Hulu Plus Now Available on Apple TV

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Except there will be more ISPs.

Right now, internet service availability is driven by homes wanting cable TV, with data service being a byproduct of rolling the wires out to millions of homes. Not many wanted just data service, they wanted content and purchased accordingly.

Now, with customers accelerating to data-service-only plans and sources, other players are moving in. Clear and cellular providers are trying to make wireless broadband work, Google is rolling out stupid-fast services in some areas, and others are also finding enough customers to make data-only broadband worthwhile. Having a big enough audience at last, they then have to compete by lowering rates below what already-in-place cable companies are charging.

Rates may go up for now, but the moment someone comes in with (for most practical purposes) uncapped low-ping reliable easy alternatives a whole lotta people will switch. At >$60/month for data, and no other reason to stay, the first viable alternative to Comcast that rolls up my street will have another customer.

There's chatter starting about clearing a large swath of radio spectrum for data use. As the cost of providing high-bandwidth data service plummets with cheap servers and improved wireless delivery, anyone who jacks up rates will lose customers fast.

Time for another shot at finding local alternatives to Comcast...

I'm with you conceptually. However, "talk" is just talk. There have been lots of companies talking about solutions that threaten the "status quo." What happens to those solutions?

For example, there was a big effort (backed by Google and Apple) to make unused channel boundary wireless bandwidth available for what could be used as free/cheap, high-speed wireless bandwidth. It seemed feasible/logical but was crushed by the established players. There was a company who had a satt-based solution which looked like a viable threat to AT&T & Verizon 3G/4G. It got crushed by Version, AT&T, etc. With the digital television transition, there was a ton of bandwidth available that could have been parceled out to many competitors; instead the bulk of it was allowed to be "won" by Verizon & AT&T.

The problem is that those new wires almost never roll up our streets. If the upstart "old guard" challenger rolling them doesn't get crushed by the established players, they'll be acquired. In communications, there's just too much power in too few hands. Their model is to crush or absorb all challengers to protect cash flows "as is."

Broadband is a rapidly growing market and has been for years. But new broadband players are few and far between. Why is that? Because the established players like things "as they are" and are willing to spend the money on campaigns to keep the government out of their hair. With the government at bay, they have plenty of power to crush the upstarts.

Think of it like this: who were the real players for broadband (or television package subscription or 3G/4G cellular) 5 years ago? 10 years ago? Who are the real players now? Where are the real competitors to the "big dogs"? Within this thread, a few people are talking about small, local installs of fiber but it’s a very long time before a Centurylink or Fios is even modestly widespread. And between now and that point in time, I would look for Centurylink to be bought out by one of the bigger players (Fios is already owned by one of them).

 

[bbeagle]

No streaming service is providing anything close to viable "live" service.

The Wall Street Journal app on the Apple TV does this.

It's not as good as it should be - but it's a start.

 

[vampyr]

Does anyone use Hulu Plus??

I subscribed to it for a few months and found it offered nothing that I couldn't get from Amazon Prime or Netflix.

In fact, after the first week... It was difficult to find anything remotely interesting to watch on it. Most of it was just a crappy collection of movies and shows that bombed at the box office or was cheaply made and looked like something my neighbor filmed with his new VHS camcorder

 

[Orange Crane]

Two reasons that I see:

1) More back episodes instead of just the last few ep.
2) HD video

One more- the majority of the machines mountain lion is "compatible" with don't support mirroring.

Does anyone use Hulu Plus??

I subscribed to it for a few months and found it offered nothing that I couldn't get from Amazon Prime or Netflix.

In fact, after the first week... It was difficult to find anything remotely interesting to watch on it. Most of it was just a crappy collection of movies and shows that bombed at the box office or was cheaply made and looked like something my neighbor filmed with his new VHS camcorder

I had the same opinion. The fact that the Simpsons is available on Hulu but not Hulu plus is what did it for me, in addition to the worthless content. Buying up rights to junk that nobody wants to watch to pad numbers is not a way to keep people paying month after month.

 

[Stowaway]

Guess it's time to ditch the ROKU

It's about time Apple!

 

[JTStarkiller]

Does anyone use Hulu Plus??

I subscribed to it for a few months and found it offered nothing that I couldn't get from Amazon Prime or Netflix.

In fact, after the first week... It was difficult to find anything remotely interesting to watch on it. Most of it was just a crappy collection of movies and shows that bombed at the box office or was cheaply made and looked like something my neighbor filmed with his new VHS camcorder

I do. I use it to watch new Community, Parks and Recreation, and The Simpsons (which is on the computer only, sadly). New episodes of Beavis & Butthead were also on there for a while. Not to mention a wealth of Criterion movies that aren't on Netflix. I'm saving almost $100 a month by not subscribing to cable, so the extra ~$17 for Netflix and Hulu Plus has been worth it.

EDIT: Forgot to mention South Park as well.

 

[faroZ06]

We use a Tivo for recording antenna broadcast programming, and an Apple TV for everything else. It works great.

I'd love to have just 1 box, but I'll do this until Apple decides to buy Tivo, or make their own DVR with an interface that's as good as Tivo.

We were doing TiVO with Amazon and Netflix, but the TiVO box is quite expensive, and Amazon videos take a very long time to load for some reason. We got the FiOS box because the video does not go over our internet connection but our TV fiber, but it kept saying that we can't use HDMI because our anti-copy thing was "compromised", and the whole thing is very unreliable. We also have cable TV this way, but someone lost the remote, and the iOS remote app won't work.

----------

One more- the majority of the machines mountain lion is "compatible" with don't support mirroring.

I thought all Macs supported mirroring, and the newer ones also supported extended display?

----------

I haven't looked at Hulu and other services that much, but does the Apple TV currently support any service that lets you watch the Euro Cup and World Cup soccer tournaments? Those are the only things I care about that aren't on local TV.

----------

Unfortunately, the objective of capitalism is NOT to make anything to better for consumers, but to engorge the capitalist. If he can do that via quality, so be it. If he can do it by buying the laws, so much the better.

Nah, we don't need no stinkin' regulation.

Capitalism will help the consumer if monopolies and teamed companies cannot exist. Prices are low because of the competition. Unfortunately, SMS and cable TV are all ripoffs run by allied companies.

Do you guys realize that you are paying $30/month in the US if you have an SMS plan just so you can send a few KB of text? It costs less than $30/month to own the latest MacBook Pro every day if you sell it every 2 years then buy a new one. You could rent a cheap car for $30/month. You could send SMS for free. But no, phone companies are all agreeing to support SMS and our 1800s phone system.

 

[DavidLeblond]

I thought all Macs supported mirroring, and the newer ones also supported extended display?

Not for Airplay Mirroring. Only the Macs released in the last year support it.

 

[ctdonath]

I'm with you conceptually. However, "talk" is just talk. There have been lots of companies talking about solutions that threaten the "status quo." What happens to those solutions?

Valid point.
But they're not gone.

Notice your rebuttal focused on "crushing". They're not winning by attracting customers, they're winning by destroying competition thru other means. While this will work for some time, it can't survive. Upstarts will keep trying until something breaks through. Monopolies fail.

I gather there's growing chatter of clearing a significant swath of radio bandwidth for wireless data usage. The audience segment wanting to jump to a different service is growing fast. Someone will figure out how to make that happen.

Clear may be stalled, but they're still around and making progress. Fiber is being rolled out; not as fast as we may like, but it's spreading. The time will come.

 

[faroZ06]

Not for Airplay Mirroring. Only the Macs released in the last year support it.

Oh, I thought you meant regular mirroring with cables.

 

[AppleScruff1]

They don't need Apple to do that - they already jack the rates up every year.

The only real hope for the internet is Google right now. GIGABIT in Kansas City!! How does 1000 down and up compare to what you get?? (and for only $70. a month) - that's not the paltry 100 down Verizon and some others offer for like $200. a month - it's 1000 !!!

ISPs need to get off their asses and start bringing real broadband to the masses. Google has shown it can be done and it won't cost the subscriber much more than they pay right now.

Your move TimeWarner, Comcast, Charter, etc....

The Google service in KC would be a dream come true. How are they delivering the connection? Did they build a system or are they using someone else's?

Except there will be more ISPs.

Right now, internet service availability is driven by homes wanting cable TV, with data service being a byproduct of rolling the wires out to millions of homes. Not many wanted just data service, they wanted content and purchased accordingly.

Now, with customers accelerating to data-service-only plans and sources, other players are moving in. Clear and cellular providers are trying to make wireless broadband work, Google is rolling out stupid-fast services in some areas, and others are also finding enough customers to make data-only broadband worthwhile. Having a big enough audience at last, they then have to compete by lowering rates below what already-in-place cable companies are charging.

Rates may go up for now, but the moment someone comes in with (for most practical purposes) uncapped low-ping reliable easy alternatives a whole lotta people will switch. At >$60/month for data, and no other reason to stay, the first viable alternative to Comcast that rolls up my street will have another customer.

There's chatter starting about clearing a large swath of radio spectrum for data use. As the cost of providing high-bandwidth data service plummets with cheap servers and improved wireless delivery, anyone who jacks up rates will lose customers fast.

Time for another shot at finding local alternatives to Comcast...

How are new ISP's going to deliver their content? I understand how the cell companies may jump in, but it's going to cost billions to build systems to get the current coverage of FIOS and cable. I can't see them doing that away and giving the service away at bargain prices.

Apple only makes that profit because customers like the product/services enough they're willing to give Apple billions for it.
I've bought enough cheap crap in my life to know that paying premium prices can be worth it.

This is capitalism, where someone makes a profit by providing goods/services others are willing to pay for; if someone doesn't want it, they're not compelled to pay.
This isn't socialism, where someone takes money from others under duress and gives them lousy goods/services, or nothing, in return.

My statement was intended to be sarcastic. The loyalist's will find joy in Apple making even more money at their expense.

 

[juniormaj]

Cool!!!

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Notice your rebuttal focused on "crushing". They're not winning by attracting customers, they're winning by destroying competition thru other means. While this will work for some time, it can't survive. Upstarts will keep trying until something breaks through. Monopolies fail.

What monopolies on par with the "big dogs" I'm talking about (like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc) have failed without the government stepping in to break them up? I can't think of any.

On the other hand I can think of all kinds of monopolies that don't fail if they aren't forced to break up. For example, the phone system in Mexico is a monopoly and the guy that owns it is often at or near the top of the richest people on Earth lists. Not for being an oil barron or a banker, he's just the owner of an AT&T-like entity that has a monopoly on communications services in a country that many don't see as a center of great wealth.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for the idea of upstart competitors popping up and bringing us all super high-speed broadband at dirt cheap prices. When they get here, super cheap free wifi everywhere should quickly follow. Relative to television, watching everything streamed through that same pipe would also follow (and be dirt-cheap). So in one big innovation of a broadly accessible source of cheap broadband, this upstart could basically kill the "big 3" of communications: 1) broadband "as is", 2) cable/satt "as is" and 3) cell phone service providers "as is".

Now, recognizing that those 3 would all be in great jeopardy if they allow any upstart to offer dirt cheap broadband in a widespread way, what are the established players constantly vigilant to crush, undermine or legally exterminate?

 

[newagemac]

Indeed. Sometime this evening would be nice, so my wife would stop hounding me to get cable just so she can watch Olympics live.

That's the kicker: live.
No streaming service is providing anything close to viable "live" service. Breaking news? (and I mean 9/11-type "breaking" and "news") Special events? (a la Olympics) Maybe even just nice webcam service? (a live well-placed high-def view of Outer Banks beaches or Tetons mountains would make for a pleasant background) "Live" video is a huge service waiting to happen.

On the Apple TV, the Wall Street Journal, Major League Baseball, NBA, and NHL all provide live streaming services. Works well too.

 

[ctdonath]

What monopolies on par with the "big dogs" I'm talking about (like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc) have failed without the government stepping in to break them up? I can't think of any.

GM, Chrysler, and other "too big to fail" companies come to mind. They would have collapsed if the government hadn't stepped in to prop them up.

----------

On the Apple TV, the Wall Street Journal, Major League Baseball, NBA, and NHL all provide live streaming services. Works well too.

Then may the ability spread to more interesting content.
WSJ is always "no feed now" when I try it. MLB/NBA/NHL hold zero interest for me, so pardon my unfamiliarity with those apps beyond their occupying screen space. I was hoping for a live-streaming Olympics app to appear; alas. True "breaking news" will be the tipping point.

 

[faroZ06]

GM, Chrysler, and other "too big to fail" companies come to mind. They would have collapsed if the government hadn't stepped in to prop them up.

GM and Chrysler were not monopolies.

 

[JAT]

Yes. I cancelled my Comcast Service and took the cable left behind and ran it right to my tv. I get different stuff from my subscription, but all the major networks plus Discovery, NatGeo, PBS, TNT, NBATV, and more in HD. I was prepared to go the antenna route, but never needed to.

Someone has since posted that this shouldn't be happening. I don't know, but it seems equivalent to the OTA stuff folks are getting. I guess as a test you could pull your cable from the box, smack it into your tv, then do a channel scan. It can't hurt to try. Especially if you were planning on an antenna anyway.

Technically, the cable company will usually shut off the QAM signal sent for free over their wire, and the consumer will have to revert to an actual antenna to get local channels. (the QAM is a service from cablecos to replace the antenna) I really don't see how you can be getting TNT, NBA, Disc. That's an impressive list of mistakes on their part, and I would have thought they'd be digitally encrypted. Do you have a cablecard in your TV that they didn't shut off? Or are those somehow local OTA channels?

Does anyone use Hulu Plus??

I subscribed to it for a few months and found it offered nothing that I couldn't get from Amazon Prime or Netflix.

Hulu+ has crappy old shows. Netflix is far better, but Hulu (no plus) is where the older shows are. Hulu+ is for other things. Like current shows in HD. Which is kinda pointless until the new season starts. There are a few summer shows. Burn Notice. Oops, Burn Notice is Hulu non-plus.

My statement was intended to be sarcastic. The loyalist's will find joy in Apple making even more money at their expense.

From my standpoint, Apple does better things with the money I give them than Comcast does.

 

[ctdonath]

GM and Chrysler were not monopolies.

Neither are Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc.

 

[razmage]

You really think once enough people have "cut the cord" cable companies won't raise your internet access rates to pretty much the same as getting their package deals? Enjoy it while it lasts, but just like the cell carriers they will just raise rates to compensate loss of income streams (no pun intended lol)

Remember - it wasn't always cable as the only way to get internet. If they do that too much people will just go back to DSL or FiOS (if its available).

 

[tbayrgs]

You know, I've just been using Airplay on my Mountain Lion-equipped MacBook to display Hulu on my TV. Why would I pay for Hulu Plus?

Agreed, if you have the hardware.

You've got a $1,500 workaround.

Many people, like me, just have a $99 Apple TV connected to their TV. The $9/month fee for Hulu Plus is a much better solution than paying $1,500 for a MacBook.

I doubt anyone is going to buy a brand new computer for this option but for those of us who already have the equipment, it's actually a far better option than using Hulu+ on the TV as there is no monthly subscription required and the selection is MUCH better.

 

[Bheleu]

Not for Airplay Mirroring. Only the Macs released in the last year support it.

AirParrot.Com $10 lets you mirror older macs to the TV

 

[GorgonPhone]

Your spelling and grammar is somehow _exactly_ what I expect from someone with your viewpoints.

yeah.... typing too fast and not caring suuuuuux.... but paying for crappy programs and adds suux tooo..lolol

----------

OTA isn't an option in some places.

And rips & torrents & shady servers & legally debatable downloads aren't "free", they take time to prep and maintain. For 8 minutes' work a month I can get Hulu Plus and not deal with the hassle of "free".

"The hassle of FREE!!!" that is a great anti piracy marketing line..

i have over 2000 CDs that i bought bak in the 90s..lol and now they are a cumbersome hassle..

 

[handsome pete]

Remember - it wasn't always cable as the only way to get internet. If they do that too much people will just go back to DSL or FiOS (if its available).

Fios is "cable." Don't expect Verizon to not adjust their internet only packages accordingly.

 

[Chris Grande]

If they keep adding more channels they really need to allow us to remove them from the home screen if we have no intention to use them.

Mostly all of them can be removed if you enable Parental Controls. I think just the WSJ can't but I filed that as a bug.

 

[Komentra]

Awesome. Now can we get a Amazon Prime channel? I know it's unlikely but please? And HBOGO while were on the subject.