Do not want...

Yeah, i am not sure this will go over so well. Will they stop playing commercials then? I guess then they would be more related to netflix, but most of the allure of the site was the price, or lack therefore of.

And people will just go back to torrenting. Good stuff, Hulu.

I am going to miss their format. I signed on last Christmas and I felt like I was the only one watching Hulu at the time. It was cool to be a beginner for this service and in fact, there was only one commercial and it got played to the point that it drove me nuts. It was that "inventor's" commerical. The next commercial that got aired was "feed the pig".

All I ever remembering seeing from Hulu was a bunch of 2 minute clips from episodes. nothing worth paying for

@LeChiffre: Correction. I think that "inventor's" comm was for another site because it went on too long, but the "feed the pig" comm was hilarious to me.

I've got mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I like how Hulu operates right now. I've ditched cable entirely. I get my TV through sites like Hulu, and certainly don't miss the gratuitous commercials. I can deal with the tiny amount of commercials for the free on-demand shows and movies. If they want to start charging for the content, then it's back to finding other various (unmentionable) means for getting the TV shows.

But, I could see why they wanted to offer some sort of premium service. Maybe charging a couple bucks a month for access without any commercials at all. But if they're going to do that, then they'd better do away with their "We can only show five rolling episodes" restrictions. And expand their line-up. If they play their cards right, keep the costs down, and offer next-day TV shows, I could see them competing with Netflix and other similar pay services. (But I'd still want to see them release the TV shows for free, maybe on a week delay or something.)

@G.O.B.: Come on!: Hulu NEEDs to make money. Streaming video costs money and Ad revenue for the site probabaly isnt that great, so charging for content is the next step.

Most likely, they will do a free membership which offers some stuff, and a premier membership that offers everything.

The way I assumed they would do it is the free membership can watch the shows they have currently, but they only have access to say two of the last episodes, but not the most recent episode (so if episode 10 shows today, they will have access to ep. 9 and 8) the most recent episode will be delayed a week. And Premier members will have access to ALL episodes of a season.

There will likely be select shows that are members only (becasue some shows just dont generate the profit needed to pay for their bandwidth).

Their content is 90% junk. Almost the entire movie section is movies no one watches.

The only shows worth watching are new episodes and those are all on torrents too.

If they want people to pay they need to kill the "last 5 only" or "one week later" limits and
change from streaming to saved downloads. Their site skips really bad at times which is only worth free.

@skizsrodt: You really think they are gonna stop paying for commercials? dude they are gonna be just like cable tv. You pay for TV but you still have a buttload of commercials. on some tv services, when your viewing the program guide, they also display banner ad's. They are out to make money. I bet commercials will still be there.

There is no way to avoid this. Hosting streaming media is expensive, you need tons of storage space, TONS of bandwidth, servers to host it all, and people to maintian it all. Ad revenue for specific shows is not going to be good sinec the demographic most likely to watch streaming video online is also the group that typically doesnt click on Ad (since they are so used to them) That is changing, but for now, to be profiable they need to sell the content.

@destynova: If any of you want foreign TV, try this site: [beelinetv.com]

I kind of know French, so I like to watch the French sports channel to bone up on my language skills because it is better than a classroom. And this is real French so you learn the real language, not the book kind. Anyway, it's cool to surf also especially if you have your pc hook up to a tv. You can find almost any kind of foreign tv that you want.

If it's cheap enough and they improve their player, it's worth it. They have a TON of shows, and several you can watch new episodes the day after broadcast. If it's not very cheap, you might as well just stick with cable.

This is compounded by the fact that your cable internet company may be throttling your traffic to them anyway...

I'm really sorry to hear this =[

I guess this means no more late night Hulu watching in my room before I go to bed. It was nice being able to watch shows that I normally aren't able to catch...guess i'm going to have to start using my DVR more =/

I guess we'll just have to see if they go through with it this time..

Whatever the reason they are changing it, it appears that I'm still going to drop them from my viewing habits.

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter: Hulu needs to make money. No one is refuting this. But Hulu is a supplement to these provider's regular broadcasts (with a few exceptions, like Dr. Horrible). They already make a profit via the regular airings.

Besides, people are freaking out about the cost of streaming, which breaks down to pennies per view/user. If it cost more than that, the model simply wouldn't be viable. It's not like they're hosting it on a shared GoDaddy server and paying $2/TB.

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter: But with Hulu ads, the advertiser knows that the viewer is watching (it is hard to get up and take a bathroom break during a single 30 second commercial), and if Hulu were realy smart, they could target the ads to the particular viewer, and therefore charge much more for the ad.

Because of the feedback that it offers, online adverising will soon be worth more than traditional television advertisements.

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter: I'm not sure if you've visited Hulu lately, but a lot of the shows they feature on there now are only available in limited quantities. For instance, a previous season of one show may be incomplete, compelling you to buy the DVD set to watch the missing episodes and defeating the entire purpose of the site. Another example would be a show like SNL, where they don't post full episodes, but instead post "clips." These clips cannot be put together into full episodes even if you wanted to.

NBC et al is forgetting all the reasons why they launched Hulu; no one was watching their shows on TV, they were downloading shows they were interested in from bittorrent, and people who did watch on TV were using DVRs to skip commercials. Hulu owners need to remember Napster and how when people had something for free and then were charged for it, they completely rejected it. History repeats itself; I'm not sure why Hulu thinks it will be the exception to the rule.

they will go out of business if they do this.

It is very easy for people to download tv shows for free and with out the ads. but they move to hulu because it is free but ad supported but instant on demand.

I pay for cable tv and have DVR and get the same shows on the DVR the only problem is I like watching tv while using the computer and I like all of the sound to come through my headphones. with hulu I can do this which is more convenient, but I have no problem with grabbign a small snack then taking some time off to sit in front of the tv and watch the recorded tv show on the dvr (with the added benefit of the content not being a week behind like hulu in many cases and I can skip commercials)

compared to what I have, hulu is not worth it.

there online and there many sites offering free viewing of tv shows. you cant charge for tv shows and not even give the quality and promptness of the free services. if you want to charge for something, it has to be better than the free stuff

a week late and 480p is not value when there charging for the service. especially when many other sites and tv groups are offering the same shows commercial free and 1080I (which is encoded in 1080p to get rid of the interlacing, and ready for watching within an hour of the show on tv ending)
if hulu wants to charge then they need to increase their quality to at least 720P and have the shows available for watching the moment they become available on tv and also keep all episodes up (because their current assholeness is removing the shows after a few weeks so if you want to get into a new show, you cant, for example there many shows that I want to start watching but I cant because hulu only has like 5-10 episode of the show that has over 70 episodes

hulu is just becoming greedy.

a better option will be a subscription where you pay a monthly fee and get to watch the shows with no ads

I would be fine with paying an affordable price for content. I want to pay for what I consume. But first off, I will not support Hulu if they make like the movie theaters and up ticket prices while they subject me to advertisements before the movie starts. If Hulu charges, there MUST NOT be advertisements, and there cannot be DRM. You can only inconvenience me in one way. I only have so many holes.

They need to understand that the success of Hulu is NOT access, but convenience. There is no longer a reason to tether consumers to a timeslot. Once Hulu becomes sufficiently inconvenient or pricey, the cost-benefit analysis drives users to buy a TV Tuner card or cave to the temptation of torrents et al.

Hulu needs to understand that most of its users are already paying for cable tv. Most internet monopolies (TimeWarner, Comcast) only offer high speed internet as part of a digital cable package. Therefore, Hulu is just a competitor for TiVo and OnDemand, not my cable tv provider. The fees need to be competitive with these services both in terms of cost and control over content. Otherwise, they will be replaced.

This makes me a sad panda. I love Hulu as it is, but if this is what they feel they need to do to succeed, I wish them luck. I will miss them though.

I understand the need to be profitable. Let's not forget though, in order to be profitable you also need to actually sell something people want to buy. If I'm paying for Hulu, I have several demands that I'm suddenly entitled to make (with some limited compromise between them):

1. I expect more popular shows- like "Top Chef", none of this nonsense about "Only one episode from Bravo is available every month". This goes as far as a much greater selection than stuff I can get on antenna as well.

2. I expect no ads. Ever. This was the promise of cable television and this was quickly broken. This was also the model of newspapers for the longest time- look where it's gotten them.

3. A la carte won't work for television. You can offer program selection and bundle offers, but the moment it's pay per episode you're competing with the iTunes Store- good luck with that.

4. You don't have to come to my house and hook things up to a massive local cable infrastructure. I expect it to be cheaper than cable.

5. I expect live streaming news channels to be on offer (even if I have to pay extra). CNN, Fox, Al-Jazeerah English (Comcast won't give it to me and they're the only game in town), and MSNBC.

6. You have to let me use your website when I'm overseas. If I have to pay a monthly fee, I want it to work every month I'm paying.

Like I said, I'm willing to compromise on any of these to some degree in favor of the others, but profitability is no excuse to offer unsaleable product that cannot compete with other alternatives. They have a good thing going, and I predict they will ruin it.

@AppleAlex: Besides clips they have full episodes/movies.

Oh well no big loss. Back to Torrents and Netflix.

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter: My argument is this: if you cannot support your business with your product, then your business will fail. So, if Hulu cannot maintain a website where they stream network shows supplemented with commercials and must charge their viewers, that's fine with me. They must, then, be prepared for utter failure, which is almost assured given what little we now know.

Google has no problem maintaining a massive streaming website like YouTube, so such an enterprise isn't impossible. I just don't understand why NBC thinks it's a good idea to take a previously free service and start charging users for its content.

@ZzFDKzZ: I imagine this is exactly what 90 percent of Hulu's user base is thinking.

It's just like a drug dealer: You get a taste for free but then you got to pay... this time it just happened to be nineteen months of free internet crack. Then paying.

I suggest the people of Hulu read the book Free by Chris Anderson. If they start charging, their viewership will drop so dramatically that they won't know what hit them, and they will find themselves in a heap of trouble. With the free model, you can't just jump from free to paid, people won't stand for it. A freemium model works ok, but if you start with ad supported, you'd better stick with that, otherwise you're going to go into a sinkhole.

I will not pay for Hulu. Period.

Do the Hulu people not know about Limewire and whatnot?
Seriously, they have their ads throughout the shows. Maybe if they dropped some of the crap from their site it would cost less to operate.

Do people really watch the movies on there? I alway just watch the TV shows.

I will welcome Bit Torrent back into my family with open arms.

One step forward; two steps back.

once again, the ads aren't enough money for them, and they get greedy. I mean.. if that's all people are willing to do (watch ads), then that's all you can charge. I doubt it will last long once they start charging. Netflix is much better, and worth the price, and downloading is always there as well..

@Thaddeus: except in this case, it's not that hard to find another dealer.

I'd pay for Hulu if it provided live streaming CNN. I gotta have my Nancy Grace. Yelling at her frightening program helps me get my rage out.

So dumb. I wonder if the people involved in this decision remember Napster.

I love being able to watch streaming content on my computer & TV, but I'm not spending a penny on Hulu. I already pay around $1,200 a year for cable, TiVo and Netflix. I'll go back to bit torrent in no time.

@karmaghost:
YouTube doesn't have to pay for content. I think you're forgetting that these shows cost money (lots of it) to produce and there are royalties and residuals that have to be paid to the actors, etc. YouTube is much easier to operate because it's based almost solely on user-submissions.

@flyingember: Can't expect much more since it's run by the networks. They are experts in turning crap into gold, and then rolling the gold in crap

Well, looks like it's back to the bittorrents for me!

The only reason I ever used Hulu was because it was easy, and because my queue automatically filled up with stuff I wanted to watch. Looks like it's back to downloading.

The reaction around the internet to this has been kind of short-sighted. To me it seems logical that they would offer older episodes of hit shows, and popular movies, for a premium. Current episodes and low-demand shows/movies will continue to be free and advertiser-based. Meaning, 90% of what you watch on Hulu now will remain free; the paid content will be additive. If the model ends up being any different than this, I'll be very surprised.

You're all dirty dirty pirates! How dare you mention BitTorrent! [/end sarcasm]

Fare thee well Hulu. I wish you well in your venture into pay-based service and losing much of your user-base. I for one will resort back to "alternative means" of watching my favorite shows.

I've grown to like Hulu a lot, and I would probably be willing to pay something to use it. But I would hope that paying customers wouldn't have to sit through commercials anymore (probably wishful thinking, I know).

@OrsonBarracuda: Yep. I will EITHER watch commercials OR pay, but I will not do both.

I like Hulu because it's easy to use and it's a legit way to watch shows where someone gets compensated.

If they make it hard (weird plug-ins, stuttering loads), or force me to pay, I just won't watch anymore. I don't have cable, I won't do torrents, I'll just quit watching entirely. It turns out to not be the end of the world.

that will be less time I spend on hulu.... now I have no excuse not to use my trx

@ein727: I've watched a few. When I'm just sort-of browsing for something to watch, I'll sometimes come across a movie I haven't seen (or haven't seen in 10 years) and I'll give it a shot while I grade papers or do light housework.

But, obviously, I'm not nearly committed enough to the movies to pay for them. It's just background noise, I could probably turn on the radio and get the same effect.

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter: The practice of charging for content will definitely spread. Newsday has announced a $5/month charge for online access. Others will probably follow. If a site can't make it financially using advertising, they'll have to charge and, of course, that will reduce their "viewership" so they'll eventually reduce content, and so on. There was a time when standard cable was almost all commercial free. Heck, there was a time when FM radio was almost all commercial free.

One of the big tests will be whether or not the aggregators (Drudge Report, Huffington Post and the like) will be required to pay copyright fees for content. Pretty soon, only the browsers will be free, and they used to be pretty expensive.

@G.O.B.: Come on!: yeah, my thought was "aaand hulu is now dead."

Bullcrapulose!

It ain't THAT good to make me pay for it...maybe they'll still have free episodes of stuff like aqua teen and family guy?!? (here's to hoping)

That site was such a tool. It only had stuff that was freely available on the networks' own websites, anyway. It only existed to make people feel like they were doing something non mainstream by going to hulu instead of fox.com.