Hulu for iPad Likely to Be a Paid Subscription Service

[vini-vidi-vici]

How would this work exactly?

Sorry if this has already been discussed, but how would this work? Currently, everything you buy goes through iTunes. So, how would Hulu charge a subscription? Where/who/how would you pay this fee?

There are some "for pay" podcasts right now... where you have to go buy a license key or something (not sure how that works either), would this be similar? If so, that's completely outside the apple store...

I don't really care about hulu... I've never used Hulu and have no idea what's there (apparently TV shows?). But this subscription model might also apply to other content providers, and I'm curious to know how the mechanics of it will work.

One idea... you get the app for free, which lets you set up an account at hulu. Would Apple allow something like that?

 

[cmaier]

Ok, I'll throw you a bone.

Here is a publisher explaining they will make less money on the agency model:



Sources:
http://www.mediabistro.com/galleyca...roup_to_transition_to_agency_model_151128.asp

http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/447927-Hachette_Moves_to_Agency_Model.php

And the reason to switch to the agency model:



So there is their reasoning, not mine. Take it or leave it. If you want more in depth analysis of the book industry, kindly post your findings.

You just proved my point. You quoted text that says:

1) the authors make more money
2) the publishers make more money long term

And somehow you think that proves your point, that agency pricing means less money for authors? When the quote explicitly says the opposite?

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

You don't seem to understand there would be no free version of hulu via safari, even if the iPad supported flash.

No I do understand that. But it doesn't change my opinion about this topic. If Apple flipped this "no flash" decision, then this whole thread would be much shorter as Hulu would be seen as solely "in the wrong" here. Instead, because Apple has taken the "no flash" stance, all of these kinds of moves- not just this Hulu one- can be packaged as hooked to the iPad, and thus Apple is directly or indirectly involved (or at least seen to be).

Had Apple rolled out its "ultimate mobile Internet" device with Flash, then every newly announced subscription app for content that is free today might be met with "I'll just use Safari for that". Then, when Safari is locked out as well (because all mobile devices are locked out), it is still purely the greed of entities like Hulu, with Apple completely in the clear.

However, arbitrarily forbid Flash as Apple has done, and then follow that with multiple announcements of monetizing content- often at higher prices than established norms- and it looks like Apple is selling out consumers for content partners. We pay MORE for content because Apple may be wooing partners with more lucrative deals at our expense, much like how eBooks will now be generally more expensive for us consumers, when Apple could have allied itself with Amazon (in very much the same kind of stance it took with a music industry) at $9.99.

Amazon capitulated that one, so apparently Apple won, apparently to the glee of all those who can only see right in all things that Apple does. But who loses when we pay MORE for eBooks because of that?

So let me be clear again: when Hulu goes subscription model, I personally expect it to be across the board- mobile devices and computing devices. The issue is that by taking the "no Flash" stance, Apple appears to be a conspirator now in every one of these kinds of announcements. I'm so accustomed to seeing Apple as the good guy (fighting for us consumers), it's painful to see an Amazon "having no choice but to give in" to higher prices for us consumers, implying that Apple at least had a hand in that change.

And what happens? Apple fights for higher prices for us, Amazon fights for lower prices, and the crowd here supports Apple. This time it's not because Amazon was being greedy executives (they can't "screw us over" by selling eBooks at lower prices) but because it was "good for the authors," "needed for the publishing industry," and so on. The record companies fight for flexible pricing for years and Apple demands one low price, and Apple is right, and the record companies are "greedy executives" for trying to have a say in pricing their content. Can we not see the flaw in Apple being right in both scenarios?

Now we have this Hulu thing, and there will certainly be more very similar announcements to follow, and every time it will appear Apple could be a player or facilitator in us consumers ending up footing the bill. But because many always defend whatever Apple says or wants to do, apparently we are to be happy that we'll end up paying more in support of Apple and Apple corporate partners revenue and monetization objectives.

Again, Apple wins. Corporate Partners win. Who loses? Who pays for all that monetization and higher prices?

 

[localoid]

... Do you see now why Apple want Flash to go away?

With a less than 6% market share why should the greater online world give a rip about Apple's opinion of Flash?

 

[Jaro65]

Hmm...this is unfortunate. Somehow I realize that I can't continue consuming for free the content that someone pays to produce, but still, I find it confusing that the same content would be available for free on one device, while it would be presented as a paid service on another device. Why such discrepancy? And what are its justifications?

 

[palaemon]

The funny thing about this Hulu subscription service thing is that you can pick up a Slingbox now for $100 and it can stream over 3G to your iPad/iPhone and/or you can use the money for the subscription towards a monthly DVR bill and record any TV show you like including the ones Hulu does not have.

Great. I have U-Verse. Now what?

 

[cmaier]

Hmm...this is unfortunate. Somehow I realize that I can't continue consuming for free the content that someone pays to produce, but still, I find it confusing that the same content would be available for free on one device, while it would be presented as a paid service on another device. Why such discrepancy? And what are its justifications?

Unfortunately, it's the traditional way copyright holders have written contracts. Every time a new medium comes around, everyone says their contracts don't apply to that new medium, and they demand to renegotiate. The same way the music industry thinks it makes sense to cut different deals for music downloads vs. ringtones. Content creation industries just don't understand consumers anymore.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

The safari browser is based on open source code. So as long as they don't break compatibility of the webkit, they are free to fix things as necessary. Unlike Flash, where Apple have to hope that Adobe fix any problems. However, Adobe seemingly don't think it's important enough to fix a problem that affects the small percentage of users on OSX. Would Apple be best served if they had their own destiny in their hands?

In addition, Apple (and others) can and do add new features to the webkit all the time, features that become a part of the specification for the web. Again unlike Flash where new features are the sole province of Adobe and become part of their proprietary specification.

Do you see now why Apple want Flash to go away?

OK, then I have an TV that is frightfully locked down by Apple. They basically have tons of control over what I can do with it, what I can watch on it, etc. If Adobe is in the wrong for being in sole control of Flash, is Apple in the wrong for locking down TV?

Many people have iPhones, capable of doing all kinds of things. If Adobe is wrong for controlling Flash, is Apple wrong for so tightly controlling iPhone?

OK, let's keep it web only: I buy the ultimate mobile internet device expecting it to deliver the ultimate web experience. Lots of sites I visit use Flash in some way. So my experience will be less than ultimate. Why, because Apple is choosing to control the experience that I can have. I generally can get behind the push toward HTML5 + H.264 + javascript for the reasons Apple has offered. I think the approach Apple is choosing to take though is FLAWed. It's great to aim for a better future, but it's not necessary to sacrifice so much of the present to get there.

Besides, it seems odd to argue about the merits of open standards in support of one of the most tightly-controlling tech companies in the space.

And don't get me wrong. I'm generally pro-Apple, even with much of this controlling attitude. I just think they are wrong on THIS topic.

 

[marksman]

You know this to be fact, how exactly? Are you a time traveler from the future or did a wizard give you a magical crystal ball?

Because there are very credible rumors that Hulu has been working on moving to a subscription model for a while now, long before they knew anything about the iPad.

 

[palaemon]

Sorry if this has already been discussed, but how would this work? Currently, everything you buy goes through iTunes. So, how would Hulu charge a subscription? Where/who/how would you pay this fee?

There are some "for pay" podcasts right now... where you have to go buy a license key or something (not sure how that works either), would this be similar? If so, that's completely outside the apple store...

I don't really care about hulu... I've never used Hulu and have no idea what's there (apparently TV shows?). But this subscription model might also apply to other content providers, and I'm curious to know how the mechanics of it will work.

One idea... you get the app for free, which lets you set up an account at hulu. Would Apple allow something like that?

Yes. XMSirius is like that. You have to have a login/pw to use free app. But service is ultimately a paid one.

 

[marksman]

Then the truth is silly.

It doesn't make authors more money. Macrumors posted an article on that themselves:

https://www.macrumors.com/2010/02/0...on-board-with-agency-model-for-ebook-pricing/

Here's the original source:
http://www.tbiresearch.com/not-all-major-publishers-onboard-with-amazons-agency-model-2010-2

Go ahead and google it. It's everywhere.




It raises the perceived value of eBooks vs printed books, hopefully to keep people happy paying a little more for the hard copy.




Truthfully, I don't know why they went for Apple's model. I believe it was just to gain bargaining power over amazon.



You've got it backwards. The agency model means less money for authors. They are up in arms over it. Take a quick read of the article "Authors can be stupid: The Agency Model Pays Authors Less"

http://www.publetariat.com/think/authors-can-be-stupid-agency-model-pays-authors-less…

The quote in from Michael A. Stackpole (an author) to notice is this:



Here is a comparison chart, from his website:

The author makes the most from hardcover sale, then the old kindle model, followed by agency models.

That is silly the number of ebooks sold so far is so small as to be irrelevant, and when was Amazon actually selling ebooks for $28 a shot and how many did they sell?

Pretending like you were making more, then why don't the authors just say that books should be $100 and they get 50%, then they would be getting $50 a book!

God forbid those "authors" mix some reality in with their analysis.

If I charge $30 for something and am going to give you $3 of it, but I sell zero, you get zero. If I sell something else for $10 and give you $1 and sell 5 of them , you get $5.

$5 is better than $0 most of the time.

 

[E.Lizardo]

Hmm...All you an eat,no ads,I might pay a small fee.I already do for netflix.Hey-also,If Hulu does this it might hasten iTunes video offering a subscription model.I just can not pay two bucks per tv episode.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

You just proved my point. You quoted text that says:

1) the authors make more money
2) the publishers make more money long term

And somehow you think that proves your point, that agency pricing means less money for authors? When the quote explicitly says the opposite?

That's what you got from a publisher saying this?

It’s important to note that we are not looking to the agency model as a way to make more money on e-books. In fact, we make less on each e-book sale under the new model

You can't be helped. You believe what you want to believe, despite what publishers AND authors say. You make very little sense. But if you were a defense lawyer, I would pay large amounts of money to have you on my side.

 

[00Diablo]

Is Hulu content delivered in full 1080i with Dolby Digital 5.1 surround sound? If not, a sub isn't worth a cent, IMO.

I checked out the website once to view a late night talk show music performance I missed. I was very disappointed with the poor user interface experience and low quality video and audio.

I mean, it was ok in a pinch - but that's it. Only an idiot would pay for down-rezzed content which can be had for free and at full resolution with a simple OTA.

 

[localoid]

Because there are very credible rumors that Hulu has been working on moving to a subscription model for a while now, long before they knew anything about the iPad.

If you believe rumors=fact then there's no need to continue this discussion.

 

[palaemon]

Is Hulu content delivered in full 1080i with Dolby Digital 5.1 surround sound? If not, a sub isn't worth a cent, IMO.

I checked out the website once to view a late night talk show music performance I missed. I was very disappointed with the poor user interface experience and low quality video and audio.

I mean, it was ok in a pinch - but that's it. Only an idiot would pay for down-rezzed content which can be had for free and at full resolution with a simple OTA.

You just said "..to view a late night talk show music performance I missed." So, how would OTA fix that? I have a DVR too, but sometimes I don't watch a show, but then hear it's good 5 eps in. (hello hulu)

 

[00Diablo]

Well, yes - it's nice to have in a pinch. But as a paid service?

These NBC executives must be on crack. Who would've thunk they were so clueless?

 

[CyberBob859]

The funny thing about this Hulu subscription service thing is that you can pick up a Slingbox now for $100 and it can stream over 3G to your iPad/iPhone and/or you can use the money for the subscription towards a monthly DVR bill and record any TV show you like including the ones Hulu does not have.

+1

 

[cmaier]

That's what you got from a publisher saying this?



You can't be helped. You believe what you want to believe, despite what publishers AND authors say. You make very little sense. But if you were a defense lawyer, I would pay large amounts of money to have you on my side.

Yes! They said they make less ON EACH. Not that they make less OVERALL. Why do you think they chose to add those otherwise-superfluous words?

They sell more books, and make more money! They also say that the authors continue to make their money. Read the whole thing in context, and consider this math:

profits = profit per book x number of book.

Then consider basic economics:

profit per book = f (supply, demand)

and:

demand = f (utility, price)

Only by being able to adjust price can the publishers maximize demand, and hence profit.

And I am a defense lawyer, and I'd be happy to represent you (assuming you get sued for patent infringement) (I'm also a Ph.D. engineer with a decade of microprocessor design experience at AMD and Sun, so I'd be happy to design a chip for you, too).

 

[Hmac]

If you believe rumors=fact then there's no need to continue this discussion.

Note that this "rumor" started back in October.

Chase Carey, News Corp.'s deputy chairman, suggested in comments he made at the OnScreen Media Summit that it's just a matter of time before Hulu, the video service founded by News Corp. and NBC Universal, launches a subscription service.

"I think a free model is a very difficult way to capture the value of our content," Carey said, according to a report Broadcasting & Cable, which co-hosted the conference. "I think what we need to do is deliver that content to consumers in a way where they will appreciate the value...Hulu concurs with (the notion) that it needs to evolve to have a meaningful subscription model as part of its business."

Asked when Hulu would roll out its pay model, Carey, who has been to only one News Corp. board meeting since his recent arrival at the company, was less sure. According to Broadcasting & Cable, Carey thought the move would likely be made in 2010.

Carey's comments follow similar statements made by other News Corp. decision makers, including Rupert Murdoch, the company's chairman. Murdoch has talked about charging for content at the online units of many of his media properties, including The Wall Street Journal.

 

[hazmatzak]

I believe that Apple has the ability to sufficiently word the warning screen in a Click4Flash type setup that the vast majority of users would understand that they are running something beyond Apple's direct control, much like "virus alert: downloading this may harm your computer" seems to be pretty clear about what could happen if I proceed anyway.

Our experience with ActiveX "warnings" have shown this is not the case. People don't comprehend things that just pop up on screen -- they just want them to go away. And later, when things go wrong, they don't recall ever making any decisions that might have caused it.

There are tons of other web features outside of Flash that are also beyond Apple's control, and that could also lead to the same kinds of conclusions.

No single popular web feature comes to mind. Apple controls how HTML/CSS is rendered; how JavaScript is executed; how movies are played. It's the weekend, so what am I forgetting?

 

[PeterQVenkman]

Yes! They said they make less ON EACH. Not that they make less OVERALL. Why do you think they chose to add those otherwise-superfluous words?

They sell more books, and make more money! They also say that the authors continue to make their money. Read the whole thing in context, and consider this math:

>snip<

Only by being able to adjust price can the publishers maximize demand, and hence profit.

Well, I feel a bit like an ass, then. Of course if they sell more, they make more. I don't know why I didn't see that.

And I am a defense lawyer, and I'd be happy to represent you (assuming you get sued for patent infringement) (I'm also a Ph.D. engineer with a decade of microprocessor design experience at AMD and Sun, so I'd be happy to design a chip for you, too).

Deal!

 

[dru007]

reality check needed on corporate greed

...this is another good reason why the ipad could go down in flames! steve
jobs and apple need a reality check if you ask me and if the ipad flops that will
do the trick!

 

[localoid]

Note that this "rumor" started back in October.

You're unable to separate fact from speculation and/or you hate making use of appropriate adverbs such as "purportedly" within your sentences. Yes, I understand all of that now. No further clarification is required.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Our experience with ActiveX "warnings" have shown this is not the case. People don't comprehend things that just pop up on screen -- they just want them to go away. And later, when things go wrong, they don't recall ever making any decisions that might have caused it.

Again, I have faith that Apple device users have sufficient brainpower to understand a message that pops that says something like "use of this application will use up battery power faster than usual" and/or "use of this application may cause this browser to crash" and so on. I trust that people could understand that accelerated battery burn might be associated with approving such messages and using inefficient applications like Flash- or any other video plugin.

I also think THAT would be preferable for us consumers to Apple just forbidding the possibility of getting to access such content. Bottom line: Apple could still promote the future they envision of HTML5 + H.264 + javascript and the need to evolve away from Flash without just forbidding users from using Flash today. Letting users recognize that using Flash burns batteries faster and sometimes crashes the browser might be a better way to gain public support for phasing out Flash, than making them think their iPhone/Touch/iPad is broken or can't handle even fairly popular websites.

More extreme: suppose Apple decides that pirated content in iTunes shall be defined as content NOT purchased via the Apple Store? Or that our choices of rips for our own music, etc is not delivering the quality of experience that can be delivered by professionally-prepared music provided in iTunes store versions? Etc. Will there be Apple fans here who agree that they'd rather not have that substandard junk of old rips, substandard media in the iTunes library, etc just because one day Jobs decides that all iTunes devices shall ONLY be able to play iTunes STORE content. But "one more thing... today, we're introducing an amazing new feature in iTunes 1X, which will automatically recognize all of the media in your iTunes library that has not been purchased from the iTunes Store which will then place deeply discounted orders for all that content for you, so that you can replace all those substandard, amateur, flawed rips with our professionally prepared versions at a special price." I can just see the usual crowd in here so excited that they'll be getting the new professionally-prepared versions... along with the rest of us that sees through such stuff.

Now, I admit that's an extreme and unlikely (hopefully) scenario. But, I would have never guessed Jobs would decide to deny something as ubiquitous as Flash on a device called the "ultimate mobile internet" device. I appreciate- even support- the ideas that back up his thinking in what is wrong with Flash, but there are many paths to the end point he envisions. Making his BUYERS have a less-than-ultimate experience with an expectation they can make the whole Internet bend to Apple's will is asking a lot. Why not just let his BUYERS have the OPTION to burn their batteries a little faster if they want to do so? Why are Apple fans so quick to support having less OPTIONS for themselves and their peers? Just because Jobs says so? If he asked us to jump off a cliff...

No single popular web feature comes to mind. Apple controls how HTML/CSS is rendered; how JavaScript is executed; how movies are played. It's the weekend, so what am I forgetting?

Look, if we can only see Apple is right in all things, there is no room for any other point of view. Have you not had shopping carts not process in Safari, any application that is tested for IE not work on Safari, any site not render properly for Safari, etc? My company uses Paychex for payroll processing and, until recently, I couldn't even access 401K basic info in Safari (IE and Firefox only). Is any of that Apple's fault? No, lazy programmers are probably most of the blame. But the experience that occurs for Safari users like me is that Safari failed; then I have to go to the trouble of using something else to meet my needs.

Perhaps Apple should monitor all such failures and then start locking Safari users out of every website that isn't 100% compatible with Safari? That seems where arbitrary decisions like "no Flash" could go. Like this current Flash stance, would that (an increasingly limited and only Apple-approved Internet) be better for us end users?

Apparently per Apples view, yes. Apparently per some Apple fans view, yes. But in my view, absolutely not. Am I alone in feeling this way?