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.
Netflix does it, but now HULU?!? Who's next?
- Thread starter LadyHoneyBabe
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You could make the same point about apps containing ads when iAd goes live. To me this will be more jarring to the average consumer than the subscription-based model, which consumers have the ability to opt-out of.
Surely
Guest
I don't see the problem with that. When you buy an iPhone/iPad, you are buying the device. You aren't entitled to free, quality Apps.
If devs/companies want to charge for their work, fine by me. It's not their responsibility to fill your iDevice up with awesome free Apps. If you want the good stuff, you have to pay for it.
What I don't want is to pay for an app or for content, and then have advertising thrown at me. It should be:
- Free with advertising, or
- Paid without advertising.
Hulu is a joint venture by News Corp. (FOX), NBC Universal (NBC) and Walt Disney (ABC), so if Hulu works out, they could just get rid of the individual apps and roll it into subscription based Hulu. After all, it is their child.
And you're right, they would become the cable company for the iPad and it's only the beginning of a lot of other apps charging subscriptions like Hulu will. 🙂
🙄 *sigh* You're assuming I said something I didn't. 🙂
Ultimately, it is their decision on what will be provided to paying customers. I do agree with you though that for $10 a month, it should be commercial-free.
If I'm not mistaken, you can still pull up the online version of the WSJ, just not the super-slick iPad version. I haven't heard otherwise.
So basically you're saying people are running a business? Welcome to the real world buddy. If you thought premium content would be free you have another thing coming.
Surely
Guest
🙄No I didn't. I responded directly to your post above, especially the part that I bolded.🙂
/smiley makes rolleyes less offensive
I'm not sure *most* people will be willing to pay $500-$830 for an iPad only to discover that in order to really enjoy it, they'll need to shell out $50 a month to keep decent content on it.
Certainly, there will some where this would not be an issue. However, if most already pay a cable and phone bill every month (among other things) they are going to be unwilling to pay this -- especially if they are expected to pay twice for essentially the same service.
I think the apps that charge a subscription -- as opposed to a one time upfront charge or free -- will be in the minority. I know that networks and content providers salivate over charging double for the same service in two mediums, getting money for subscriptions from users *and* getting ad revenue -- but its not going to work for them. There's a breaking point.
Your response was directed at quality apps. I'm speaking of subscriptions, no matter what the app is.
Is it ok if every app in the app store charges a subscription after downloading a paid or free app? I know that's not the way it is now, but it's definitely seems like it's heading in that direction. WSJ is double dipping those folks who purchased a digital, paper or both subscription because now they have to purchase an iPad subscription. At least with Zinio, once you purchase a subscription online or on your iPad you can access it anywhere...no double dipping.
I'm telling you, this is only the beginning. Once developers figure out ways to charge subscriptions and add on additional fees, they will. Download the app, but if you want to use the app, you need to pay a subscription or fee.
For example, I downloaded a free game. There was no other version, and it wasn't labeled as Lite. It was the regular game. I played one level of the game then I got a pop up saying I need to pay them some money to continue the game. So again, I'm saying this is the direction the apps in the app store is headed...additional subscriptions and fees to use their app.
I know that by July USA Today and Financial Times with both require subscriptions for their users. So, who there will be tons of others who will do the same.
Good, because I wasn't trying to be offensive. 🙂
I don't understand the point of this unless it's just to vent? Is this a call to boycott? The government to step in? To point out market movements to digital media monetization which are terribly obvious? What?
I killed my cable sub 3 years ago. To think I paid $110/month for a single TV household to me seems insane.
My take on this development specifically in regards to Hulu is that the revenue generated from this service, no matter how good, likely pales in comparison to the allotment from advertising/rev sharing from the cable conglomerates.
This extra cost is probably leverage to expand their infrastructure to accomodate archived shows, offset syndication costs, etc, for things that aren't watched much.
Regardless of any stance one has on this, the market will fix it is it doesn't make money. Simple.
I killed my cable sub 3 years ago. To think I paid $110/month for a single TV household to me seems insane.
My take on this development specifically in regards to Hulu is that the revenue generated from this service, no matter how good, likely pales in comparison to the allotment from advertising/rev sharing from the cable conglomerates.
This extra cost is probably leverage to expand their infrastructure to accomodate archived shows, offset syndication costs, etc, for things that aren't watched much.
Regardless of any stance one has on this, the market will fix it is it doesn't make money. Simple.
If they don't make money from the subscriptions, they'll probably raise the subscription price, unless they decide to make the entire site fee based.
Also, there are other apps moving from free to subscription based apps.
It'll be interesting to see just how many more apps will follow suit.
SchneiderMan
macrumors G3
Some already are.
You're paying for more than just the channels, but the programming, hardware, service in your home, etc.
Websites like Hulu generate revenue by having ads in the videos. This is what they've been touting since the begninning. Watch videos for free, but watch these commercials in exchange for our service. If they're going to start charging a fee for that service, it only makes sense to get rid of the ads for paying customers.
But it looks like they want to charge a fee AND have commercials too. Plus they'll probably take advantage of iAds when they release.
What if you don't have cable, or a DVR? Hulu will still be free, they are only charging for older material. For around $10 a month you have on-demand access to tons of cable and network material.. not bad if you don't have cable or are looking to get rid of cable and save some money.
I will not be paying for it, but see no issue with them offering a subscription model. I would just hope the paid content would be ad-free.