Hulu for iPad Likely to Be a Paid Subscription Service

[marksman]

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".

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

 

[palaemon]

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.

I agree. If no one buys/values $15 eBooks, they'll lower the price.

 

[marksman]

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

Do you know what gross profit is?

I will give you a clue. It is a number people publicize who are not making money, ie a net profit.

 

[localoid]

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

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?

 

[cmaier]

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?

Hulu has prevented the service from working on devices connected to TV's - they intend it only for "computers," not TVs and mobile devices. That's the point of the article - they are trying to monetize the service by casting mobile access as a paid premium service. They don't care what player you use to get the service.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

That's a silly argument. The publishers wanted this plan. Why? Because it makes them more money overall.

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.

Higher ebook prices support higher prices on printed books, help prevent devaluation/commoditization of books, etc.

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

Publishers wouldn't have been clamoring for this model unless it was to make more money.

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

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.

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:

So, the great victory over Amazon actually costs authors money.

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.

 

[localoid]

Hulu has prevented the service from working on devices connected to TV's - they intend it only for "computers," not TVs and mobile devices. That's the point of the article - they are trying to monetize the service by casting mobile access as a paid premium service. They don't care what player you use to get the service.

You do understand the fact that this highly speculative "article" isn't an official press release from Hulu, don't you?

 

[nevermind50]

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

So the iPad will have free TV content after all. Sweet

 

[cmaier]

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

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

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, but that's it.



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.

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

The quote in from Michael A. Stackpole to notice is this:



Here is his comparison chart:

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

You continue to cling to the same logical fallacy, even going so far as to post a chart illustrating your fallacy. You are thinking about things PER BOOK. By varying the price of books over the life of the book and based on the title, publishers can maximize the income generated by their entire library of titles in various formats. Your happy little charts ignore:

1) the fact that amazon doesn't lower the price of books as a function of time to maximize income to the publisher
2) amazon doesn't keep the price of books high enough to support higher hard cover and soft cover prices in the early sales windows for these books.
3) amazon's pricing model prevents price discrimination, which is always beneficial to any seller
4) amazon's pricing model prevents differentiating different versions of material at different price points.

Unless you can explain to me why public corporations, with shareholders to answer to, would have fought so hard for a new model that reduces their overall profits, you are not going to convince me that the agency model reduces their overall profits! That's not how business works.

All you've done is state the obvious, that for a given single sale of a single ebook, the publisher comes out ahead in the amazon model. You ignore the aggregate of sales, the effect on non-ebook markets, the inability to price discriminate, etc.

 

[nevermind50]

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

Apple may have agreed to this, but how is it Apple's model? I understood that Amazon were getting the fat end of a 70:30 revenue split... no wonder the publishers took the chance to get away from that!

 

[cmaier]

Apple may have agreed to this, but how is it Apple's model? I understood that Amazon were getting the fat end of a 70:30 revenue split... no wonder the publishers took the chance to get away from that!

Here's a good link that explains yet another reason the publishers make much more money under the agency model:

http://www.idealog.com/blog/apples-disruption-of-the-ebook-market-has-nothing-to-do-with-the-tablet

 

[PeterQVenkman]

You continue to cling to the same logical fallacy, even going so far as to post a chart illustrating your fallacy. You are thinking about things PER BOOK. By varying the price of books over the life of the book and based on the title, publishers can maximize the income generated by their entire library of titles in various formats. Your happy little charts ignore:

1) the fact that amazon doesn't lower the price of books as a function of time to maximize income to the publisher
2) amazon doesn't keep the price of books high enough to support higher hard cover and soft cover prices in the early sales windows for these books.
3) amazon's pricing model prevents price discrimination, which is always beneficial to any seller
4) amazon's pricing model prevents differentiating different versions of material at different price points.

Unless you can explain to me why public corporations, with shareholders to answer to, would have fought so hard for a new model that reduces their overall profits, you are not going to convince me that the agency model reduces their overall profits! That's not how business works.

All you've done is state the obvious, that for a given single sale of a single ebook, the publisher comes out ahead in the amazon model. You ignore the aggregate of sales, the effect on non-ebook markets, the inability to price discriminate, etc.

Well, your original point was that authors make more money with the agency model, so the answer you got explained that. And surprise, my little chart does not answer your next series of questions.

I couldn't possibly explain to you why publishers agreed to it. Why don't you call them yourselves? I'm tired of doing your research for you.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

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.

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. A simple "don't show me this again" could then kill the nuisance of the message once it has been seen by each iPad buyer at least once.

IMO, this would be a far better solution than arbitrarily eliminating the OPTION for all iPad buyers. 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. Perhaps Apple should just block everything that doesn't run through Apple's direct control, and meet Apple's seal of approval?

 

[zweigand]

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.

FYI. The last 5-6 albums I've bought have been from Amazon. Those daily $1.99-$2.99 deals have me buying things left and right. Secondly, I don't use iTunes for my movies. I hate the idea of downloading files and having to manage them. I use Netflix streaming and Amazon's Video on Demand service. Until Apple switches to streaming I am not going to be interested.

I want the iPad, not because I'm a fanboy, but because it's going to be a killer product FOR ME. I don't need Flash. I don't care that I can't download malware from third parties and install it. I don't care if it doesn't work for you, because you are not me.

I'm happy you've got your little anti-Apple world figured out, but don't think your opinion means crap to me.

 

[str1f3]

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.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

Here's a good link that explains yet another reason the publishers make much more money under the agency model:

http://www.idealog.com/blog/apples-disruption-of-the-ebook-market-has-nothing-to-do-with-the-tablet

Ok, I'll throw you a bone.

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

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; the author will continue to be fairly compensated and our e-book agents will make money on every digital sale. We’re willing to accept lower return for e-book sales as we control the value of our product – books, and content in general. We’re taking the long view on e-book pricing, and this new model helps protect the long term viability of the book marketplace.

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:

Why “Agency”? It’s about who has the power to set the price. In the traditional wholesale/retail model, the publisher sets a list price, sells books to the retailer at a given margin, and then the retailer can price it however they want as long as the publisher gets their percentage of the original list price. In the agency model, the retailer is acting as an “agent” of the publisher, passing the book along to the consumer at a pre-agreed price. It’s like a real estate agent selling your house. You set the price, they sell it for you. You give them a commission. The agent never owns your house. They just helped out.

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.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

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.

I don't take sales of the iPhone as a customer vote against Flash. I believe those buyers are making a vote for many other features of the phone, and living with that weakness. Apparently there were 7 MILLION requests by iPhone users to play Flash content in December alone. That's 7 MILLION failures at allowing the owner of a mobile device to do something with that device that it can certainly do... only because Apple chooses to NOT allow those buyers access to that bit of software.

7 Million disappointments from customers who paid hard-earned money to buy a device quite capable of fulfilling this particular want. And that's a good thing because Apple says Flash is bad, right?

 

[Eidorian]

Perhaps Apple should just block everything that doesn't run through Apple's direct control, and meet Apple's seal of approval?

Sometimes I wonder...

 

[trajen]

...multiple subscriptions for content will start to add up. I'm not gonna end up with $300 a month in various subscriptions just to get content on my iPad.

iPad is a joke. Who is going to pay for something they can get for free elsewhere?

 

[PeterQVenkman]

want the iPad, not because I'm a fanboy, but because it's going to be a killer product FOR ME. I don't need Flash. I don't care that I can't download malware from third parties and install it. I don't care if it doesn't work for you, because you are not me.

I'm happy you've got your little anti-Apple world figured out, but don't think your opinion means crap to me.

That's the most compelling argument I've seen on this board.

 

[zweigand]

That's the most compelling argument I've seen on this board.

…and I know my opinion means the same to you

 

[cocky jeremy]

Well, somebody start porting Transmission for the iPad. Free tv is free.

 

[localoid]

Sometimes I wonder...

All your Internets are belong to Apple.

 

[vini-vidi-vici]

Yeah, let's put this in historical perspective.

In the OLD days, TV was FREE. You put up your rabbit ears, and watched the major networks. It was FREE, because they paid for it by selling ADS. You put up with the ADS because if was FREE.

Then cable came along. You pay for cable, but you get arguably much better reception (and more channels). But here, you're paying for the delivery service, NOT the content! There are still ADS to pay for the CONTENT.

Now, they want you to PAY for a cable internet connection, then PAY to receive the content, and have somebody else pay for the ADS that you'll have tolerate.

FUGGETABOUTIT!

ETA: These days, I'm just seeing the same shows as were on in the 60's/70's anyway. They have different actors...

TV is still free... my HD antenna works great. If you want to pay more to get cable, that's your choice.

 

[nevermind50]

IMO, this would be a far better solution than arbitrarily eliminating the OPTION for all iPad buyers.

There is nothing arbitrary about Apples decision not to offer flash on iPhoneOS. It's a deliberate policy.

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. Perhaps Apple should just block everything that doesn't run through Apple's direct control, and meet Apple's seal of approval?

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?