Poll: How much would you pay for Hulu on your TV?
By Ben Drawbaugh 
posted June 3rd 2009 10:06AM
posted June 3rd 2009 10:06AM
posted June 3rd 2009 10:06AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Yeah, the HDMI port in my lappy says I won't be paying anything to watch Hulu on the ol' 42' plasma. :)
My membership to tvtorrents.com says I won't be paying anything for any kind of TV service.
Gah! 42 inch plasma, not 42 foot plasma. Geez, I wish.
LOL! Don't tell Hulu but I DO watch Hulu on my TV. Its called Playon. ;)
http://www.themediamall.com/playon
And you paid $40 to do so.
of course, for the more frugally minded, there is always Tversity.
Why!?
What's with the language? Does this make you cool? Does this make people want to be your friend? Does this make you mom proud of you?
Nobody wants to hear from you if you post like that. Just go away. Yes, cable and phone companies require you to pay for their services. You have to pay for cloths, you have to pay for a house, where is your issue with those things? This isn't a complicated problem. If you don't like paying for it; don't. You won't have the services, but you won't have to pay for it.
Problem solved?
So they want to hit me up with ads AND make me pay? Haven't we had enough of this already from the dinosaur cable industry? No pay. Drop the ads and get off their damned high horse about hooking up a computer to a TV, then I will consider it for a SMALL fee.
That's the way I see. I you run ads, then sponsors pay, not me. I you're gonna charge me, I don't wanna see no stinkin' ads!
That's the way I see it. If you run ads, then sponsors pay, not me. I you're gonna charge me, I don't wanna see no stinkin' ads!
Sorry 'bout the repost... fingers got all f'd up
If you watch TV on cable, you see ads and pay. While I disagree with this method, it's been the norm for years.
I don't see a problem with paying a nominal fee to get Hulu on your TV. I paid $30 to PlayOn to get it as a one time fee, and I'm ok with that. I've gotten well over my $30 worth through my Xbox 360 and PS3.
I would be really upset if somehow Hulu disabled that ability, but if they released a "pay for" app download on either gaming system, I'd buy it.
I don't have cable or satellite TV service. My Mac mini's display is in fact my TV. Problem solved.
If Hulu doesn't make enough money via ads, shouldn't they charge more for the ads then? If there business model is to sell ads for streaming video, then shouldn't additional views be benficial to their business model?
That said, I'd consider paying a subscription fee for Hulu (less than cable), but only on 2 considerations:
1) The advertising stays as limited as it is now and doesn't expand to be like cable. 18 minutes of commercials for a 60 minute show is too much.
2) They expand their selection to include more content. IIRC, some networks still don't have their content on hulu, rather you have to go to the network site to stream it (abc is like this i htink). I'd only pay a subscription if it included access to all of that content too.
their
I watch HULU on my PS3 through HDMI at 1080p.
Nothing on that site is 1080p.
lol owned.
Its hopeless David, most ps3 games still believe their ps3 games are "true" 1080p and don't realize it upscaled from near dvd quality like 640p to 680p at best.
Poor Poor Pete. You think that just because your PS3 is outputting a signal in 1080p, that means the material you're watching is also in 1080p. It doesn't work that way my friend. You can set your PS3 to output in any resolution you want, most games are still 720 (or less) and most videos are also 720.
I would consider paying a small fee for Hulu on one condition: HD. None of this 480p high quality BS, If I'm paying for it, it should be in HD.
I agree. I would change my answer from nothing to something, if it streamed 720P or better. I will not pay for SD anything. I currently CAN watch HULU on my TV. I have a DVI to HDMI cable and a coax audio out on my laptop. It connects very nicely to my reciever. PlayOn also works. However, even though I CAN, I don't. due to picture quality.
Agreed, which is exactly why in my house tvtorrents.com > HULU.
This kind of response is why television is changing into something many people don't like: If viewers aren't willing to pay for high quality programming -- and pay enough to motivate companies to produce and distribute high quality programming -- then they bear the responsibility for the deterioration of both the overall quality of programming and the availability of quality programming. The sense of entitlement that pervades the perspective of many television viewers does nothing to foster a healthy system to deliver them the high-quality programming they claim they want.
Ask yourself this -- and be honest -- don't snow yourself with the same old childish rhetoric you post online: Why would you invest your money producing or distribution television programs, when you can make more profit investing in hotels or retailing or medical devices?
Very well said Brian! I'm tired of the sense of entitlement people have when it comes to media. I don't understand why it is viewed differently from any other product or service.
High quality content costs money to make.
If you want free video there are millions on YouTube.
Having said that, I do have a problem with the current Cable distribution method, but that is for another conversation.
You make a good point. The counterpoint is that the media companies wield too much market power and an arms length contract for services with consumers at a reasonable price is unattainable. So the market is broken. 'Take it or leave it' is not what is intended by free market economics. In a free market, if the price is to high, someone else will enter the market and offer a product or service at a lower price that people are willing to pay. Until recently, that was near impossible because of the cable monopolies. To some extent the internet is the first opportunity in a really long time where the barrier to entry for mass media is low enough that the market approach might actually work. That is as long as we don't allow the Hulu's of the world, or the broadband/cable providers to dictate the terms. The winds of change are blowing. Just like the internet is killing print news media, it is going to change broadcast media as well. Whether you think this is a good thing or a bad thing is not the point. It is going to happen either way.
There is a competitive marketplace for subscription television service, in every municipality in the country. DirecTV, Dish Network, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox, Charter, Cablevision, U-Verse, FiOS, etc. -- each municipality has at least three available.
What you're asking for isn't a fair market, but rather a market biased in the consumers' favor, where there is so much competition that none of the suppliers have a chance of making a profit. That's an unreasonable expectation.
The prices we see now are the prices that are reflective of the actual value we are provided. That's how much things should cost. And as Hulu becomes more mainstream, that's how much things are going to cost through Hulu, as well.
@Brian
Its not an issue of entitlement really. Some people act like they are entitled to the content. But there is also a certain thing called "supply and demand". The idea is if networks are trying to sell a product no one wants to buy, then you can't blame the consumer for it. Granted, it is always the consumer that drives the market.
To me, if Hulu wasnt free, I just wouldnt watch it. Theres a lot of people out there that would do the same. And honestly, its the right of Hulu to charge whatever the hell they want. If people pay for it, good for them. If they lose their audience, too bad. Doesnt matter to me one way or another. If they cant figure out a way to make profit on television shows, then they should be doing something else. Why should I feel bad if the networks cant afford to put quality program up? I can live without TV, and there are other forms of entertainment out there I'm more willing to pay for anyways.
Welcome to Socialism Brian! Up next, health care.
All points you make are bad because I already pay $107 a month to my satellite provider and I'll not pay a penny more. At what point does the amount we pay for content break our backs? They will always want more. They can't be happy with what they have, they come at us with more and more ways to pay for what we already deserve. Hulu should be a gratis service to all cable and satellite suscribers that already receive their channel. It should be a whip cream on the top, not a screw you get more.
I have no issues with not paying them. None!
Wow, you pay $107.00? Thats insane. At that price, I'd almost rather ditch your service, just watch over-the-air-hdtv for local news and buy 2-3 complete seasons of 2-3 different favorite tv shows. Or buy a super-good internet connection such as fios? or better and download 720p mkv of all the tv shows you like, watch them at your leisure, without commercials on any device you want and say 'f-hulu' I found something better.
@Brian's
"here is a competitive marketplace for subscription television service, in every municipality in the country. DirecTV, Dish Network, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox, Charter, Cablevision, U-Verse, FiOS, etc. -- each municipality has at least three available."
Wrong. That's the problem. In my city, I have a choice of 1 - Comcast (no FIOS). I suppose you can consider DirecTV or Dish in some areas, but my house, like many others, are unable to use it since I have a nice big hill and lots of tall tress blocking my LOS. Of course, the trees aren't on my property, so there's nothing I can do about it.
To date, even Comcast can't get me a decent ANALOG signal - I'm getting an F-ed up downconversion that they simply won't troubleshoot with me, and literally blew me off from support... how's that for competition? It's not my house wiring (they have confirmed that) but they refuse to fix it...
Anyway, long story short... I have no entitlement... I just expect to get what I pay for, and I'm not getting even that... and my rates continue to increase. Now you want me to pay more for Hulu? And, I fully expect they'll make it Windows only, rendering my MythTV box incapable... so instead I'll torrent what I want at a far higher quality than paying for SD/Windows Hulu.
If it were part of Xbox live Gold, I'd go gold. I think $5 would be more palitable though. If they could get Hulu running at full resolution (720p/1080i) like the movie service is going to be this fall, that might do a lot to persuade me too.
Can you say HDMI?, lol run hulu destop and add it as another monitor.
I just flip my HDTV to PC mode and hook my laptop to it an watch Hulu. If they want me to pay for Hulu they need at least 720 HD and a 24 hour turn a round. Fox makes you wait 8 days to watch shows that just aired.
I would consider paying if I could see a show that aired tonight on Hulu next day.
Fill the breaks up with ads. I'm not paying a monthly fee for broadcast TV.
I watch Hulu on my PC, so I am following their rules. It happens to be hooked up to a 42" Plasma TV. So there Hulu. I f@rt in your general direction. You silly english k-nig-t.
I watch Hulu right now on my xbox 360 and PS3.... Playon rocks...
I might watch Hulu if I could do so through my Tivo, otherwise It's not generally worth the hassle to me. I have enough other programming choices since I have cable and Netflix.
I'd be willing to pay $10/month, but I already get on my TV now. Thanks Apple for the Mac Mini.
What? Making me watch the same forest fire ad 4 times in an hour isn't making them money? How strange...
I don't understand why they don't have a model where you have to have an account and have a little questionnaire about your interests. Seems to me like there HAS to be money in targetted advertising. It is a huge advantage over traditional TV for ad revenue.
xnappo
Excellent point xnappo! Why are these idiots trying to apply the same paradigm to Internet streaming as for network TV. They are indeed missing a huge opportunity to do scalpel sharp targeted advertising to each individual customer. Plus, since I would be served ads based on my preferences, interests, etc. then they would be much less annoying to me, I might actually watch more of them, and therefore they are much more likely to be effective. How stupid are these guys that they would miss such an obvious opportunity like this?!? I am amazed that most executives can keep their jobs. The world is run by morons!
I am ALREADY paying for hulu. What do you think that those commercials are that they stick in with the content. Plus all of the advertising that is already in the content to begin with. It is like on IMDB where they make you watch a commercial before you can watch a trailer. How funny is that. You have to watch an advertisement to watch an advertisment...
@Martin: exactly this. this is part of the problem with cable at the moment. not only is the distribution method broken, but the prices are going up (at least with comcast) while the ads become even more intrusive. i'm not willing to pay it anymore so i cancelled comcast. at this point the only thing that could persuade me to pay for television is an a-la-carte model. make my money through advertisements like it was done for decades. someone else up above mentioned hulu utilizing targeted advertising, which is a brilliant solution.
Hah, why would I pay to get hulu on my tv? Hulu is neat and all, but the obvious appeal of Hulu is that it's free, legal, and easy. Break any of those and it doesn't get you anywhere.
As much as I detest my cable company I am hardly willing to replace one poor subscription service for another. Paying a premium for their services then having to endure endless commercials is hard enough to swallow from my cable provider. Luckily there are workarounds on platforms such as media center, which i intend to use. If I cant get the same thing from Hulu I would rather not waste my time.
I wouldnt mind paying a monthly fee if I had a choice between commercials or a subscription service without, but we all know we cant have our cake and eat it too.
On a slight upside, media center developers are integrating the Hulu desktop into media center....sorta.
I like Hulu. I purchased a license for PlayOn and use it with my PS3 and am satisfied with the results. If I can use this setup to access HD content, it would be happy to pay an additional reasonable license fee, if necessary.
But I have reached my limit on monthly fees. I'm trying to cut back on them, not add more. Maybe it's time to move to the woods.
I too watch Hulu on my TV via an HDMI cable from my Laptop. This is all coming about because the old man that owns Fox (which is part owner of Hulu) thinks people should pay for the stuff they look at on a computer screen. This old man would be wrong. There will always be free content on the web. There used to be companys that thought people would pay a monthly fee to use there search engine on the interwebs. How are they makin' out these days?
I would honestly pay $10 a month IF AND ONLY IF:
1 - The quality was up to par. Define par if you wish
2 - It didn't stutter and load and make me wait. It should work like I am watching tv.
3 - The advertisements stayed the way they are. One 30 second ad every 15min is just fine.
I am not understanding why the Roku can't play Hulu when Netflix Streaming has many NBC shows and Nickelodeon shows that update one or two days after the original airs and there are NO commercials.
>>I am not understanding why the Roku can't play Hulu when Netflix Streaming has many
>>NBC shows and Nickelodeon shows that update one or two days after the original airs and
>> there are NO commercials.
Netflix pays for the right to stream those NBC and Nickelodeon shows. Hulu doesn't pay anything. Hulu's agreement with content providers may only allow them to stream to PCs.
Hulu is owned by NBC, FOX, and some other network I forget. Why would they charge themselves to put their content up?