Hulu for iPad Likely to Be a Paid Subscription Service

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Seems pretty clear they would consider the iPad a mobile device, and as such flash or not, it would not be able to access Hulu.

Come on people this is not hard. What Hulu is doing to survive has NOTHING to do with Apple. It is simply an additional and useful opportunity for them to bring out an iPad/iPhone app at the same time they introduce their subscription pricing. it provides an added value that was not there before. However it has nothing to do with Apple.

If Flash was available on the iPad, or at least the user OPTION for Flash, this whole thread would be reduced to "then I'll just access the free version via Safari". Instead, Apple looks bad because by arbitrarily refusing to even offer that OPTION (which costs them nothing by the way), it strongly supports an idea of content monetization motivations. With no Flash, the ONLY way to access Hulu on iPad would be through their controlling vehicle (app), thus they can do- or charge- whatever they want to each person somewhat "locked into" an iPad purchase.

Apple flip-flops on this decision and it looks like they are at least trying to increase value- and options- for BUYERS of this device, rather than minimize those options for their BUYERS. In other words, it's easier to see Apples role in this driven by revenue share motivations, than to hold them completely harmless... when, with the simplest of decisions ("we changed out mind and now Flash is OK on iPad"), they could at least expand the potential for BUYERS to retain other ways to access the same content.

 

[Hmac]

Perhaps Netflix will get their service going on the iPad.

Of course they will.

Unless....Netflix is finally bought by Amazon and they parlay that into their own version of the iTunes store on a new Kindle version or some kind of negotiated hardware deal with Acer/Dell/HP. If I were Amazon's CEO, I'd sure be looking at that and working with those hardware mfgrs to find a way to combine my new "AmazonTunes" with their $1000 tablet computer with full-on Windows OS.

 

[Otaviano]

If Flash was available on the iPad, or at least the user OPTION for Flash, this whole thread would be reduced to "then I'll just access the free version via Safari". Instead, Apple looks bad because by arbitrarily refusing even offering that OPTION (which costs them nothing by the way), strongly supports an idea of content monetization motivations. With no Flash, the ONLY way to access Hulu would be through their controlling vehicle, thus they can do- or charge- whatever they want.

Apple flip flops on this decision and it looks like they are at least trying to increase value- and options- for BUYERS of this device, rather than minimize those options for their BUYERS. In other words, it's easier to see Apples role in this driven by revenue share, than to hold them completely harmless... when with the simplest of decisions (we changed out mind), they could at least expand the potential for BUYERS to retain other ways to access the same content.

You really are naive, you don't think that they could just block you from accessing the website exactly like they do users outside the US?

Hulu is looking for an opportunity to monetize, it's been searching for that since it's inception. It was never going to be free in the long run, Apple iPad or not. They see a good opportunity to try and do what Spotify did, and make a mobile app that is only available to premium subscribers.

 

[Hmac]

If Flash was available on the iPad, or at least the user OPTION for Flash, this whole thread would be reduced to "then I'll just access the free version via Safari".

Here's the point you're missing....THERE AIN'T GONNA BE NO FREE VERSION OF HULU.

Likely, there ain't gonna be no free version of ANY online entertainment content.

 

[interestedabit]

Seems a lot of people didn't actually read the article and just wanted to show up and bash the ipad/apple.. again. Read the article before commenting. This is not a hulu announcement of any sort.

 

[Hmac]

Seems a lot of people didn't actually read the article and just wanted to show up and bash the ipad/apple.. again. Read the article before commenting. This is not a hulu announcement of any sort.

True..Hulu's pricing structure hasn't been announced, but Hulu ultimately going to subscription model in 2010 was announced back in October.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

You really are naive, you don't think that they could just block you from accessing the website exactly like they do users outside the US?

Hulu is looking for an opportunity to monetize, it's been searching for that since it's inception. It was never going to be free in the long run, Apple iPad or not. They see a good opportunity to try and do what Spotify did, and make a mobile app that is only available to premium subscribers.

I'm not naive at all. I bet there is a very high probability that I understand such technologies much better than you. So let me be more clear: if Hulu goes subscription, I'd expect them to go subscription across all mediums, not a free version for computers vs. a paid version for mobile devices. However, for this mostly PR (and relatively minor) issue, Apple is made to look bad- like it is conspiring to monetize content that is currently eaten for free, BECAUSE Apple has already locked out the Flash option.

If Apple flipped on that decision, then it is ALL on Hulu if they switch on the subscription model. The decision would impact ALL Hulu users on iPads or not. But Apple is not flipping on Flash- just the opposite. As such, events keep flowing out that involves GREATER costs to end users- not just this one, but also in the costs of eBooks going up (when Apple could have allied itself with Amazon at $9.99).

What's funny is that the fans here sided with Apple on that one too, rationalizing how much better it was for all involved to have flexible pricing for book publishers, even though that increasingly looks like generally higher average eBook prices for us consumers.

Here again, Apple is doing no wrong... "it's all Hulu's fault" that higher costs appear to be about to flow on to us consumers. And that's good somehow?

I'm a big Apple fan myself. I own lots of their stuff. But I'm not so blinded by the sequence of events to always side with Apple's calls on such things. When Apple's decisions seem to be win for Apple's customers, I'm in every time. However, when Apple's decisions seem to mostly be a win for corporations at the greater expense of Apple's customers, I call them out.

If I do that here, there's always X others who jump to Apple's defense. If you're one of them, I hope you enjoy paying more out of pocket in support of decisions that Apple makes or supports- directly or indirectly- for you. You must be able to see that in giving you the OPTION simply makes it possible for you to get more out of the device you BUY from them. By denying you such options, Apple denies you even the possibility for other choices.

Take Apple's side all you want, but in cases such as this you are really arguing for corporations other than Apple making more money off of us consumers. Apple wins by selling us the device. Those corporations win by selling us content that (today) is free, or that used to be priced lower (and Apple wins again by taking 30% of those corporation revenues and higher prices). Here's the magic question: Who loses?

 

[ipadbuyer?]

second thoughts on my planned iPad purchase

I am excited about getting the iPad, mostly for reading books and surfing the internet.

However, company execs are trying to call this anything but an internet device. Anything I can get on my laptop or desktop, via the internet for free, some TV programs, NYTimes newspaper, etc, I WILL NOT pay extra to view on the iPad. Why would I , when I can use my laptop instead of the iPad. (The iPad being a WANT to have , not a NEED to have in my household)

Hopefully company exec's will stop trying to bilk consumers online for digital services and products that have a marginal cost to them near zero dollars.

If you want to charge for your content online , that is fine but I agree with other posters , it should relate to internet access of their products ,and not depend on the access device (ipad, smart phone, laptop, etc)

I am glad with what Apple did to the music industry. I buy more music now than I ever did before iTunes. Hopefully Steve will flex his clout and whip these publishers into line a bit. The more I read articles like this one, about content intended for the iPad with extra charges, the more I am second guessing my desire to buy it. At the end of the day , we consumers will change their thinking , since we don't (and probably won't) pay for the many iPad taxes coming down the way....

 

[jclardy]

wow this is ridiculous. I was all gung-ho about buying an ipad, but now I'm thinking a more capable, cheaper netbook might be the way to go.

So Apple wants me to buy their product at a premium, pay a premium for free services, and get a device that merely looks good?

At this point, it's impossible for me to justify this purchase.

I don't think it will be much cheaper...you'll need an ION netbook to be able to watch Hulu. I have an Acer netbook with an intel GMA and it can barely play SD youtube videos.

And the only way I would pay for Hulu is if it offered shows when they came out, not the day after.

 

[interestedabit]

True..Hulu's pricing structure hasn't been announced, but Hulu ultimately going to subscription model in 2010 was announced back in October.

Exactly.. before the ipad was even a glint in the eye of the milkman/postman.

 

[FocusedOne]

Way to go Hulu. Drive MORE people to the torrents.

Bingo! We have a winner!

It is fascinating to watch this digital print media conversion unfold, ala the digital music revolution. The arrogance of some of these media providers continues to astound me - they just will not acknowledge that ultimately, the market (consumers) will dictate price point.

Charging money for hulu is a joke.

 

[azazel-]

I'm not naive at all. I bet there is a very high probability that I understand such technologies much better than you. So let me be more clear: if Hulu goes subscription, I'd expect them to go subscription across all mediums, // THEY PLAN TO, AND HAVE BEEN SINCE OCTOBER OF 2009. EVERYTHING BEYOND THIS SENTENCE IS POINTLESS RAMBLING, SINCE YOU CAN'T BE BOTHERED TO READ THE THREAD AND INSTEAD JUST WANT TO BASH APPLE FOR SOMETHING THEY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH! // not a free version for computers vs. a paid version for mobile devices. However, for this mostly PR (and relatively minor) issue, Apple is made to look bad- like it is conspiring to monetize content that is currently eaten for free, BECAUSE Apple has already locked out the Flash option.

If Apple flipped on that decision, then it is ALL on Hulu if they switch on the subscription model. The decision would impact ALL Hulu users on iPads or not. But Apple is not flipping on Flash- just the opposite. As such, events keep flowing out that involves GREATER costs to end users- not just this one, but also in the costs of eBooks going up (when Apple could have allied itself with Amazon at $9.99).

What's funny is that the fans here sided with Apple on that one too, rationalizing how much better it was for all involved to have flexible pricing for book publishers, even though that increasingly looks like generally higher average eBook prices for us consumers.

Here again, Apple is doing no wrong... "it's all Hulu's fault" that higher costs appear to be about to flow on to us consumers. And that's good somehow?

I'm a big Apple fan myself. I own lots of their stuff. But I'm not so blinded by the sequence of events to always side with Apple's calls on such things. When Apple's decisions seem to be win for Apple's customers, I'm in every time. However, when Apple's decisions seem to mostly be a win for corporations at the greater expense of Apple's customers, I call them out.

If I do that here, there's always X others who jump to Apple's defense. If you're one of them, I hope you enjoy paying more out of pocket in support of decisions that Apple makes or supports- directly or indirectly- for you. You must be able to see that in giving you the OPTION simply makes it possible for you to get more out of the device you BUY from them. By denying you such options, Apple denies you even the possibility for other choices.

Take Apple's side all you want, but in cases such as this you are really arguing for corporations other than Apple making more money off of us consumers. Apple wins by selling us the device. Those corporations win by selling us content that (today) is free, or that used to be priced lower (and Apple wins again by taking 30% of those corporation revenues and higher prices). Here's the magic question: Who loses?

I lost, because I seem to be wasting my time trying to reiterate a point that just isn't sinking in.

 

[iberroa]

Won't work.

They can charge for the service, that's fine. First, the videos can't have ads if i'm going to be paying for content. I personally don't think it will work unless Hulu goes to a complete paid for subscription model, which will kill the company completely. You can't just charge iPad owners for content and not Netbook owners. This will make the Apple faithful hate Hulu.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I lost, because I seem to be wasting my time trying to reiterate a point that just isn't sinking in.

You don't lose alone. This is not a fight of you vs. me. We ALL lose when Apple takes stances that supports corporate partners at our expense (and I'm not isolating this solely to Hulu).

And sorry to waste your time then. If you buy an iPad, enjoy paying for Hulu and similar content monetized through it, and enjoy paying more for eBooks than $9.99 because Apple chose to side with publishers instead of Amazon (who was fighting to keep the price LOWER for consumers- just like Apple did when fighting for 99 cent songs in the early days of iTunes; apparently when Apple is fighting for consumer benefit, they are right, and when they are fighting against consumer benefit, they are right too). Enjoy paying or paying again for all this content that is currently provided for free, or that you might feel you already pay for via a cable/satt subscription being sold to you, or sold to you again.

Because none of that is Apple's fault, or supported by Apple in any way, or facilitated by any arbitrary decision made by Apple (such as "no Flash").

Can Apple do no wrong?

 

[localoid]

I don't think it will be much cheaper...you'll need an ION netbook to be able to watch Hulu. I have an Acer netbook with an intel GMA and it can barely play SD youtube videos. ...

My experience is apparently quite different than yours. YouTube and Hulu 480p videos run fine full-screen on my HP mini-110 netbook which has Intel GMA 950 graphics. I'm using Flash 10.1 beta 2.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

I think the naysayers are just mad because it looks like iPad users might actually be able to watch Hulu on the device …sans Flash.

You are 100% right though, this is Hulu's call. If you don't think the service is worth it DON'T BUY INTO IT.

You are quite welcome to keep handing money over to Apple all you want. Pay 30-70% more for the same performance on computers, pay 30% more for the song on iTunes vs amazon, pay 50% more for eBooks over the amazon model while publishers and authors actually see a smaller cut of each sale, and have fifty different apps with paid subscription models (which may have been free before) to match your "month to month" no contract 3g access on the nations crappiest 3g network.

And once they get you to pay a couple bucks for every show you watch via your saviour H264, enjoy the price hike coming in 2016, courtesy of MPEG LA. They will start charging every major player license fees. The content providers will pass that cost onto the consumer. When that happens, you'll have another extra cost to feel happy about.

Think different. Your lord and savior Steve Jobs will deliver you to the promised land of over the new over-monetized internet model.

 

[kaplanfx]

Really. Hulu has been hemorrhaging cash. How much longer do you think Hulu is going to be free?
/

If by Hemorrhaging cash you mean made a gross profit (ok it's not net, but still):

"Amel estimates that while Hulu attracts far fewer visitors per month than YouTube (8.5 million versus 89.5 million), in financial terms Hulu is actually doing better. He estimates that last year Hulu took in $65 million in U.S. ad revenue and cleared $12 million in gross profit, while YouTube generated $114 million in U.S. revenue but had no gross profit."

from this article: http://www.newsweek.com/id/185790

 

[PeterQVenkman]

and enjoy paying more for eBooks than $9.99 because Apple chose to side with publishers instead of Amazon (who was fighting to keep the price LOWER for consumers

Just to expand on your topic- eBook publishers charge more on the iPad, but will make less money using Apple's business model.

http://gizmodo.com/5465323/why-and-how-apple-killed-the-999-ebook

That means less money to the publishers and less money to authors. Congrats, Apple. You've just made it even harder to make a living as a writer! Bravo!

 

[cmaier]

Just to expand on your topic- eBook publishers charge more on the iPad, but will make less money using Apple's business model.

http://gizmodo.com/5465323/why-and-how-apple-killed-the-999-ebook

That means less money to the publishers and less money to authors. Congrats, Apple. You've just made it even harder to make a living as a writer! Bravo!

That's a silly argument. The publishers wanted this plan. Why? Because it makes them more money overall. Higher ebook prices support higher prices on printed books, help prevent devaluation/commoditization of books, etc. Publishers wouldn't have been clamoring for this model unless it was to make more money.

And if we accept your dubious premise - that more money to the publishers means more money to the authors - that means more money for authors.

 

[hazmatzak]

Apple could easily strike back at no financial cost to themselves or us customers by flip-flopping on the Flash player stance. No big work on Apple's part, no cost, no added cost to the iPad buyers.

Choices add cost. Not just testing and support, but in this case, the cost to reputation too. The population breaks down to those that:

• understand the choice
• think they understand the choice but actually don't
• don't understand the choice (and some even don't want to)

So let's say they add a checkbox (actually, a switch) somewhere to enable Flash. And then, as predicted, Flash sucks. At best, you can say, "Wow, Flash is really crashy and kills my battery. At least it was my choice to make and I will accept the consequences." But much more likely it will be turned into, "Wow, the iPad is really crashy with lousy battery life," or, "Netbooks are better with Flash than the iPad!" In the aggregate, a few people are a little happier, but most are less happy, including Apple.

And that's before getting into the strategic reasons for excluding Flash.

 

[FocusedOne]

You don't lose alone. This is not a fight of you vs. me. We ALL lose when Apple takes stances that supports corporate partners at our expense (and I'm not isolating this solely to Hulu).

And sorry to waste your time then. If you buy an iPad, enjoy paying for Hulu and similar content monetized through it, and enjoy paying more for eBooks than $9.99 because Apple chose to side with publishers instead of Amazon (who was fighting to keep the price LOWER for consumers- just like Apple did when fighting for 99 cent songs in the early days of iTunes; apparently when Apple is fighting for consumer benefit, they are right, and when they are fighting against consumer benefit, they are right too). Enjoy paying or paying again for all this content that is currently provided for free, or that you might feel you already pay for via a cable/satt subscription being sold to you, or sold to you again.

Because none of that is Apple's fault, or supported by Apple in any way, or facilitated by any arbitrary decision made by Apple (such as "no Flash").

Can Apple do no wrong?

I don't feel that Apple users are as locked into services as you paint them to be. I was a pc user forever, then bought a mac; now I use both. I chose to purchase a Mac because I feel that it's build quality, synthesis of hardware and software, brilliant display, video editing capabilities and other attributes are of very high quality. I'm a quality junkie. I am not, however, stupid. I don't think I've ever paid for a single .mp3. Nor would I pay for subscription media that I can get elsewhere for free. So just because I have an affinity for fine hardware, it doesn't mean that I utilize any of the streamlined media provided by Apple.

I think there are a lot of Apple users like me.

Beyond that, Apple's courting of major publishers is just to stake their claim in the game. If prices are too high, they'll have low %'s of sales, and guess what... they'll lower them! Or, if enough people are ponying up the cash for $15 ebooks, the rest of us will continue to get them elsewhere.

Ultimately, I think the ipad is going to be a smash hit and content providers will cater to it (by switching to html5 or just making a special ipad site) in the same manner that so many sites have bent over backwards for the iphone.

 

[Colrath]

-Offer me more shows (From different Networks, damn you CBS)
-Take away Commercials
-Offer Videos within 1-2 hours of their original air date
-Offer me higher quality videos
-Keep shows up to the current season, not just 5 shows at a time

I'll gladly pay between $10-15 a month. I already dropped my DirecTV because they're charging me through the nose. But if Hulu can offer a reasonable price structure, with additional features, then I'm all for it.

For the record, I'm under the assumption that this would be a cross-platform service. HTML5 can do everything Flash is doing, if Hulu actually wanted to offer their services to mobile devices then it's not like it would be a hard fix. I don't see Flash at all as being the problem here, rather it's just Hulu (Who at this rate will be broke) looking to change their services.

 

[nevermind50]

.

And that's before getting into the strategic reasons for excluding Flash.

I suspect the strategy is much more important to Apple than how much battery Flash uses. The move to become a "mobile device" company allows them the opportunity to leave behind some of the legacy issues they can't get away from on the desktop.

As for Hulu charging for premium content on the iPad, if you don't want to pay, then no one's forcing you . True, you won't get free content on the iPad IF the rumours are true, but we in the UK don't have that option anyways. I think there will be both free and premium content on mobile devices, PC's/Mac's and Set-top boxes such as the Apple TV.

 

[pvmacguy]

I've been using the tv.com app for the iPhone and will continue to do so. There content is full length and free.

 

[palaemon]

Personally, I don't need an iPad.

I do, however *want* one. And a subscription to Hulu is also not a need.

If Hulu debuts a new website/business model that NO ONE likes, it will die.

I think the "netflix" approach with a subscription model is smart. How may people subscribe and use NFIW? I do. I'd also consider paying for Hulu *if* it provided me with benefit and convenience that I value.

People blame Apple for not supporting flash on the iPad. They don't support flash on the iPhone and it's the biggest selling single phone out there.

Besides, Hulu debuted in March of 2008, 9 months *after* the iPhone debuted sans flash support. Hulu made it's decision, just like Apple.