Attention, thrifty PopWatchers: It turns out beloved home of full-lengthy goodness Hulu is not going to start charging after all. A source tells EW that the site’s rumored pay structure would only be in addition to its free content, not instead of it. And a collective “phew” was heard ’round the Internet.
Ahh, sweet relief. I too initially balked at the idea of paying for Hulu, but at a certain point, there are definitely things I’d pay for: Premium content night-of (especially if it was à la carte and not subscription-based), a wider selection of shows, and maybe mobile compatibility. Once upon a time, everyone balked at the idea of paying for TV — uh, hello? It’s free over the airwaves! — but then cable came along, and it was worth getting, so people did. Lightning could strike twice or something, right? Everyone used Napster for a good long time to share music for free, but now plenty of people use iTunes and buy legal copies of songs and albums: again, we pay for some stuff.
Hulu’s main competitors aren’t other paid sites like Netflix (whose streaming options are great, but supplementary to the company’s main DVD model). The site’s rivals are the endlessly accessible — but not legal — video sharing sites. Yeah, lots are riddled with malware or garishly bedecked in noise-making panel ads, but those episodes go up almost immediately, and the breadth of content is almost unbelievable.
At some point, some content is going to show up online that we’re willing to pay for with money instead of attention or time. That day doesn’t appear to be today, though. Will you revel in continued freeness with me, PopWatchers, or has your skepticism taken over?
Comments (1-30) of 33 Add your comment
Irrelevant to me and most of world as this only applies to the Americans!
So why comment snooty foreigner?
As long as they don’t charge for classics I will be okay – Rockford Files, Simon and Simon, Silver Spoons, Knight Rider
I hope they start posting episodes of the Mentalist
“to the Americans”. Um, maybe becuase almost all the shows are produced by Americans and hulu is an American company. Why comment?
Why NOT comment.I mean he has a point,but to Hulu’s defense they are working on getting international copyright laws in order to for the international audience to view there content. One more thing, guys stop being ignorant americans,i mean its not the ONLY country in the world.
Shut up, Moe. If you have deep seated anger towards Americans, that’s fine. But don’t discount valid points. Are all American owned websites discussing American Companies that feature American programming required to put the interests of Non-Americans first?
I agree with davidsask on this one. The Internet = The “World-Wide-Web”, so therefore when you have something available online it should be available globally, to all who has an internet connection. If these “ignorant Americans” want to keep this content to themselves, then I guess it’s off to BitTorrent for me, and may Piracy rein supreme!
(Please note, I don’t condone illegal downloading. I only download illegally when I have no other option)
@RL : So everything posted on the web has to pertain to everyone at every instance in every way?
In any case, I’m sure there are country specific availabilities to most things. I would highly appreciate being able to view many overseas shows, but am not able to due to country restrictions, so is it alright for me to write these countries off as irrelevant, or ignorant for not offering me, someone outside their core audience, their countrymen, some free way to watch their stuff? I get it legally by, you know, having an international satellite service. You only insult another country for not offering extended service to you, when you don’t even LIVE there, and say there is no other way for you to reach that content by no other means than illegally downloading it? Correction, there is no CHEAP way for you to reach that content, therefore you download illegally, and then go online and complain about ignorant Americans and argue semantics.
This is an issue that has nothing to do with “ignorant Americans” and everything to do with the complexities of negotiating international copyright laws. The ignorance comes from people on both sides of the issue opining about a subject they clearly do not understand even slightly.
So why respond?
An article I saw the other day said companies like Hulu will soon be forced to increase how many commercials per episode are shown on the site, so it seems like users might be pushed into subscriptions simply to avoid 234532343 commercials per show. I’m still wary.
I only go to Hulu because it’s free. I have a funny feeling that the only free content they’ll be offerring will be the stuff I don’t want to watch. It’s like when itunes introduced it’s new pay structure–they claimed a lot of tunes would be below the traditional 99 cents, but I’ve not seen one! Goodbye Hulu!
If they made premium content available for a price, I’d consider it. Like if they put Friday Night Lights on during its DircTv run, I’d pay for that. Same for some of the shows on HBO and Showtime. But, I doubt that’s what they mean.
I “phewed” before I even read the line about the collective “phew”. I work at home, and stream Hulu all day and have done it since first reading about in EW nearly 2 years ago!
If you sitting around watching Hulu all day under the guise of working at home, then I seriously want your job.
Paying for night-of might be the only temptation for me – I’m planning on getting rid of my TV and switching only to online viewing, but I am dreading not seeing the final episode of Lost the night it’s on…
okay this is good news! i don’t care about the commercials as long as i don’t have to pay to use hulu.
Yes, so long as the free content doesn’t decline in quality or quantity, this is a good thing. One thing I *might* pay for would be access to full seasons of shows, rather than the most recent 5 episodes that many current series have. I don’t know how streaming rights work, but trying to catch up on a show or go back and enjoy is frustrating when only 5 episodes are available. Having fees be a la carte would be a real necessity.
I’d be willing to pay for night-of content, commercial-free content, or for the ability to stream through my blu-ray player or something, so I wouldn’t have to hook my computer up to my TV. Of course, since I am a relatively cheap person, I wouldn’t want to pay too high a $ figure. If they do by-episode, I wouldn’t want to be charged more than $1 an episode, and if they do subscriptions, no more than $15. And not per show, but, like, for X amount of hours of streaming or something…
If they put HBO & Showtime shows on as their air I would pay. It would be worth a few dollars a week to not have to wait until next summer to watch Dexter!
I don’t mind HULUs commercial structure… It is better to see 4-6 commercial breaks that are only 30 seconds each then to watch on broadcast where you get 6 2-4 minute commercial breaks. HULU has become my source for watching TV. I gave up cable TV over a year ago and haven’t missed it at all. I like spending my cold winter Sundays catching up on all my favorite shows at one time. I save at least an hour of my valuable time by watching on HULU.
HULU offers the best CLOSED CAPTIONING for my wife, who is deaf. If the other sites offered CC as well, we would use them. As is, HULU is the winner and her connection to the broader culture.
Wow, that makes perfect sense to me dude!
RT
http://www.complete-privacy.at.tc
The only thing I would pay for to watch online would be shows from premium subscription cable networks like Dexter, True Blood, Weeds, US of Tara, etc… Getting those, without paying for the entire channel, and having them a la carte even, would be a great advantage. There have been so many times I’ve wanted to go and watch shows from HBO or Showtime online only to find the first episode available and you have to go buy the dvd’s for the rest…
All the tv shows I watch are American. About half of them aren’t showed where I am and I have to wait aages for new episodes of the rest. So internationally available Hulu would be nice. The fact I wouldn’t have to pay for it is even better.
My PS3/Playon, Hulu and Netflix combination is the perfect blend of current(ish) TV and DVD/streaming availability for my family. At less than $15/mo, I’ve saved about $40 that I used to spend on cable, and get way more content, on demand. If Hulu switched to a pay model for premium services, it might be worth getting, so long as I can keep it under the exorbitant fees the cable companies charge nowadays, even for “basic” service.
As an American living overseas, I can say that I certainly wish Hulu worked internationally. There is a legal and convenient way to stream American TV content (it’s called Slingbox), but since I don’t have a DVR hooked up to it I have to stay up until 4 am for an 8 pm show. Yeah. I only do that for major stuff like sporting events (which, thank goodness, are usually not primetime) or the season premiere of Bones.
We can’t watch iPlayer in America. The domestic/international copyright issue does not only apply to America. Getting the message “Currently all BBC TV programmes are available to play in the UK only” sucks, but I don’t see the point in complaining that a post was irrelevant to you. So what? The internet is not out to serve only you. “This post on relieving menstrual cramps is irrelevant to me because I am a man and this only applies to the Womans!” Well, I live in America and it was relevant to me.
Anyways, I was extremely worried about Hulu charging. Unless a company can replace the current model of cable TV subscription completely and not just supplement it, I doubt most people are going to pay an extra monthly bill for tv shows and movies.
I hope Hulu stays mostly free.
One point from the post that is not 100% accurate I think. Most people get cable television not for the content, but for the reception. In many places you just cannot get over the air signal and must use cable to get anything.
Hey! Non-Americans! I watched shows from Canada on Hulu. “Stone Undercover” was a detective show, and I kept up with “The Listener” which was on American television and made by a Canadian company, and was canceled. So, Shut It! We’ll watch anything if its Good!
“And a collective *phew* is heard around the Internet,” indeed.
I’d thought for a while that maybe they were just toying with us to get rid of all the (admittedly asinine) complaints about commercials. We watch hulu with commercials, because that way, we can watch it freely, legally, while supporting the programming and still watching it whenever we want without paying for TIVO or spending time programming our recorders. I think they might have let us believe for a little while that they were going to start charging for everything, just to get us to realize that.
(OTOH, one can only take so many Latisse commercials in a day, so in that sense, I can understand people’s complaints.)
>>but then cable came along, and it was worth getting<<
That's a matter of opinion of course.
Back in the early days of cable (70s & 80s), people signed up to get clear reception. And we were all happy to celebrate the end of the barely watchable picture with snow, ghosts, and the other anomolies of analog over the air TV gone. The additional content that was not availabe over the air was just a bonus.
Now, with the switch to digital broadcasting, that's all changed. With the same UHF/VHF antenna you had on your roof 25 years ago, "bad" over the air reception is pretty much a thing of the past. Depending on your distance from the local broadcast towers, either you get the station crystal clear or you don't get it all all. If you are at the very fringes of the signal's strength, you might notice some occasional pixelization. like watching a dirty DVD, but mostly, it's an all or nothing situation.
I'll wager that at least half of current Cable and FIOS subscribers
can now get perfect reception with an antenna and rotor that could be purchased for what you spend on 3-4 months of the typical
rebroadcaster's charges.
The question is, would you be willing to give up the cable only networks to get free TV? I did, but it's certainly not for everyone.
And the other question, relating to HULU is, will the TV networks be willing to give up half of their cash cow? The answer is NO! The networks have been getting paid from both ends (advertisers AND viewers) since cable was deregulated in the 80s. They are not going to give up the "viewer" end just because the Internet came along. Remember, the networks own Hulu. Sure, they might continue to offer the major network (Broadcast) shows without charge, because they know that many of you can get those free anyway for the cost of rabbit ears or a rooftop antenna. But they will eventually find a way to charge people for the "cable only" networks.
What you're hearing about today is only a temporary repieve.
to the people who say because it’s the WWW, it should be available globally and that we americans are being greedy, etc, etc, etc….
Um. idiots, the BBC is doing the exact same thing. nobody outside of the UK can view their precious content online. (obviously bittorrent is available)
I for one would gladly pay for some extra services of hulu, such as when a show comes out that day, you can watch it on hulu the same day, instead of waiting a day to watch it then. I use hulu to watch a lot of current tv shows but I live in an area of bad digital signal reception.