HULU Paid Subscriptions!...would you pay for Hulu?

[HappinessNow]

Hulu is considering paid subscriptions for their service (reference (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2358343,00.asp)), would you pay for Hulu?

[earthpigg]

if .torrents vanished from the planet, we could talk.

we all get to watch unlimited movies and tv anytime we want, as often as we want, however we want, on whatever display we want.

the only thing that makes hulu appealing is that it saves us a step or two in the process. in exchange, we accept advertisements.

[gnomeuser]

Provided they give me unlimited access to all TV shows for as long as I pay my subscription fee I am willing.

I would though worry that they would only allow access for a limited time to encourage buying of DVD sets (which I already do) or have a severely limited selection and only allow me to pick a few shows based on the subscription model. Mostly though I fear that they will never solve their licensing insanity so that I would never be able to get Hulu here in Denmark (or say if I move to another country be unable to take my full catalog with me).

I would also enjoy a service akin to my.mp3.com offered, let me register the DVDs I own and let me access them anywhere.

Finally I would wish for them to move away from Flash towards Silverlight (without DRM naturally). I am sick and tired of Flash.

[d3v1150m471c]

surfthechannel, unplug, torrent... Nope

[schauerlich]

if .torrents vanished from the planet, we could talk.

Not everyone has torrents available, like those of us on university internet.

[earthpigg]

Finally I would wish for them to move away from Flash towards Silverlight (without DRM naturally). I am sick and tired of Flash.

why silverlight, and not html5 <video>?

[Warpnow]

Only if...

1. It were cheap.

2. It could fully satisfy my TV watching needs akin to satelite, ie, no shows are absent.

3. Its desktop app became much better, and my subscription should include a remote control. ;)

4. Shows appeared on the site -on time- rather than 24 hours after their normal airing. I'm not paying to wait for a network show I can get via antenna, or..torrents.

5. No limits or expirations on what I can view of any kind.

Other than those requirements being met, I would not pay a dime.

[fjf314]

Provided they give me unlimited access to all TV shows for as long as I pay my subscription fee I am willing.

I agree. Unless the price was insanely low, I wouldn't consider paying for a service which I would only use in the instance where I happened to miss a show that I regularly watch.

[Techsnap]

Since it's not available in the UK I wouldn't mind paying a reasonably priced subscription to use it over here, there are some good shows on there.

[gnomeuser]

why silverlight, and not html5 <video>?

I believe that it is a technically superior option, and I find it interesting I admit.

HTML5 is probably also a fine option but it has some problems in my experience. Firstly there isn't an agreed upon standard codec.

Silverlight provides this, if you need a licensed copy of these codecs they are provided for you, under the same basic terms as if you would buy a supported codec for gstreamer from Fluendo (a fine offering btw. As a beta tester for these I have mostly had good experiences.). Only this is a zero cost experience for the user, Microsoft pays the licensing fees. If you want these completely free (though potentially patent infringing in some countries and thus not suitable for shipping to everyone) by compiling against ffmpeg which is supported. If you prefer GStreamer building is a backend for this would be a beneficial contribution to the project which should be encouraged, it just isn't something anyone is working right now. Free feel to work on this.

These concerns would also apply to HTML5, with no good solution distributions can ship support for legally and the active trend going towards codecs that aren't distributable (namely h.264). This is a common struggle and should not be what puts you off from Silverlight as a technology nor use it as an argument against it. We both win if the user has open access to the codecs in as many ways as possible, this is only improved by openness. Just look where music is today as a result of CDs being so open as a platform, we got used to having it at hand at all times. It drove new technology, new ways of enjoying music, new kinds of music. More music is being enjoyed, bought and we have a greater diversity and more outlets for artists. Open is good, we agree.

What is being worked on and is already implemented with Silverlight 3 and Moonlight 2 is support for additional codecs, there are restrictions on the implementation, for security concerns. The restriction in question is that codecs must be managed and does not forbid open implementations. There is already support in Moonlight for Vorbis and Dirac (potentially more but these I recall presently).

Secondly HTML5 isn't all that fast in my experience. I am using Wave, a complete HTML5 experience in Chromium (which supposedly has a Javascript engine specifically built for running such big applications). It is slow as balls and as a result of it completely unusable. If we want something to be a success it has to be a good experience, so far I am not convinced HTML5 will be a good candidate for a long time on this front. The standard is still unfinished (though admittedly probably also close to being final and implemented in several browsers).

Thirdly HTML5 doesn't naturally extend the same framework from the web and offline meaning you have to learn 2 skillsets to work with both and negotiate an interface when you want to interact. With Silverlight you can use the same framework to build both desktop and web applications, and you have a wealth of languages to choose from.

I think it's cool, I would like to see where people can take it.

[ankspo71]

Honestly, I would rather buy a tv tuner card and watch television on my computer. But if the price is cheap enough, I might consider it. I might consider paying for last.fm too, if they decide to stop the free US radio subscriptions.

[Warpnow]

Honestly, I would rather buy a tv tuner card and watch television on my computer. But if the price is cheap enough, I might consider it. I might consider paying for last.fm too, if they decide to stop the free US radio subscriptions.

Except Hulu has alot of content only available on cable, and more not available anywhere else, suggest as shows no longer airing.

[Jesus_Valdez]

Since it's not available in the Mexico I wouldn't mind paying a reasonably priced subscription to use it over here.

[hellion0]

Not a chance. I don't pay for TV as it is, I'm not starting now.

[Starlight]

Since the free one isn't available here where I live, I wouldn't want to use a paid one... fortunately, there's usually a way to find stuff somewhere else for free.

[SuperSonic4]

Since it's not available in the UK I wouldn't mind paying a reasonably priced subscription to use it over here, there are some good shows on there.

UK tv is shite anyway...

I'd not pay, not withstanding the fact my bandwidth sucks but because anything I want to watch I can record

[Zoot7]

Not everyone has torrents available, like those of us on university internet.
Plenty other options available. ;)

[Techsnap]

UK tv is shite anyway...

I know, apart from Harry Hills TV burp and the odd movie, I only really watch NCIS on FX on a Friday night, apart from that there's nothing but crap on.

[lovinglinux]

Provided they give me unlimited access to all TV shows for as long as I pay my subscription fee I am willing.

Me too. I pay U$ 38 for my satellite subscription, because I have no other option, but I rarely watch most of the channels. In the best scenario, there is a 2 months delay between a series being aired in th US and here, but it can be as long as 7 years. Additionally, most shows are dubbed, which is awful. Not to mention reruns, insane amount of commercials...

So, provide an "all-you-can-eat" package for U$38 bucks and we have a deal. Were do I sign?

BTW, I think Hulu should be free for US citizens and should provide all access paid subscription for International users. I believe this way would be fair, they would make a lot of money and everyone would be happy.

[falconindy]

I believe that it is a technically superior option, and I find it interesting I admit.

HTML5 is probably also a fine option but it has some problems in my experience. Firstly there isn't an agreed upon standard codec.
A positive, imo. No need to re-encode your video in a proprietary format. The majority of users out there already have support for the popular codecs (h264, ogg, divx...). The silverlight proprietaries are restrictive (just itching for DRM) and not everyone has the ability (i.e. knowledge and/or access) to replace this with something free like ffmpeg.


Secondly HTML5 isn't all that fast in my experience. I am using Wave, a complete HTML5 experience in Chromium (which supposedly has a Javascript engine specifically built for running such big applications). It is slow as balls and as a result of it completely unusable. If we want something to be a success it has to be a good experience, so far I am not convinced HTML5 will be a good candidate for a long time on this front. The standard is still unfinished (though admittedly probably also close to being final and implemented in several browsers).
HTML5 != Javascript, even though the two will go hand in hand as JS slowly becomes the de facto standard for web apps. Google Wave, while being largely HTML5, is still extremely beta. One bad (beta?) egg shouldn't spoil the whole. Have you signed up for Youtube's HTML5 beta?


Thirdly HTML5 doesn't naturally extend the same framework from the web and offline meaning you have to learn 2 skillsets to work with both and negotiate an interface when you want to interact. With Silverlight you can use the same framework to build both desktop and web applications, and you have a wealth of languages to choose from.
This doesn't make any sense. HTML5, in reference to embedding video, is merely a few extra HTML tags with some options. You have the ability to extend HTML5 into Javascript for more robust control. Frankly, I think its a cleaner solution because it allows software/codecs normally used offline to be integrated with your browser in place of specialized plugins used specifically for your browser. Win win, imo.

[doorknob60]

Nope, we pay $70 a month for TV (including all the set top boxes), I think 124 channels in Standard Def and 57 HD channels is plenty, especially with DVR. I ma9inly watch sports anyways, so Hulu doesn't help there, I need my Comcast SportsNet :P

[Chronon]

I agree. Unless the price was insanely low, I wouldn't consider paying for a service which I would only use in the instance where I happened to miss a show that I regularly watch.

According to the linked article, the proposal would retain free availability of the 5 most current episodes of currently-aired programs. So, you wouldn't end up paying under this use case anyway.

I'm sure I would continue to use it to watch what I could for free. The ratio of program time to advertising time is much better on Hulu than over the air, so I would probably opt to continue using their free service. I doubt I would subscribe to their paid service, though.

[Uncle Spellbinder]

I wonder if Hulu might pay ME?

[yester64]

It boils down to what content you get.
Netflix has already a lot of content available. If you like me and like older stuff too, its the perfect match.
Hulu (last time i checked) did not have everything what would be theoretically available on demand.
If i can see all the StarTrek's then i might be willing to do, otherwise it's not a deal.
Also if it does not work with Linux, it's not an option either.
So i have mixed feelings. In general i don't mind to pay if i get something in return i want.
TV as it is now, sucks pretty much. I will have to check Hulu again.

It does work with Linux. Nice.

[Frak]

why silverlight, and not html5 <video>?
Content delivery is much more efficient on a managed player than via raw servings. Anywho, I agree that Silverlight would be a much better implementation than Flash. Silverlight was built for video, and does it very well.

As for Hulu, they show ads, I'm not paying a dime. It's one or the other, I'm not going to let them charge me money for a sub-prime service unless they give me unlimited access with 0 ads.

[Uncle Spellbinder]

...As for Hulu, they show ads, I'm not paying a dime. It's one or the other, I'm not going to let them charge me money for a sub-prime service unless they give me unlimited access with 0 ads.

SPOT ON!

You hit the nail squarely on the head.

[Warpnow]

SPOT ON!

You hit the nail squarely on the head.

Course, that's exactly what cable/satelite (most channels) does.

[Uncle Spellbinder]

Course, that's exactly what cable/satelite (most channels) does.

MANY channels on cable are commercial free. And those that aren't are specialty, non-major network channels that can only be received via cable/satellite.

If HULU were to ever start charging for something that has been free since it's inception, that will kill it. Period.