Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Hulu Planning Live Cable TV Service With Partners Including Disney and Fox
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Or with Apple, the content owners give Apple their 30% cut right off the top. With this, the content owners (at least those that also own Hulu) keep the 30%. Not a hard choice.
And not everyone beyond many at this site burn to further enrich Apple, especially by cutting their own (revenue) throats. Believe it or not, other companies want to get paid well for what they produce too. I know that's crazy. They should just do whatever Apple wants them to do but they're just self-serving "greedy" or something like that. Apparently, they have shareholders that want them to maximize profits too instead of shifting profits to Apple. Completely nuts. How dare they!
In fact, I can't quite grasp why "we" don't argue for the Treasury to stop printing money and distributing it to the people. If they would just send all they print to Apple, Apple wouldn't even have to make anything any more, profit margins could go sky high and the stock would go sky high with it. Nirvanna. Let's start the movement: #AllMoneyToApple Who's with me?
Last edited:
I like my apple products, but I'm not going to stick with the Apple TV when it doesn't have the functionality that I want. The reality is that Apple just won't allow any competition on their devices if they don't want it. Pandora being removed from Apple TV is a prime example. The Fire TV has Hulu and Netflix and Prime music and Prime video available too. For the sake of argument let's say Hulu starts live tv subscriptions and then Apple finally gets around to finishing their TV service liscensing agreements and starts a direct competitor to Hulu's service and deletes the app from your Apple TV without your consent. Would you let Apple force you to switch to their service or just get a different device?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
From who do you get your broadband? Just as much blood can be sucked from any dependency on which any competitor's alternative will depend.
But I fully support the concept that more competition is always good for us consumers.
But I fully support the concept that more competition is always good for us consumers.
Whoa. I've never accidentally fed a troll before.. Whoops.Or with Apple, the content owners give Apple their 30% cut right off the top. With this, the content owners (at least those that also own Hulu) keep the 30%. Not a hard choice.
And not everyone beyond many at this site burn to further enrich Apple, especially by cutting their own (revenue) throats. Believe it or not, other companies want to get paid well for what they produce too. I know that's crazy. They should just do whatever Apple wants them to do but they're just self-serving "greedy" or something like that. Apparently, they have shareholders that want them to maximize profits too instead of shifting profits to Apple. Completely nuts. How dare they!
In fact, I can't quite grasp why "we" don't argue for the Treasury to stop printing money and distributing it to the people. If they would just send all they print to Apple, Apple wouldn't even have to make anything any more, profit margins could go sky high and the stock would go sky high with it. Nirvanna. Let's start the movement: #AllMoneyToApple Who's with me?
Interesting view point but you really should list the other reasons why a majority of people want "Live" TV.
- Sports - yes this is huge. Thanks for listing at least.
- Local News - some still watch this
- "No-spoiler" TV. Some people really want to watch the first airing of certain shows and don't have streaming services that are real-time airings.
- Politics and elections. Watching results from sources that you cannot get live streams. More and more though are live streaming
- Disasters and other immediately news. Sometimes the web does not cut it for these
- Shows with contents and finals that are live (like Americas Got Talent, Survivor, etc)
- Local Public TV and Local Community TV live or nearly live airings.
- and the number one reason....
- No matter what, video broadcast HD over the air or through Satellite or Cable still crushes the compressed quality of streamed video. Also, please don't give me the argument that it will get better. I know that, at this time you cannot compare the two.
If the cord cutting services every get good quality video (BTW, I have 100 Mbs down and the quality does not come close to HD Broadcast quality, no mater who I use as the service and client) I'm on board.
Give me cable a la carte and a DVR. Yet I know it won't happen.
I don't see streaming as a win for the consumer as long as cable owns the 'pipes'.
Comcast owns NBC Universal and is now going after Dreamworks. They are going to own the content and the delivery. No competition. Consumer loses.
I don't see streaming as a win for the consumer as long as cable owns the 'pipes'.
Comcast owns NBC Universal and is now going after Dreamworks. They are going to own the content and the delivery. No competition. Consumer loses.
It's reasonable now, but will it be in 5yrs? 10yrs? Comcast is keeping the door open on data caps because it's banking on them becoming a profit center down the road (people either paying more for plans w/higher caps and/or people paying penalties for going over their cap). By moving the cap to 1TB they are just biding their time until a more 'business friendly' FCC is again established and/or until data caps are seen as normal an no one questions them (like having minutes on your phone plan).
I cut the cord in 2003 and reallocated the monthy expense to Blockbuster rentals. No commercials. No specified time. No going back. Anything less and I'd rather not watch it at all.
Then I obviously switched to online services and avoided the trip to the store.
Now, content also needs to be device agnostic. I primarily watch on my laptop, then phone, and least on the TV itself.
Then I obviously switched to online services and avoided the trip to the store.
Now, content also needs to be device agnostic. I primarily watch on my laptop, then phone, and least on the TV itself.
I get this already with PlayStation Vue. Such a great service. And I only pay $30 a month. Live tv, unlimited cloud DVR, apps for iPhone and iPad to watch everything as well. Everytime I boot it I wonder why Apple didn't do the same thing. I've saved so much money using IT then buying the seasons I want of shows on iTunes
Only issue I would have with them is that you can only watch on one ps4 at a time. You can watch on ps3 and ps4 at same time but not same console. So it sounds like it is tied to your psn account since you can only sign onto one at a time with account.
They haven't sold this to anyone yet, the existing Hulu without commercials is $12 a month and worth every penny. For $40 dollars and a bunch of channels I don't want well they can offer that as much as they want but I won't be getting it. Why would anyone? That's the same thing as cable/Sat.
Remember, Hulu is a trojan horse created by legacy media to protect their business model. It was started by traditional broadcast networks and has been trying to give just enough to seem a legitimate alternative to Netflix and (later) Amazon Prime Video. Free on the web to entice new users then fee to get it on a television in a meaningful way. Commercials despite being a subscription service. Small ($40) bundles tomorrow I'm sure will became cable-esque mega-packages next year and you'll be forced to take ESPN 8 (the Ocho) along with the A&E and Food Network you were really after. I'll stick with my Netflix, HBO Now, NFL Gamepass, and Showtime app and I'll fill in anything else I want via iTunes. My media spending is still lower than a typical year two cable/satellite package and I have exactly what I want in the way I want to consume it with zero commercials.
This is my pet tin-foil hat theory. Enjoy and feel free to share.
This is my pet tin-foil hat theory. Enjoy and feel free to share.
No. Like I said, Hulu (and Netflix) currently have it pretty much right on already. A few tweaks to the experience, little more content, and you're there. "Live TV" and DVRs are so backwards to me.
[doublepost=1462232453][/doublepost]
Stop watching TV and start thinking! TV is bad for the mind.
Haha - actually since cancelling cable I have found many other valuable uses for my time! Like posting on MR!
haha[doublepost=1462232783][/doublepost]
News and sports I get. But then there are antennas for that sort of thing.
No spoiler TV? Release the show for streaming the same time it airs.
Live reality shows? Guess I never considered these since I don't watch but most are available OTA too right?
Quality? I think the average consumer isn't as conserened with video quality as you think. An HD stream is usually "good enough" for most. Just look at the growth of Netflix. But I agree, streaming probably won't match cable/sat (which still doesn't match OTA) anytime soon.
The thing is that Hulu and Netflix models pricing isn't reflective of the actual revenue the networks/content providers are getting.
The example I always use is the day old bakery. Hulu and Netflix are similar to a day old bakery in that they take content that's already been run and created an additional revenue stream. Just like an day old bakery provides an additional revenue stream for the fresh goods bakery. The network/content providers don't mind because it's inventory that is just left over...hence it's extra money.
But the bulk of revenue comes from ad revenue and (for cable networks) subscription fees. The current model works when Hulu/Netflix/online is gravy. But if that's going to be the primary delivery model, there is no way the networks/content providers are going to do it unless it makes the same amount of money. It just doesn't make business sense.
To me this announcement sounds like the networks (who own Hulu) are starting testing the trial balloon of increasing the price on online content....and would quickly raise the rate for non-live tiers if they can.
It's a super complex problem. The delivery model can definitely be improved. However, the current model where the costs are shared has resulted in a golden age of content where there is quality programming for every niche. The flip side is the networks/content providers keep increasing the costs. (of course the fact they can dupe the public into blaming it on 'greedy cable/satellite' providers makes it easy.)
Well... it has to be better than Apple's one..
Good Disney channel could be coming to Hulu, and i guess that will mean all Simpsons episodes, not just the last season as they have now...
Not interested in the DVR stuff, just the content.
I always thought HULU was owned by the broadcasters ABC/NBC/CBS..... Wasn't it set up to compete with Netflix?
$40/mth? = Fail
$40/mth? = Fail
Sling TV gets you your live channels for $20 - $25...
HBO for $15, and Netflix for $9...
You don't have to wait, your dream line up is real
Hm. I'll have to think about that. For anyone who hasn't heard of or considered Vue before, here's a spreadsheet of what it offers vs what Sling offers:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R6zswJ0O0Q9RMldnsHAC6VrQjJTOaUYVzWT7MOt6_L4/htmlview
Sling is missing Comedy Central, CNN, Fox, and E!... They have very few of the channels from my list.
I wish more content providers promoted their stuff that way
$50 and u'd get a Foxtel content or the same amount, The difference would probably be not the price, but the content.