Hulu might be looking to subscriptions to turn digital pennies into digital dollars
By Ben Drawbaugh 
posted Oct 22nd 2009 11:34AM
posted Oct 22nd 2009 11:34AM
posted Oct 22nd 2009 11:34AM
The percentage of electronics at the end of their lives which were recycled.
The EPA found that the percentage remained consistent from 1999-2005. Even as recycling rates went up, the amount of electronics reaching end of life outpaced the increase, leaving the figure static. (source: EPA, July 2008)
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.
If they want to do this to Hulu they need to team up with an existing service like Netflix and not charge for Hulu content alone. I would pay per month - but not per show especially with no HD offered.
Ive been a fan of hulu since the closed beta when i got an invite to use it. It's great and i don't mind the commercials. If they want to do a subscription, the only way i will do it is if i can downlowd the shows, if it upgrades to 720p, and if there are no commercials for streaming.
Same here. I started using it before the public launch, and I've always liked it. But if they want my money, they'll have to kill the ads entirely and up the resolution.
Making users pay to watch Hulu will be the death of Hulu. Hulu is only cool because it's "free" to the viewer.
i agree. the only time i really use Hulu on a regular basis is to watch the prime time shows i miss because i'm at work or school (Fringe and Heroes). if they start charging then i would just simply put more effort into getting my HTPC fully controlling my TV viewing or just download torrents of the missed shows. i only use it cause it's free and it means i don't have to set anything up to record it or wait for it to download.
I'd pay if it was for Starz/HBO/show or big movie channels like that... Not a lot, but as long as that package included commercial free TV shows, and no more Viewing Windows... Plus they have to fix the buffering system... I like how netflix does the buffering and quality changing on-the-fly...
But for what they have now... nah, wont pay... im cool with the single commercials per break...
My TV watching priority is Media Center. If for some reason it missed a program or I forgot to schedule it, then it is hulu. If hulu charges it would be necessary to revert to a P2P download. A pay model will not work.
Stay expecting everything to be free huh?
lol i should have replied to you. that is exactly my situation. i don't mind watching a couple ads but if they charge for it, then i'll just have to get it free somewhere else.
hulu is great, but subscriptions if done badly will cause its death. For me, a subscription would only be good if:
1) subscribers got HD but non-subscribers got the usual quality now.
and / or
2) subscribers could get the whole season of episodes while non-subscibers only get the last 4 weeks.
Make the users now, not have to pay for what they already have, but make subscribers be able to get more out of hulu. Thats the only way it will work.
I agree with you but instead of whole season I want the whole series not the first 3 seasons or the past 2 recent season I want all episodes for 1st to current season for me to pay.
They need a better way or sort stuff also.
I would pay a small price for Hulu if the picture quality was better, and it had better support in Media Center and on Extenders. I would love to ditch Comcrap.
Hulu will die if this happen the only way i see this working is if Hulu adds a option for commercial free etc, that i wont mind but if Hulu does 100 percent fees goodbye hulu.
They wouldn't loose me I only watch hulu when I have missed something on tv AAAAAAAAAAAAAAND for some reason have forgotten to dvr it, which happens about 4 times a year.. at the most
Sorry grammer police I spent to say the word lose
And I misspelled grammar
Fewer commercials. Direct support appliances and PS3!!!
For that, $7/month.
Honestly it makes perfect sense for consumers to pay for Hulu. We pay for cable, for music, for movies, why shouldn't we pay for a service that is better than cable?
Question is why should we pay so much for cable?
I'm no rocket scientist, but if Hulu isn't happy with the revenue thats coming from their current advertisers, can't they just..............................increase advertiser fees?
And maybe advertising revenue would go up if they didn't keep trying to block Hulu from being used in Boxee, Game consoles, etc...
Hulu gained its notoriety by being a "new" way to watch TV but then the suits stepped in and have been trying to ruin that reputation by any means possible. If they decide to start charging for access, it will be defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.
Agreed Bob. If they start charging for content, people will revert back to torrenting. If you have a fast enough internet connection to stream live SD video at a decent bit-rate, it won't take too long to download SD video in mkv or avi format. Maybe its a 30 minute wait for an hour of tv? While watching that hour of tv, you get 1-2 more hours downloading, etc etc.
Soon, the newly formed piraters/users wouldn't be able to catch up to everything they need to watch. I think if you give people something, and then take it away, they'll try to find some way to get it back if they enjoyed it and won't be afraid of pirating to achieve that goal.
NBC translation: We have something that works and we are willing to ruin it to try and get more money.
The owners of Hulu make the content, how hard is it after that point to make money? Your expenses are only data related, and you have ad revenue to support the data costs.