Why I am okay paying $5/mo for Hulu on the iPad...

Discussion in 'iPad' started by anthonymoody, Feb 22, 2010.

  1. anthonymoody macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2002
    #1
    1) I believe that Hulu will convert to a paid service on all devices, not just the iPad, and that it will probably happen sooner rather than later (<12 months)

    2) I believe that a paid version will mean that Hulu comes to the iPad sooner than it otherwise would (or that it might not come at all if not paid)

    3) I believe $5/mo is fair. $10 or more and they're playing with fire IMO. My guess is that the demand proves highly elastic too much above $5.

    Flamesuit on. :cool:
     
  2. MacDawg macrumors P6

    MacDawg

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    "Between the Hedges"
    #2
    I haven't really found that much on Hulu that I was interested in
    I prefer to stream from Netflix or queue the DVD

    Hulu is a meh for me unless things radically change
     
  3. polotska macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2007
    #3
    I wouldn't object to a reasonable monthly fee so long as there are no commercials.
     
  4. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #4
    Who knows if and what any fees will be.

    But given that Apple is trying for $30 for a subscription to content - it will probably come down to profit margins and compensation deals with all parties involved - not what the consumer is willing to pay.

    The whole area is very precarious because the area and contracts are still pretty new as to what defines usage/rights/etc and how actors, creators, studios, etc are compensated for all these new media outlets.

    People want to be paid for their work - especially if (beyond the original intent) other people are profiting from it.
     
  5. anthonymoody thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2002
    #5

    I've given a lot of thought to the rumored $30 pricepoint. It's a tough one to make add up - I mean most cable packages seem to run $50-100/mo (some more with tons of premium channels) so it's tough to see how apple can convince all the content providers to essentially take so large a haircut (recognizing that cable co. margins are built into those monthly fees). As we saw with music, if anyone can, it's SJ, but now of course with the success of iTunes, every other industry is now super leery of ceding control to SJ so that success may now be a hindrance...

    As to the rights - yup, right on. I'm a film producer and can speak first hand to the scramble going on to redo contracts and union agreements, strike new deals, etc. Tough to navigate at the moment.
     
  6. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #6
    Anthony - I agree. And lately in the news - there's been a lot of reluctance from the networks to work on such a deal with Apple let alone drop their shows to .99 for anything more than a "test" period.

    As for the contract issue - it's what all the recent strikes are based upon (among other things).

    And I don't know which "camp" you're in - nor do I really know which one I am totally in. I do believe in fair compensation and that if someone has worked on something - and that "something" continues to make money - then the people involved should be compensated.

    The problem with compensating everyone, however - is that it will keep/drive prices up for content creation since everyone will want something "significant" vs .00001 percent, etc.

    It's a slippery slope - and really has nothing to do with Apple, the iPad itself - but the industry and all new content delivery methods. Apple is just a contributing factor.
     
  7. anthonymoody thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2002
    #7

    Overall agreed. And there's another problem with "compensating everyone" especially when it comes to residuals: the tracking/reporting requirements are onerous as it is (especially with the food chain so fragmented) without now having 29 other potential sources of revenues to split up 10000 ways. The system as currently implemented stinks, and I fear it'll get worse.

    Apropos of nothing...Walmart eats Vudu. Interesting.
     
  8. skubish macrumors 68030

    skubish

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, Michigan
    #8
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)

    Pay for content at $30 price point just means back to the torrentz for most people. ITunes is successful because of its low price. I think content providers just need to realize their content just isn't worth what it once was. There is too much competition now.
     
  9. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #9
    Yes - but see my post and Anthony's - it's not just a question of whether or not their is more competition or whether the content holds the same value. The "real" issue is compensation for parties involved. You might think "some" is better than none - but considering the tracking, paperwork, legal fees, etc mess that's involved - content providers aren't just going to roll over. Many - I would assume - would simply not offer their content on various platforms.
     
  10. FrankieTDouglas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    #10
    The price of cable doesn't matter at all to me, because I care not to have it.

    I'd pay a one-time $5 fee for the hulu app and then watch streaming content with commercials, fine.

    Or Apple could get their **** together and offer standard flash support. Problem solved.
     
  11. vertigo78 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2008
    #11
    i love to torrent. but id be willing to pay a reasonable subscription if they made their entire libraries available. It would be worth having so much content immediately available.
     

Share This Page