Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Hulu Plus Now Available To All — But Be Warned

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the plus-or-minus dept.

Media 348

itwbennett writes "Peter Smith outlines some of the things you need to know before plunking down your $10 subscription fee for Hulu Plus, which yesterday came out of its invitation-only phase and is now open to everyone. First off, don't assume that paying $10 gets you out of viewing ads like it does on Netflix — and there's no way to skip them. Second, yes, there's tons of content available on Hulu Plus, but it's not necessarily the same content as hulu.com. 'So if you've been watching a show on hulu.com and can't wait to watch it on the big screen via your PS3, stop a moment and check the Hulu Plus listings,' advises Smith. And then there's the issue of performance, which at least in the preview version has been less than perfect."

cancel ×

348 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

In b4 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34140192)

In b4 the eurofags whine that "available to all" is only talking about those in the US that this statement is being applied to.

Re:In b4 (0, Offtopic)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140378)

...and what about those people in South America, Canada, Mexico, Africa, Asia, Australia etc. etc.? I'm glad you've heard of Europe as well as the US but the world is even bigger than that....

Re:In b4 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34140688)

Great. You go communicate with the rest of it. I don't want to hear your whining.

Re:In b4 (2, Funny)

WilyCoder (736280) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140754)

Always easy to spot the alcoholics on the internet.

All? (5, Insightful)

meza (414214) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140202)

What is the definition of all here? Does it for instance include Europe or anything outside of the US? Before we haven't been able to watch anything on Hulu.

Re:All? (-1, Troll)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140234)

It's pretty obvious. You're either stupid or being intentionally dense.

Re:All? (4, Insightful)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140658)

Ah, so much like the definition of "world" when the US talks about the "World Series".

All generally does imply everyone. "All in the US" has a different meaning, because it adds specificity.

The summary doesn't specify one way or the other, and having not researched Hulu Plus fully, I didn't actually know if "All" meant "the world" or not - they have been showing me "we are trying to bring content to your region, please be patient with us" messages every time I see an embedded player on a webpage that tries to show me a Hulu video in the UK. For all I know, that's what Hulu Plus is about. I guess not.

Re:All? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140244)

It seems it still applies to the USA only. You can probably blame region-based content licensing for all these artificial limitations.

Yep. (2, Insightful)

name_already_taken (540581) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140432)

It seems it still applies to the USA only. You can probably blame region-based content licensing for all these artificial limitations.

Just like how we can't pay a British TV license fee and watch iPlayer content in the USA.

This is a US-based website. A few people need to realize that and get over it.

The tagline wording could have been better - ie. "Hulu Plus no longer invitation-only", but this is Slashdot - it's not like people expect (or ever see) high journalistic standards applied here.

Re:Yep. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34140610)

We are over it and are using eztv.it or newsgroups instead. Then we have our Popcorn Hour, Western Digital TV Live, Samsung TV or whatever. NAS boxes with download clients etc.
It is fun(and a bit shocking) to see that there's money in getting around those artificial limitations. It is amazing to see that big companies are now making products which primary function clearly is to show (and download) stuff that you can't get on your cable TV.

Re:Yep. (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140676)

Yes, but they do mention that they are trying to extend Hulu outside the US - that is the message displayed to me every time I see an embedded Hulu player on a webpage at least.

US Definition (3, Informative)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140326)

What is the definition of all here?

It's the US definition, similar in meaning to their definition of 'world' in 'world series baseball'.

Re:US Definition (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140386)

Or it's that the target audience of the story is American users of Hulu and thus it is only targeted to one group. Clearly no one in any other country uses the terms "us" or "all" to only refer to people inside their own country.

Context (2, Insightful)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140576)

Or it's that the target audience of the story is American users of Hulu

If the story was posted on a Hulu user site that might be excusable. Using 'us', if the writer was from the US, would be imprecise but not wrong. Were I posting on a site specifically linked to one country then yes, use of 'all' to mean 'all in that country' would be fine too. However using 'all' on an internationally read site to mean "only US" is just wrong. This site is supposed to be "News for nerds. Stuff that matters" not "News for US nerds. Stuff that matters to americans." If it were I would not be reading it.

Re:Context (-1, Troll)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140718)

*yawn* The story was only aimed at current users of Hulu. Since one has to be in the U.S. to use Hulu it is quite clear to anyone but people trying to be intentionally dense or are just plain stupid that the "available to all" was only aimed at people who can use Hulu which means only people in the U.S.

Using 'us', if the writer was from the US, would be imprecise but not wrong.

Why would it be wrong? People use the term "us" and phrases like "all of us" all the time to refer to only certain groups of people. And, yes, this is even done by people *gasp* outside of the U.S.

This site is supposed to be "News for nerds. Stuff that matters" not "News for US nerds. Stuff that matters to americans."

So then you equally whine about stories that are only relevant to people in the UK? Or in Germany? Or in Japan? I can find numerous such stories and I doubt I will see you whining about them.

Re:Context (2, Informative)

paintballer1087 (910920) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140736)

Slashdot seems to be very U.S.-centric. Do you have any plans to be more international in your scope?

Slashdot is U.S.-centric. We readily admit this, and really don't see it as a problem. Slashdot is run by Americans, after all, and the vast majority of our readership is in the U.S. We're certainly not opposed to doing more international stories, but we don't have any formal plans for making that happen. All we can really tell you is that if you're outside the U.S. and you have news, submit it, and if it looks interesting, we'll post it.

FAQ [slashdot.org] By CmdrTaco

Re:Context (1, Insightful)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140766)

Since when did "US-centric" mean "US-only"?

Re:Context (1)

BStroms (1875462) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140764)

But it is available to all. Sure you have to at least visit the US if you want to use it, but they won't stop you from using it just because you aren't a US citizen. But more seriously, I read British news sites such as The BBC and The Guardian. Just because people from other countries read it, doesn't mean it isn't allowed to be country specific. That said, as much as I usually dislike the complaining on this topic, in this specific case I feel some sympathy to your cause, as the summary really could cause confusion.

Re:US Definition (1)

Eric_ColonSlashSlash (1469177) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140406)

Its easy to be ms. universe with only yourself as a contestant... plus i hear the chicks in the next galaxy are hotter and more down to earth (grin)

Re:US Definition (1)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140456)

It's the US definition, similar in meaning to their definition of 'world' in 'world series baseball'.

The best baseball players in the world play in Major League Baseball-whether they be American, Dominican, Japanese, Korean, etc. So what's wrong with calling it the World Series?

Re:US Definition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34140708)

Well, imagine that the powers that be would have the brilliant idea to rename MLS to Soccer World Series. Calling MLB "World Series" is just as moronic.

In any event, I find it hillarious because even domestically a good percentage of the population doesn't give a rats ass about boreball - I myself can't stand it, and pretty much everyone I know thinks it's meh. Outside of the US and Cuba and a few nutcases here and there, no one gives a fuck about it.

Re:US Definition (1)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140720)

Last time I looked Cuba was part of this 'world' but somehow none of their teams are allowed to play despite the fact that (as I understand it knowing very little about baseball) they are supposedly better than many US teams.

If, as you claim, the best players all play in the US then what's the harm in having them compete against you. I mean a US team would win all the time right? Having a national championship is fine but calling it the world series would be like Britain calling the F.A. cup the "World Cup" in football.

Re:All? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34140332)

All the nations that participate in the World Series are included.

Re:All? (1)

TheCycoONE (913189) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140358)

That's not true, The Blue Jays participate in the World Series but Canada can't access.

Re:All? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34140424)

The Blue Jays used to participate in the World Series.

Re:All? (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140584)

So did cuba.

Re:All? (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140408)

Exactly what I was thinking. Hardly "everyone"..

What? Pay for TV online??? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34140246)

The whole point of watching TV online is to NOT pay for it.

Sounds....great?? (1)

Sprouticus (1503545) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140276)

So I pay the same as netflix just for the chance to watch crappy network TV? Ill opt to take my $10 elsewhere.

I bet this fails. Miserably. People will pay or watch commercials, but not both. They learned their lessons from the move to cable TV. Plus they expect more now.

Re:Sounds....great?? (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140370)

I am afraid that you're wrong. People expect less for more money these days. And they take it. Seems like somewhere along the line we got a whole civilization with a masochist-gen activated. It's the only way to explain the success of T-Mobile, Microsoft Windows, and Dr. Phill.

Re:Sounds....great?? (5, Insightful)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140390)

People will pay or watch commercials, but not both. They learned their lessons from the move to cable TV.

Except that they still pay for cable TV and they still watch commercials on it. If anyone's learned a lesson from the move to cable TV it's the networks learning that people will do both.

Re:Sounds....great?? (1)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140618)

They pay for cable because they are old fogies who don't want the intertubes to interfere with their TV. I think the market of people who will pay for internet, pay for Hulu, deal with getting a PC hooked up and browser open every time they watch, *and* sit through ads when all that is done will be much smaller than the market for cable TV with ads.

Re:Sounds....great?? (5, Insightful)

irondonkey (1137243) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140694)

Except that they still pay for cable TV and they still watch commercials on it. If anyone's learned a lesson from the move to cable TV it's the networks learning that people will do both.

My DVR says hi.

Re:Sounds....great?? (1)

farble1670 (803356) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140844)

If anyone's learned a lesson from the move to cable TV it's the networks learning that people will do both.

they'll do both when there 's no other option. with netflix and itunes and amazon VOD there are other options.

Re:Sounds....great?? (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140502)

$10/month will get you unlimited Astraweb [astraweb.com] . Or a 180GB chunk for $25 should last you at least a year if all you want it for is TV shows.

SickBeard [sickbeard.com] +
SABnzbd [sabnzbd.org] +
XBMC [xbmc.org]

Is damn near the best DVR solution I've ever seen or used. Only downside is you can't watch stuff "live" or catch up like you can with current DVRs.

And depending on your ethics and federal law you can:
feel bad about it, even though it's legal.
not feel bad about it because it's legal.
feel bad about it, because it's illegal.
not feel bad about it, even though it's illegal.

$10 one time payment to NZBMatrix has suited me well over a year. There are also other free providers. And if you're a risk taker (in the US) then you can also use it for torrents. But Torrents don't give me near the speed, plus you're technically uploading with them, so you could get nasty grams.

Re:Sounds....great?? (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140662)

I bet this fails. Miserably. People will pay or watch commercials, but not both. They learned their lessons from the move to cable TV. Plus they expect more now.

How many people complain when they pay their ISP for network access to watch Hulu which has ads? Do you think Hulu should not play ads because you pay the ISP for access to it?

Re:Sounds....great?? (5, Insightful)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140788)

You're paying the ISP to transfer the data, Hulu is providing the content which is supported by the ads. If you're paying the ISP for data, and paying Hulu for the content, then having to watch the ads seem to be a pretty poor deal.

Europe (2, Interesting)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140282)

Since I am from Europe that whole netflix and hulu-thing is beyond me. Why do you guys want to pay for this? You have torrents, youtube etc. What's on netflix or hulu that you just have to see? This is just a question from someone not familiar with these products and not intended as a troll or whatever. Just want to make that clear ;)

Re:Europe (1)

rotide (1015173) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140350)

For one, I'm just finishing Battlestar Galactica. I never saw it on tv so this is my first run through. I have watched the whole series (new one, minus the first 2 episodes that are disc only, go figure) on Netflix in HD. It's also a great way to watch random movies without having to sort through torrents, wait for them to finish, upload them to my htpc, etc. Also helps that I only get OTA programming. I also refuse to pay $80+/mo for TV.

Re:Europe (1)

BarryJacobsen (526926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140448)

The first two episodes are actually a mini-series (about 3 hours in total for the two "episodes"), presumably they have different licensing rights and that's why you can't watch them.

Re:Europe (1)

SaDan (81097) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140874)

You can watch them, you just have to watch them from DVD (available via mail from Netflix). They aren't available via streaming at this time.

Re:Europe (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140496)

I didn't realize you had to pay 80/month for tv. That's about whay I pay for a year. But I don't have a decoder so I have like 40 channels with crap instead of 400 channels with crap. I can understand the added value now btw of netflix, but I'm not concerned about torrents because I have a fast connection and in the Netherlands it is legal to download movies and/or music.

Re:Europe (1)

tivoKlr (659818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140566)

Once again, The Netherlands for the win!

Re:Europe (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140636)

If only they would say that on the European Songfestival :( No wonder we need all that marijuana here ;)

Re:Europe (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34140804)

Even though it may be legal, it is not morally right. The creators should be compensated.

If Hulu were available here, I would use it, watching the commercials and possibly even paying for Hulu Plus.

Re:Europe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34140606)

I'm just finishing Battlestar Galactica.

Stop halfway through the finale.

Trust me.

Re:Europe (1)

sockman (133264) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140414)

Legal movies?

It's great that Netflix bears the cost of buying the crap from Hollywood, and I don't have to spend more than $10/month to see some of it. I've watched some pretty awful movies, and been able to turn them off or return them at no additional cost for the next movie.

Re:Europe (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140526)

Ah ok, that's not added value to me because here in the Netherlands it is legal to download movies and/or music. If it was illegal that could be a good reason to buy their services. True.

Re:Europe (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140426)

It has to do with the people making the content trying to figure out how to get money for it. See they make movies, but the product they produce is effectively worthless: it can be copied with almost zero cost. So they spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to actually leverage their products to make money, when their products are by definition competing with a distribution service that comes well below their costs and thus has perfect position in a price war.

On the other hand, consumers also want those businesses to remain solvent not for any direct reason but rather for the simple fact that they want new movies and new seasons of the shows they watch. Consumers however don't want to pay; they also don't want to watch advertisements. Commercials are tolerable if they're long enough but not too long, because they're piss breaks or a couple minutes to go microwave something; unfortunately, businesses rely on revenue from selling advertising, and advertisers want you to stay and watch their advertisements.

It comes down to consumers wanting production but not wanting to supply consumption.

Re:Europe (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140438)

First of all, what is know as "high-speed" in north america (both Canada and USA) is far slower than what is known as "high-speed" in europe. You might be able to download a movie in a few minutes, but when you have to wait from 2 to 12 hours before you can start watching a movie, you'll choose legal streams instead.

Unfortunately, the selection of Netflix Canada is so bad that so far it's not even worth the 7.99$CAD they're asking for. Hopefully, the selection will get better in a while. I hate these limited licensing deals, our internet providers are also our content providers so they do everything they can to block any kind of competition. Free markets at work? I wish. Time for the CRTC to disappear.

Re:Europe (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140580)

Didn't knew about the internetspeeds. I do have 5mb available so a dvd is here in about 12 minutens, a iso rip about 5/6 minutes. And as I said earlier, it's legal here to download movies. But those are all valid points you mention. Combined with other peoples awnsers here, I'm starting to see why you like these services.

Re:Europe (3, Insightful)

cforciea (1926392) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140444)

The benefit to Netflix or Hulu over a torrent or youtube is that you get material that you'd have to break copyright law to obtain through these other venues. We pay for it because it is convenient and legal.

Re:Europe (3, Insightful)

Sepodati (746220) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140528)

This allows the masses to watch Hulu on their TV through a PS3, Roku or whatever else adds the option. I know that's trivial to computer geeks that have a computer hooked up to their TV already, but the geeks are in the minority. It's also easier for the masses versus downloading via torrent (ignoring the legal issues for now). Some things are worth paying a little for.

I already pay for cable and a DVR, so I don't see any need for this. It makes it slightly more plausible to cut cable entirely and just go with Hulu/Netflix/Internet for "TV" watching, though.

I also imagine that content will start to be exclusive to Hulu Plus as an enticement to getting people to sign up.

Re:Europe (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140630)

Yes, plugging in an HDMI cable from the computer to the TV is much harder than plugging an HDMI cable from the PS3 to the TV.

Re:Europe (3, Insightful)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140750)

That is not the issue at all. First of all your PC might not recognize your TV, you might need drivers, sound might not work over PC HDMI, or you have to go to sound properties and change things to get it to pump sound via HDMI. Then you get to the whole mess of how to control it (keyboard in the living room is unsightly), updates pestering you in the middle of a movie, need a new codec, it goes on and on. So NO it not just as easy as snaking a cable from your PC. I know all this becasue i spent the last decade trying to make a HTPC that is as easy to use as a plug-in piece of hardware.

Re:Europe (2, Insightful)

Rifter13 (773076) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140620)

It is more about doing things legally. Yes, I could torrent the shows I want to watch, but I would rather royalties go back to the studios that brought the shows to me, so they can go back and make more of that show. If you steal the shows you love, you kind of shoot yourself in the foot.

Re:Europe (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140802)

Well I can follow your reasoning. However I want to state this once and for all. In the Netherlands we pay 25cent on every blanco cdrom/dvd. In return we can fill them with music or movies. We already payed for it, even when not actually watching the movies. Besides, it's not stealing when you just open your eyes and watch something. You don't take anything away from anyone. So it's never stealing to watch a movie. Only when you make up a law that says: you cannot use your body the way it's meant to be, it can become stealing. From a law-point of view, because in the end the law is wrong and it still isn't stealing. You are just led to believe it is stealing. Now please pay 20 bucks to see this movie. Talk about stealing :) It's idiotic that 1 movie should have profits in the millions. About 2000, 3000 bucks pure profit would be more than enough to keep movies being made ;)

Because we live in Amerika. (4, Funny)

Lead Butthead (321013) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140624)

Why do you guys want to pay for this?

Because we live in Amerika, where politicians are bought and paid for by the big media companies. Unlike European countries (yeah, I am making a gross generalization here) where your politicians at least make an half-hearted attempt to protect your rights. Ours sold them at firesale prices to the content companies. So we're to either pay up or face insane fines and/or jail terms.

Re:Because we live in Amerika. (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140728)

Make no mistakes. Our politicians are at least the bitches yours are ;)

Re:Europe (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140626)

I will be more than happy to trade you Hulu for Spotify. Having the ability to listen and queue up any songs with a small subscription fee for no ads (even if I wanted to listen to the same song until my mind shut down), is far more useful than paying for ad-filled Flash content that I rarely have time to watch.

There is nothing like Spotify in the US, and it would be great to just stream stuff from my phone, rather than have to find the songs I want to hear and make sure they are loaded beforehand.

Re:Europe (1)

Nemesisghost (1720424) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140790)

Since I am from Europe that whole netflix and hulu-thing is beyond me. Why do you guys want to pay for this? You have torrents, youtube etc. What's on netflix or hulu that you just have to see? This is just a question from someone not familiar with these products and not intended as a troll or whatever. Just want to make that clear ;)

Because unless you do, you run the risk of severe copyright punishments, which can include removing your access to the internet. I know from personal experience the trouble that pirated TV shows can cause. There were several TV shows that had stupid delays on Hulu & I was not able to watch when they aired, so I decided to torrent them. I got a DMCA take down notice sent to my ISP, who promptly disabled my internet connection & refused to turn it back on for over a week while they made sure I knew what was happening(and because they are bonehead idiots who didn't know how to use their new DMCA walled garden). Until copyright laws are relaxed a bit we are stuck using crappy service that we have to be double billed for.

Re:Europe (1)

farble1670 (803356) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140870)

youtube has at most clips.

besides being illegal, torrents are not as convenient as going to a page and pressing "play".

Available to one country only, not to all (-1, Redundant)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140288)

A country that likes to call itself by the name of a continent, and to refer to itself as "the world" and "the free world", but just one country.

Re:Available to one country only, not to all (2, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140328)

The term "available to all" is talking about it being available to all people that regular Hulu is already available to. Yes, yes, we know for the 5 millionth time that it's not available to Europe, etc etc. Do we really need to beat this dead horse in every Hulu story?

Re:Available to one country only, not to all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34140398)

Yes, we Americans can be pretty chauvinistic, but your examples are slightly over the top.
Even the World Series is open to Canada, and the Cold War era term "leader of the free world" for the US president was intended literally.
But what about the Miss Universe pageant?

Re:Available to one country only, not to all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34140436)

2 continents, eurofag.

Make it $5/month (1)

stun (782073) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140296)

Make it $5/month and I'll get it.

Re:Make it $5/month (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140366)

So long as hulu 'plus' doesn't have all of 'hulu' content, non starter.

If hulu plus is a strict superset and ad-free or much cheaper, then I'll think about it.

My preference is that netflix get all the content and I'll happily ignore hulu altogether.

Hulu and Netflix only now for 2 months (1)

Eric_ColonSlashSlash (1469177) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140318)

I stopped my cable last month and have been happily using netflix and hulu plus for 2 months now.

netflix for all the old shows and movies. hulu plus to fill in for new episodes of shows.
no great solution for john stewart show, colbert, and bill maher yet... torrents?

sports is also a problem. I will miss HD Discovery and Nat Geographic as well.

I am so happy i am not supporting FOX and all the [STUFF] they force feed you in cable tv. Lets bleed that stuff out of money.
It feels good to ween off of cable tv.

Re:Hulu and Netflix only now for 2 months (2, Interesting)

Purpleslog (1645951) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140602)

"...have been happily using netflix and hulu plus for 2 months now..." - and - "...I am so happy i am not supporting FOX and..." Who do you think partially owns Hulu?

Re:Hulu and Netflix only now for 2 months (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34140714)

rss feed for torrent here:
http://eztv.it/shows/67/the-daily-show/ [eztv.it]
http://eztv.it/shows/53/the-colbert-report/ [eztv.it]

Or perhaps you rather want them in HD from newsgroups?
1) set up a free acount with a throwaway email here: http://www.nzbs.org/ [nzbs.org]
2) Subscribe to a newsgroup service
3) download and install sabnzbd+ http://sabnzbd.org/ [sabnzbd.org]
4) Configure sabnzbd+ to fetch rss feed from step one, and make wildcard search to get the shows you want.
It is actually a low maintainance solution after having configured it and tweaked your wildcard searches.

huluPLUS should be huluDIFFERENT (2, Insightful)

furrymitn (1681200) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140322)

skimming over the hulu vs hulu plus, it's a toss up of whether to pay: hulu vs hulu plus: last 5 episodes of current popular shows, whereas plus gives you all current season of 45 popular shows. 800 full seasons from hundreds of shows vs full series runs for over 90 shows Kinda seems like they should rename from huluPLUS(misnomer assumes you get hulu PLUS extras) to huluDIFFERENT

Re:huluPLUS should be huluDIFFERENT (1)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140732)

If you pay for huluPLUS can you not watch hulu regular? If they both have ads, will you notice the difference? Is there something else that implies you aren't getting your money's worth?

Even netflix/crunchyroll/etc don't have all their content in HD. Crunchyroll in particular uses the same pricing model (except for no ads if you pay): A lot of things are free with ads, but only in low def, and you get new shows a week late. If you pay $7/mo you get HD for any shows they have it, new shows when they air, and *no ads*.

So they basically spoiled it for the masses. (1)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140330)

Well, go figure that Hulu decided to spoil it now that the unwashed masses get a chance at it.

Hulu +/- (4, Funny)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140334)

So if it adds some content to Just Plain Hulu, but meanwhile doesn't include all of the content from Just Plain Hulu, wouldn't that it make it "Hulu Plus Or Minus"?

Re:Hulu +/- (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140420)

Welcome to fuzzy differential equations? ;)

Re:Hulu +/- (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140484)

Hulu 2.0: The Search for More Money*

With apologies to Mel Brooks.

Re:Hulu +/- (2, Funny)

N0Man74 (1620447) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140614)

wouldn't that it make it "Hulu Plus Or Minus"?

I'd say that would be more or less correct.

Re:Hulu +/- (1)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140698)

I'm guessing what the summary means is that just because you have Hulu Plus doesn't mean all the content will be available to watch on a device other than a computer (ie. PS3).

Re:Hulu +/- (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140836)

You misunderstand. The plus is from Hulu's perspective. From the perspective of Hulu the plus is that they make additional money from this version.

Re:Hulu +/- (1)

anexanhume (1375619) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140862)

More or less.

watch it on the big screen via your PS3? (1)

cindyann (1916572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140394)

Well, no, but I can watch normal Hulu on my big screen TV via the computer that's connected to it.

I saw that my Sony TV already had a "Hulu Plus -- coming soon" item its set of selections.

But I don't think I'm in a big rush to to sign up for Hulu Plus. As it is I barely watch Netflix; my wife watches it more than I do.

Not Worth It Yet (3, Informative)

Tenshigure (1105825) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140428)

After having been a part of the beta "testing" of Hulu Plus, I feel that the limited benefits they provide don't outweigh the costs just yet. For one thing, you still are having to sit through commercials (which have increased to 2x 60-second commercials at times); combine that with the fact that a good chunk of the shows I'd want to watch from Hulu.com aren't even available through the PS3 app nor on my iPhone, and I felt I wasted the two months I spent on the service. Sure, the fact you're not limited to 5 episodes back is a good feature, but it definitely isn't worth the $15 they're asking for. I know I could pick up PlayOn for a similar experience, but it really irks me that they can't provide several of these shows through their Hulu Plus apps but are perfectly capable of having them on Hulu Desktop.

Is this just one big joke? (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140468)

I looked over the show list.....and I can't find any reason why i would want to pay for Hulu Plus, in fact I think i'd have more reason to pay for the main Hulu site than Plus, because the shows available are different. And then I remember they both have ads anyway, and neither of them have shows I actually would pay for like Showtime content or HBO stuff.

No one but the cable and satellite companies (who don't actually make the product I actually want, shows) seem to want my money, it's a shame.

iPhone App Issues (1)

havoc (22870) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140472)

The iPhone app has a 1.5 star rating. It hasn't been updated in quite some time and doesn't work on [my] iPhone 3gs. It does seem to work fine on [my] iPhone 3g and [friends] iPhone 4g. It did work on the iPhone 3gs before the last update to the app though, so it is something they broke. The problem is that the video and audio is out of sync and unwatchable.

hulu = failing (2, Informative)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140480)

Hulu has a number of problems right now which, I imagine, probably translate over to their paid subscriptions:

* Poor performance due to Flash. The latest versions of Flash have caused nothing but problems for us at home - surprisingly, worse on Windows than on Linux. We'll occasionally have to restart the browser 1-3 times throughout a show due to dropped frames and choppiness resulting from Flash leakages and the like.
* Ads. They're not only getting more obnoxious but they're getting longer and more frequent. (That one about the 'skittles tree-boy' has to be the most offensive, disturbing ad I've ever seen.)
* Decreasing content. A lot of what used to be there, is no longer (BSG). No, I don't care if I can watch a show's latest 5 episodes: character development is important to me. If I can't watch the beginning of a season (particularly if it's a drama), I'm going to skip the show.

Add in the lack of the downsides, and I don't see the benefit. Maybe for $1-5, but certainly not for $10/mo.

Re:hulu = failing (1)

Nemesisghost (1720424) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140690)

I completely agree. But will add something to your list. Hulu delay times. When Hulu 1st came out most shows had a 24h delay. Which was fine, because usually if you couldn't watch a show when it aired, you probably couldn't watch it the rest of that night anyways. Then they went to the 7d delay, which was annoying, but livable. If I missed the original airing of a show I could watch it just before the next episode, no harm no foul. Now most will have 8d delays, some even have up to a 2 month delay. Add in the fact that you can only watch the past 3-5 episodes of any show, and now you are back to watching it when it airs on TV, recording it or torrenting it(which can remove all ads), buying it when the next season comes out, watching it exclusively on Hulu, or not watching it at all. I know several people who have taken to that last route just because of all the BS that the TV Execs have decided.

Now I would pay for Hulu+ if it meant that I'd get ALL their shows within 24h of the original broadcast and have access to every episode from the current season. Beyond that, I'll stick with Netflix & my DVR+MythTV.

Why would anyone pay for this (1)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140490)

Firstly, I'm not paying for ads. Period. That's the reason why I ditched my TV too.

Secondly, I like documentaries, British comedy and things like the Daily Show or South Park (well, at least when SP was good). There is plenty of all that for free on Youtube and the kajillion video-hosting clones out there, especially on Chinese video sites that don't give a flying fuck about US copyrights. All my TV needs are fulfilled by the internet already.

For older movies or shows, there's emule or bittorrent, and I don't even feel bad about using them because older movies are difficult to get hold of. Try to get Nash Bridges episodes legally to see what I mean. For newer movies, the local movie rental store is good too, and there's always swapping with friends and neighbors.

So why would I pay for Hulu or any other pay site?

Re:Why would anyone pay for this (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140570)

and I don't even feel bad about using them because older movies are difficult to get hold of. Try to get Nash Bridges episodes legally to see what I mean.

Yeah it was so hard that it took all of 2 seconds searching on Amazon to find: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddvd&field-keywords=nash+bridges&x=0&y=0 [amazon.com]

Wait, what was your point?

Re:Why would anyone pay for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34140812)

He meant legally, that includes region locks.

Re:Why would anyone pay for this (3, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140726)

Netflix has the DVDs. For $9 a month they will deliver them to your door, and let you use their streaming service.

Re:Why would anyone pay for this (1)

Swanktastic (109747) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140852)

For-Pay Hulu's obviously not right for you. I don't really agree with your assumption that it's therefore good for no one.

There is a reason why market research people spend a lot of money doing random samples instead of just coming to slashdot, reading the comments, and calling it a day.

Re:Why would anyone pay for this (1)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140866)

The only streaming site I pay is Crunchyroll.com [crunchyroll.com] , because it gives no ads to paying customers and is the only place I can legally pay for anime without buying overpriced DVDs. Of course their selection is kinda limited, but I like to think it makes up a little for all the stuff I torrent.

So, the only reason to pay is if you legitimately want to contribute to the production company through a non-evil distributor. Ads for paying customers automatically make them evil.

So In Other Words.... (1)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140550)

Based on the reading of the summary (I don't care enough about Hulu to RTFA), it sounds like this is just another case of someone taking something good....and making it worse. This brings back memories of pre-ad Pandora, pre-ad Disney channel, Halo before the days of weapon loadouts, and cars before the days of electronic locks that fault for no apparent damn reason and leave you with one door incapable of opening.... *sigh*

Open to everyone (0, Redundant)

slasho81 (455509) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140578)

Open to everyone in the United States, that is.

Re:Open to everyone (0, Flamebait)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140598)

Duh. The story's target audience is Americans.

Re:Open to everyone (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140784)

Everyone else is collateral incitement.

Give up the past (1)

mkw87 (860289) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140634)

Why can't content providers innovate? Technology has come so far in the past 20+ years, and they've fought it tooth and nail. Instead of continuing to fight it, innovate by coming up with new delivery methods, and in the process figure out new ways to make money. A la carte, pay per show per season, instant movie rental, these are all simple ideas. I'm sure someone getting paid as part of their job can come up with some more creative things.

I Don't See It In The Android Market (1)

ThisOrThat (832791) | more than 3 years ago | (#34140800)

Ok, I know they did not say it was available for Android devices, but I figured I'd look none the less. As it's not there this is of little interest to me... I guess it's just time to stop watching TV any ways. :-)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>