Apple Considering a Bid For Hulu?

[HobeSoundDarryl]

it seems no one has mentioned the obvious 1 2 punch to adobe. If gets Hulu then everything should be HTML5 from there on and no more flash needed for most of the people that watch shows in the US at least. Everyone else would follow w/ HTML5 after Hulu and Flash would be dare I say it dead or at least on it's last leg. Buying Hulu is for killing Flash first then the extras of owning it.

How many times does it have to be posted? FLASH IS NOT JUST VIDEO. Flash does a whole bunch of other things besides video. I would guess that if we could analyze all Flash everywhere on the web, we would find that more than half of it is not for video purposes. It's simply popular as a video container because it is THE standard that runs on just about everything connected to the Internet BESIDES iDevices. HTML5 video cannot even come close to competing with that yet (because almost everything besides Apple computers & iDevices and a few others canNOT play HTML5 video yet). Yes, all us Apple people and a small group of others are well set up for that conversion today, but almost ALL of the rest of the planet is not.

My company just went through a transitional effort to kill off Flash on our website so that we could also showcase our offerings in full to the iDevice crowd (too). Here's the gist of the bigger issues:

• We can't embrace HTML5 + h.264 + javascript exclusively because the vast majority of the world can't use it today. That's actually a killer right there. It's not an either-or. If we want to embrace HTML5, we still have to keep a Flash version TOO because most of the world can't deal with HTML5. We don't want to alienate the world just to reach the relatively small crowd currently capable of handling HTML5. So the practical choice is: BOTH (expensive), vast majority (serve Flash exclusively), relatively tiny minority (serve HTML5 exclusively).
• There are NO QUALITY TOOLS available to replicate what the non-video Flash uses on our site are doing, so the ONLY option for that is to pay up big for custom-coded solutions which then still COULD NOT be used exclusively for all users. It's just new work & cost because Apple decided to forbid the user OPTION of Flash. Ultimately, guess who pays for those added costs because Apple made that decision?
• In order to replicate some simpler things done in Flash so that they would work for both the bigger world AND iDevice users, we generally found that we had to make compromises- often in nice bits of functionality and in things like file sizes. For example, one bit of Flash media that used to do something we like in about 120K is now a 500K alternative that yields about the same experience for the greater world and iDevice users.
• Etc. (there's many when a company uses elements of Flash that are not just the video player parts).

Bottom line, the "dream" of killing Flash by converting to HTML5 can't work if every Flash video on the planet was "magically" converted today. If so, the vast majority of Internet users could not watch those videos. It would be the equivalent of shutting out a very high percentage of people from being able to see any video to satisfy the smaller crowd (relatively a MUCH smaller crowd) that is capable of it (today).

To replicate the rest of what Flash can do (beyond video) with HTML5 + h.264 + javascript so that both camps are fed what they want involves lots of duplication of effort and lots of branches of code. Right now, you can develop web multimedia (such as an interactive educational presentation) in Flash and it will run on just about every web-connected device on the planet EXCEPT for those where Apple has arbitrarily decided that NO CUSTOMERS shall have even the OPTION to run Flash on their devices. While it is possible to spend a lot of money to create a reasonable duplication of the same presentation in HTML5 + H.264 + javascript, it's not an either-or proposition... it's just EXTRA work & cost to serve the relatively small segment Apple has locked out of the individual OPTION for Flash. We still must ALSO create the Flash version so that the much larger non-Apple crowd can see it too. Very simply: it's lots of added cost & time because Apple has decided we iDevice users shall not even have the OPTION for Flash if we would like to burn our OWN batteries faster and "crash MY Safari browser every day", etc.

NO company wanting to serve the whole planet can embrace HTML5 + h.264 + javascript and jettison Flash today and still serve mixed media to that whole planet. All that company can do is spend MORE money and more time to create an HTML5 version for those iDevices that are locked out of Flash. The whole rest of the world can already run the Flash version that's probably already on their websites and maybe has been for some time.

Lastly, going forward, if a company wants to serve both the greater world and the iDevice crowd with various forms of new mixed media creations, everything involved is at least doubled because there is NO company choice to exclusively go with HTML5 unless they ONLY want to cater to a relatively very small crowd that can use it today. While HTML5 may indeed be the future, it is far from being the present. The time between now and when HTML5 is capable of fully and completely replacing the entirety of Flash is going to involve much more time than the working lives of any iDevice that anyone owns today. I can appreciate that future, but if it is as superior as we are wanting to believe, it will arrive whether individuals are given the present OPTION for Flash on their iDevices or not, much like how a fair amount of early (now deprecated) HTML still works properly in modern browsers while it continues to be transitioned out.

I for one would prefer to enjoy the whole Internet on my own iDevice today, rather than have Apple decide for me. I do not want my own desire forced on everyone else with iDevices. To the contrary, I see Flash as an optional app just like any other app. You want it? You download it on your own iDevice. Don't want it? Don't download it. Some apps in the store right now burn your batteries faster and crash your iDevices often when compared to other apps in the app store that don't. The difference is that we have the CHOICE of downloading big resource-hogging and/or buggy apps or not... BUT at least we have that CHOICE for ourselves. I expect a completed HTML5 transition to get here just about as fast as the transition from HTML2 to HTML4+ (which, by the way, is still ongoing, much like the video conversion from SD to HD video standards).

That is the reality of Flash vs. HTML5. It's far from a simple video conversion. And even if it was, we're far from being able to jettison one for the other if the content creators want their content to be viewable/playable on all Internet-access devices everywhere. If all you have is Apple stuff, then you're completely ready for that transition today. However, as popular as Apple stuff is to those of us who frequent this site, we as a group are a very tiny minority relative to the world who accesses multimedia (not just video) content on the web.

 

[Laird Knox]

either way you knew exactly what the point was and what I was making.
It was not about computers but more about any devices that connect otherwise.
That be 360, DVD players, TVs, other phones ect. Those devices are all currently can play hulu.

Lets see what Apple movies can play on. Computers, Apple TV, Apple iPod, Apple iPhone. Noticed a patern there. Out side of computers it require Apple devices only. Not something that works on pretty much everything.

Yup you got me because mp3 and AAC only run on Apple devices.

Seek some help, all that hate can't be good for you.

 

[BaldiMac]

oh I know the produces wanted it. But look at Apple. They never let anyone else use fairplay. Hell they actively blocked anyone else from having it work on their devices. We saw court cases pop up and the writing was on the wall. If Apple did not give or at the very least start doing some real pushing they would of been forced to licenses it out.

It was never about "oh it is good for the consumers." It was more Apple knew it was going to get hit with Anti trust and loss a few years down the road. The writing was on the wall and Apple knew it. They were pretty smart about it.

Hey! Look! It's another baseless antitrust claim against Apple.

If only forum posters could magically tell the difference between theories and fact.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Yup you got me because mp3 and AAC only run on Apple devices.

Seek some help, all that hate can't be good for you.

Yet you are doing the classic dancing around the point and trying to move goal post. MP3 and AAC are not DRM files.

ANYTHING with apple DRM only works on Apple produces (not counting computers)

Hey! Look! It's another baseless antitrust claim against Apple.

If only forum posters could magically tell the difference between theories and fact.

Hey look a classic insult from an Apple fan instead of addressing the point. It was not baseless. Go look back before they removed the Fair play DRM.
There had been multiple cases going in in a few courts regarding it. Apple won the first few but at the same token they knew the writing was on the wall that they were going to keep coming and they were going to lose in the future several years down the road. Dump the DRM on music before it happens and they could save it to use it on a lock in on movies were they would not have to address the issue.

 

[BaldiMac]

Hey look a classic insult from an Apple fan instead of addressing the point.

I did address the point. I called your argument baseless. I pointed out that your argument was a (biased) theory presented as fact. You responded with an ad hominem.

It was not baseless. Go look back before they removed the Fair play DRM.
There had been multiple cases going in in a few courts regarding it. Apple won the first few but at the same token they knew the writing was on the wall that they were going to keep coming and they were going to lose in the future several years down the road. Dump the DRM on music before it happens and they could save it to use it on a lock in on movies were they would not have to address the issue.

There were cases that Apple won? That's your argument? You can sue for anything. Doesn't provide evidence of wrongdoing. And there was no antitrust investigation that I'm aware of into Apple's lack of fairplay licensing to third party device makers. How could there be? There was a legitimate business justification for using DRM.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

I did address the point. I called your argument baseless. I pointed out that your argument was a (biased) theory presented as fact. You responded with an ad hominem.



There were cases that Apple won? That's your argument? You can sue for anything. Doesn't provide evidence of wrongdoing. And there was no antitrust investigation that I'm aware of into Apple's lack of fairplay licensing to third party device makers. How could there be? There was a legitimate business justification for using DRM.

cases Apple won at the time but if you looked at it they had to appeal a few times and I believe they were being investigated by both the US and EU systems and I do not believe the results ever came to light as the matter was dropped after the DRM was removed.
Lets face it. Apple knew the writing was on the wall. I say it was a smart move by them to remove the fair play DRM from music. I believe if they had kept it they would of been nailed for anti trust before now on it and it would of hand more effect completely killing the lock in system.
They would not not been able to lock in with movies as they can now because they would of been forced to licenses out fairplay. iTunes store would of been hurt for the same reason.

It bought them time and in the long run worked out for the better for Apple. I do not see them getting in trouble over movies as there is legit competitiveness there but at the time there was not any real competition in digital music stores and the Apple lock down was making it near impossible for anything to get off the ground.

It was the do not work on iPod it was a DOA. Can not play music from iTMS it was DOA. It was hurt from both ends. Now with out DRM not so much of an issue.

 

[BaldiMac]

cases Apple won at the time but if you looked at it they had to appeal a few times

Again, cases Apple won are not evidence of wrongdoing.

and I believe they were being investigated by both the US and EU systems and I do not believe the results ever came to light as the matter was dropped after the DRM was removed.

Source?

Lets face it. Apple knew the writing was on the wall. I say it was a smart move by them to remove the fair play DRM from music. I believe if they had kept it they would of been nailed for anti trust before now on it and it would of hand more effect completely killing the lock in system.
They would not not been able to lock in with movies as they can now because they would of been forced to licenses out fairplay. iTunes store would of been hurt for the same reason.

This is just a repeat of your baseless theory presented as fact. It involves ignoring the historical record to make up motivation based on nothing more than your own bias.

It bought them time and in the long run worked out for the better for Apple. I do not see them getting in trouble over movies as there is legit competitiveness there but at the time there was not any real competition in digital music stores and the Apple lock down was making it near impossible for anything to get off the ground.

It was the do not work on iPod it was a DOA. Can not play music from iTMS it was DOA. It was hurt from both ends. Now with out DRM not so much of an issue.

So, we are ignoring the 75% or so of the digital music market that was not controlled by Apple to make your theory work? Music that did work in iTunes and the iPod and any other device or software.

And that also ignores the enormous amount of music obtained through file sharing sites. I don't think other digital music players were hurt by a lack of content.

 

[Laird Knox]

Yet you are doing the classic dancing around the point and trying to move goal post. MP3 and AAC are not DRM files.

ANYTHING with apple DRM only works on Apple produces (not counting computers)

I'm not dancing around any points.

Know what? I don't purchase any media with DRM. In the last decade that has been an issue, oh, zero times.

As for Hulu, in its current state it is useless to me. The shows I would watch on Hulu aren't available on mobile devices. I would gladly subscribe to Hulu plus if I could watch everything they offer. As it is I guess I have to wait for Apple to purchase them and lock it down.

Yet you are doing the classic dancing around the point and trying to move goal post. MP3 and AAC are not DRM files.

ANYTHING with apple DRM only works on Apple produces (not counting computers)

Come to think of it, where does one download DRM free movies anyway? Since Apple is so evil in their DRM policies please let me know the alternatives.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Come to think of it, where does one download DRM free movies anyway? Since Apple is so evil in their DRM policies please let me know the alternatives.

DRM free none. But I believe MS licenses out there DRM so multiple other locations to can use it.
Amazon sends them out and you can play it on the 360 and other locations and I see them getting it extent to other devices in the future.
Google is getting something off the ground so that will be done in the futures.

 

[marksman]

I won't care until they fix this. ^^

If you're going to be an international company, then make sure your hardware and software is internationally obtainable. Simple business 101.

Sounds like you should consult with your government.

 

[HyperZboy]

My first question is why would Comcast/NBC/Universal want to sell HULU?

That's the part I don't get the most.

Isn't that why Comcast bought NBC/U in the first place, to have guaranteed content and some of it exclusive as a wedge against competitors like Apple?

 

[KingCrimson]

My first question is why would Comcast/NBC/Universal want to sell HULU?

That's the part I don't get the most.

Isn't that why Comcast bought NBC/U in the first place, to have guaranteed content and some of it exclusive as a wedge against competitors like Apple?

Comcast is hemorrhaging cash and they need some!

 

[Laird Knox]

My first question is why would Comcast/NBC/Universal want to sell HULU?

That's the part I don't get the most.

Isn't that why Comcast bought NBC/U in the first place, to have guaranteed content and some of it exclusive as a wedge against competitors like Apple?

Hulu said to hire investment bankers to explore possible sale

At the same time, Hulu's success started causing problems for its media owners. The site, initially seen as a way to blunt piracy, became hugely popular, quickly antagonizing cable television and satellite TV operators that pay the programmers $30 billion a year for their TV shows. Those distributors wanted to know why they were being asked to pay for the programs when the networks turn around and make them available on Hulu free.

"Hulu's interests have become diametrically opposed to the core business of its owners," said Arash Amel, research director for digital media for IHS Screen Digest. "Once Hulu is not owned by its content providers, it can be more innovative."

Selling their interest in Hulu would extricate the owners from the headaches of Hulu. It also provides an exit strategy for co-owner Providence Equity Partners, which initially bankrolled the venture with a $100-million investment. Moreover, a sale would reward the contributions of Kilar and the tech team he recruited to help him build the site.

A couple of interesting quotes from the article.

 

[Mr. Gates]

For their silly Apple TV ..

Of course !

 

[relax11]

Apple is doing a classic buy and kill.

Jobs is destroying free TV in order to boost itunes sales.

I thought the way to boost sales was to create a better, cheaper product.

 

[KingCrimson]

Apple is doing a classic buy and kill.

Jobs is destroying free TV in order to boost itunes sales.

I thought the way to boost sales was to create a better, cheaper product.

Or maybe Jobs is looking at Hulu and seeing what part of it's crap and how to fix it. Meaning people want to watch content without ads and even Hulu Plus doesn't allow you to watch without ads except for Criterion Collection. Apple will fix that. Remember Apple identifies flawed products and perfects them.