India/News/Hulu_Introduces_Monthly_subscription_Service/551-112066-893.html

TV shows and movies streaming website Hulu has introduced $10 per month subscription ad-supported based service dubbed Hulu Plus. This video streaming service will feature all episodes in a season for select TV shows... The Hulu Plus service currently offers an invite-only review access and it will be launched officially in July.
 
vchimpanzee said:
I just paid $163 for a year of The Charlotte Observer. I pay close to $30 a year extra for the TV section, which I prefer over trying to navigate TiVo's listings when I want to tape something, plus there are stories, plus i get to keep it if it's on paper. And I'll need it when I go on vacation! No guarantee there will be a TV Guide Channel.
Click to expand...

Wow, the Arizona Republic is a huge bargain. I pay $65 per year, including the TV section (granted, I just get Wed/Fri/Sat/Sun delivery), but those are the important days. The website is free to all.

In addition, I just saw an add for $50 per year for Wednesday and Sunday delivery!! Of course, the Arizona Republic has very little customer service. If you don't get your newspaper, they won't redeliver it except on Sundays. You have to talk to customer service in Nebraska, who have no idea what's going on in Arizona.
 
So a service center in Nebraska handles home delivery of a newspaper from Arizona.

Well, at least they're not outsourcing outside the country... or actually, in this case, would it actually be considered "in-sourcing"?
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom