Hulu was at one point the television industry’s big hurrah – the place where people could stream shows online. During the show there would still be commercials, but thanks to the internet the commercials would be personalized to you. This meant that you didn’t have to resort to going to (highly popular yet ultimately illegal) torrent sites just so you could get your fix on, say, The Daily Show.
However, it has been announced that Hulu is going to change.
That’s right.
Change.
Why all the spaces? OK. Get ready. Hulu is going to ask that you “authenticate” your Hulu experience by… go on, guess… that’s right! Already being a cable subscriber. So that means that you have to sign up for hundreds of channels that you wont watch for $70-$110 just so you can watch the handful of shows you like on Hulu. This. Makes. Zero. Sense.
Hulu, you had a wonderful thing going on there. Sure, it’s been hard to get people to wise up to streaming television, but give it time and it will happen. However, nobody is going spend $75 a month to have television at home just so they can watch the shows they want to watch on their computer. That’s just not how it works. People aren’t buying televisions anymore; more and more are watching on their computers, and this is how you treat your customers? Fat fucking chance anyone will bother to “authenticate” their account by purchasing cable. This is price gouging and it will force millions (approximately 31 million people used Hulu in March of this year) to download the shows.
Hulu’s decision is not entirely unlike HBOGO which has current HBO subscribers authenticate their premium cable account to use the streaming-HBO-anywhere service. However, even HBOGO is set to go to a small monthly fee – the $13 or so that one uses to pay for HBO anyway – to use their service. Because they’re not dumb and they know that more people would use the service if they cut the price from, oh, I don’t know, $75 to $110 a month for cable to $13 for just HBO. Hulu’s strategy is the exact opposite of that plan.
I’m not saying television should be free – far from it. I’d be happy to pay a flat fee for Hulu (which was their Hulu Plus business model); it makes sense that people should be paid for their work. However, the cable industry is trying to squeeze the last dime out of our pockets because they know that they are no longer relevant – nobody needs a cable box when they can just stream things on the internet now.
Internet video is the next explosion area (if it isn’t exploding already). At peak hours, Hulu’s main competitor Netflix accounts for a third of all internet traffic. Yes. Really. That’s a lot of people streaming video and paying $8 a month for it. Why Hulu can’t see that and run with it is beyond me. Hulu’s announcement to switch back to being attached to cable is completely backwards thinking and clearly the result of some old-boys in a boardroom somewhere wondering how to squeeze money out of people. It’s shallow, gross, and just awful. This is where free market capitalism gets us.
May 01, 2012 at 4:27 pm, Reid LePage said:
!
May 01, 2012 at 4:32 pm, Kristy Hutchinson said:
Ok, I don't agree with the last sentence…but, this just annoys me.
May 01, 2012 at 4:38 pm, Arthur Sabintsev said:
likewise, I don't agree with the last sentence. These are just idiots trying to force the old TV model into the new generation of TV
May 01, 2012 at 9:37 pm, Wade Golden said:
The last sentence is factually correct. This *is* where free market capitalism gets us. More streaming movies and TV shows than any person could watch in years for a total of $16 a month (both Netflix and Hulu). If Hulu really decides to do this, they will go under and another company can attempt to take their place. If the networks are dicks about it and won't let another company stream without authentication that we're also paying $50+ a month, then we'll all go find something else to do with our time, and the networks will suffer. Adapt or die – free market capitalism is awesome.
May 02, 2012 at 3:05 pm, Kristy Hutchinson said:
True enough…I guess I was disagreeing with the author's sentiment that this is somehow a bad thing.
May 01, 2012 at 4:38 pm, Caroline Bassett said:
Netflix accounts for 1/3 of all internet traffic! That's insane!
May 01, 2012 at 4:42 pm, Ryan Matthews said:
seems kind of fitting though, you should pay for the content through your cable and then a fee to watch anytime.
May 02, 2012 at 5:47 am, Tom Woollacott said:
You should pay for cable? Really Ryan? They land all ad revenues and force channels down your throat with perfectly viable, free(albeit with a net connection), alternatives and I should cough up 60 a month to hook my TV to a box instead of my PC? I'll take the delay and or spotty quality save what amounts to around weight hundred dollars a year
May 01, 2012 at 4:39 pm, Doug Nicholson said:
That last sentence is total bullshit Ned Hepburn. The free market is the reason Hulu will now fail and also the reason someone else will take their idea and make it better. I'm sorry if you disagree with their decision, but not everything in life is free sir or deserves to be.
May 01, 2012 at 5:29 pm, Mark Padgett said:
I agree! I haven't read this article in particular, but I'm really tired of all the nonsense about how intellectual property rights should be throttled, because they "stifle" innovation. Without IP rights, we wouldn't have quality innovation!
May 01, 2012 at 6:25 pm, Alexander Thorburn Hoffman said:
I couldn't have said it better.
May 01, 2012 at 10:02 pm, Garrett Dunham said:
Thank you for saying what I was thinking. I agree with most of the article (Hollywood is in dying and taking everyone out with them) right until the jab on free market. You're exactly right, this isn't where free market capitalism gets us, Hulu dying is where free market capitalism gets them.
May 02, 2012 at 12:10 am, Ray Dull said:
Mark Padgett Yes I agree that IP rights should exist, but when it comes to digital content, DRM does nothing but hurt the consumers. There has not been a single DRM that has not been cracked, so people still pirate things, while there are several cases where DRM has blocked access to paying customers, or restricting how it can be accessed. Yes people should be paid for their work, but when it gets to the point that I need to have an encrypted link between my video card and my display to be able to watch a video that I paid for, or I can have no restrictions at all on content that I can get for free, the restrictions become a deterrant to paying.
May 02, 2012 at 4:39 am, Ben Sercombe said:
Yes because nothing remarkable has been done or made on personal innovation alone. Free market capitalism finds a way to privatize any free commodity. That's why we are seeing so many social networking websites sell out to private enterprises. I mean, while it is true that Hulu was already run privately, I think that the internet has taken a pretty harsh blow from free market capitalism. Remember when the writer strike was going on a couple of years ago and youtube decided to introduce Vevo into its agenda? Is this the free market "tak[ing] an idea and mak[ing] it better?" Do I even have to mention CISPA?
May 02, 2012 at 5:18 am, Alexander Thorburn Hoffman said:
CISPA isn't free market capitalism. CISPA is more government control of the internet and the market place. Free market capitalism on the net has led to youtube, facebook, google, amazon all growing as companies and helping to redefine entertainment, shopping and human interaction. Not all actors in the free market make good decisions. When they make bad ones they get punished for it. Myspace couldn't keep up with Facebook in terms of features people liked and people left it. Google is still the top search engine, but it has to complete with Bing now. Blogger isn't the only blog site anymore. Tumblr and WordPress are changing the way blogging is done and changes are made to both sites all the time to improve on the experience. Free market capitalism (basically zero rules) is alive on the internet and is the reason we have choices and innovations happen. Hulu's decision is just the creative destructive side of capitalism. When something changes for the worse, it should be allowed to fail. Someone else will capitalize on their mistakes and create something that people actually want.
May 02, 2012 at 2:07 pm, Ben Sercombe said:
Alexander Thorburn Hoffman CISPA was funded primarily by movie and music corporations. I think people are more focused on keeping government out of corporations than they are about keeping corporations out of the government. The same "zero rules" of free market capitalism allow it to infiltrate our government and other countries' governments. I mean don't you think the stressed importance of a free market society has contributed to Citizens United being passed? Isn't that the ultimate form of free market capitalism? Free market capitalism has some idea that the "invisible hand" of market is some sort moral compass when actually laws protecting workers and the environment are seen as a barrier to trade. Have any of you studied NAFTA or the Washington Consensus. Did anyone live through the 90s here?
May 02, 2012 at 3:25 pm, Alexander Thorburn Hoffman said:
Ben Sercombe
1) CISPA if signed into law will not funded by anyone but the government. It's a government bill. Maybe you're trying to say that the private film industry wants CISPA and you're right, but CISPA is not free market capitalism. It's government regulation. Free market capitalism means no rules. CISPA is full of rules and regulations. Just because a greedy corporation wants a law passed to give it an advantage doesn't make it free market capitalism. That makes it corporatism.
2) Citizens United was not "passed" by anyone. It wasn't a bill or anything. It was a Supreme Court decision where the court ruled that the government can't violate the first amendment by banning private speech whether it be from an individual or a group of individuals. The First Amendment protects the free market of ideas. You seem confused as to what Citizens United even is.
3) NAFTA and other free trade agreements have helped all countries prosper, because it allows people to trade with one another across borders making both parties better off. I lived through the 90s, but apparently you didn't, because otherwise you'd recall that we had the lowest levels of unemployment in 30 years.
4) I recommend you read up on what a free market really is and learn what CISPA, NAFTA and Citzens United actually are. You really shouldn't be using them as talking points when you clearly have no idea what they are or what you're talking about.
May 02, 2012 at 3:56 pm, Ben Sercombe said:
Alexander Thorburn Hoffman
Okay, so break apart the diction rather than the content of my argument, that really proves your point. I argue that the emphasis on creating a free market society has allowed corporations to infiltrate government functions and democracy. Firstly, your argument about the "no rules" of free market capitalism is entirely black and white. "No rules" to you means no government interference. What you fail to realize is it also means no punishments or precautions set by the government to prevent the inevitably corrupt nature of the market. So what the "no rules" of the free market translates to is prioritizing the market over the fundamental rights of a society, such as living wages and democracy.
Secondly, if you think money is the equivalent of free speech you have a skewed sense of democracy. This standardizes the practice of government bribery. Is that a democratic practice? Do you truly believe that if you have more money your voice is more valuable? That is elitist and non-democratic.
Thirdly, are you seriously advocating NAFTA? Even Bill Clinton acknowledged it was a failure. Have you studied Latin American foreign relations on any level? Mexico plummeted into its worst recession since the revolution from after NAFTA was implemented. I mean one of MERCOSUR's (a Latin American trade bloc) fundamental principles is distancing trade from the United States because of the failure of NAFTA and other trade models promoted by the US. The US prospered because of NAFTA because it took advantage of Mexico. This seems to be the weakest of all your arguments.
Fourthly, this free market BS leads me to believe you support austerity measures. Do me a favor and look into Greece, Spain, or Ireland and tell me if it is working at all. In fact, you seemed to be more focused on the United States. So tell me how well your free market society has worked out in Wisconsin, which has the lowest job growth in the country. Tell me how your free markets have encouraged equality. Income inequality has turned this country's government into an oligarchy. These are the repercussions of your out-dated ideology.
May 02, 2012 at 4:11 pm, Alexander Thorburn Hoffman said:
Ben Sercombe Look I pointed out how you clearly don't even understand half the talking points you use. I'd be embarrassed if I were you too. Again you clearly don't know what free market capitalism is. It's supposed to be black and white. Capitalism is market anarchy, laissez-faire, no rules or regulations. It means keeping government out of the economy. It certainly has nothing to do with "living wages" or democracy. You also seem to confuse democracy with freedom. Freedom means you can do what you choose so long as you don't harm anyone else. Democracy means 51% can decide what you do and when to do it. Free speech isn't up to democracy. That's why it's in the constitution. The United States is a constitutional republic. I don't have a skewed view on what speech is. That's what the constitution states. I'm sorry, but you seem so laughably ignorant it's pointless to continue this discussion.
May 02, 2012 at 5:42 pm, Ben Sercombe said:
Alexander Thorburn Hoffman Laughably ignorant? What about willfully ignorant? You accept black and white standards as a positive aspect of your dogmatic ideology. You emphasize freedom while refusing to take into account the freedoms taken away by your free market model. I think the freedom you refer to is the freedom of the rich. They have gained a substantially greater voice in politics to the point that they can buy candidates and elections through your cherished Citizens United decision.
I don't understand how you can call me "laughably ignorant" when your critique is about my character and how I "don't understand half my talking points" when you can't even debate them with factual data. Tell me how your free market society has benefited anyone besides the rich. Tell me how much greater my life is now that I can get Netflix for eight dollars a month while private enterprises scour the earth of all its essential resources. Tell me why wealthy individuals should be legally allowed (and encouraged) to bribe politicians to govern in their favor. You can't, it's as simple as that. So keep living in your La La land because the repercussions of this free market model are becoming more painfully obvious as years progress.
May 06, 2012 at 10:46 am, Tha Narcoleptica said:
Hulu makes bank off the ads and premium subscribers, so its not free. But yes I concur that last sentence is SHIT. Fuggin commies everywhere.. cant even take a bath without 6 or 7 commies jumping in with me these days…
May 08, 2012 at 9:22 pm, Nick Jones said:
Tha Narcoleptica That's cuz you so fine ; )
May 01, 2012 at 4:52 pm, End Decision Promotions said:
People pay for thier own internet twice. Ask anyone who owns a 360.
May 01, 2012 at 1:00 pm, Hulu Just Quit Being Hulu; Millions Are About To Cry said:
[...] going to fuck over those who rely on Hulu for, well, existence. Soon you’ll have to “authenticate” that you’re already a cable subscriber before Hulu will hand over the [...]
May 01, 2012 at 5:18 pm, Salvatore Joseph Licastri said:
What logic is this???
May 01, 2012 at 5:40 pm, Joe Robinette said:
they are not very smart :/
May 01, 2012 at 5:23 pm, Justin Snider said:
This isn't happening any time soon. This is something that Hulu has been talking with its partners for since like 2009, if not earlier. It's definitely a possibility, but even people at Hulu say it's years away from becoming a reality. Not quite RIP Hulu, yet.
May 01, 2012 at 5:33 pm, Eric Jensen said:
Basic channels don't cost $70 a month, you can get it for less than $20.
May 01, 2012 at 6:19 pm, Jamie Coville said:
WTF is HULU?
May 01, 2012 at 6:30 pm, Steven Afton Wolfe said:
free market capitalism's fault? You're an idiot. You were right all the way until there, but, praytell where would Netflix or HBO have come from? Was HBO Reagan's idea? Did Al Gore create Netflix, too? Your solution would be for the government to regulate your television MORE? Regulate your internet MORE? Because the government doesn't PRICE GOUGE? HA! The reason 31 million people get to up and bail on Hulu is precisely the reason why free markets work. And why mandatory health care won't and why mandatory public schooling doesn't. What a stupid, disconnected thing to say.
May 01, 2012 at 10:06 pm, Auriane de Rudder said:
Rupaul's Drag Race is still free on the logo website, and so everything is okay.
May 02, 2012 at 3:24 pm, Ben Sercombe said:
Ayn Rand is dead, get over it.
May 01, 2012 at 7:13 pm, Randall McElroy said:
Wait, we blame this on free markets? IP laws (i.e. government intervention in the economy) and the legal (i.e. non-market) influence of cable companies seem like more probable culprits.
May 01, 2012 at 9:01 pm, Mike Lattimore said:
Streaming video will eclipse cable television as data rates increase. The linear television model doesn't make sense anymore. We can get out of the serial model of shows fitting into 22 minute content chunks. We can minimize commercial interruptions by showing fewer ads but ones that are tailored towards individual viewers. New shows can be released as content providers see fit rather than once a week or whenever. How about making older shows avaible via bit torrent with a special player that streams new commercials when played? Let's get out of this linear television model of the 1950's and into some real content development.
May 01, 2012 at 10:28 pm, Peter Hanley said:
Actually, this is where a fairly de-regulated telecomm industry gets us. If the cable companies had to allow subscribers to only pay for channels they watch (which seems like a fair regulation to me, to not be forced to pay for entertainment I don't use) then my household would have cable, because my monthly sub would be much cheaper given I never watch sports… but as I have to watch my city and university spend millions on football & other sports while cutting back on education and infrastructure, I at least don't have to subsidize sports further by having cable. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/12/why-is-your-cable-bill-so-high/45791/
May 02, 2012 at 4:53 am, Ken Gregory said:
I made an effort to use Hulu over the last year. The bandwidth requirements were too high. During peak hours content needed a lot of time to buffer. Eventually I stopped trying links to Hulu. Start, pause, start, pause, start. No thanks. I didn't immediately see a way to change the compression.
May 01, 2012 at 10:42 pm, Sean Stark said:
Hulu 2007-2012? Where are you getting your facts? From the original New York Post story: "…the move toward authentication, which could take years to complete…." Doesn't really matter any way, there will always be a way for the savvy to watch anything worth watching (which isn't much these days).
May 01, 2012 at 10:51 pm, Chase Mather Turner said:
Ned Hepburn – You do know this is just speculation, right?
May 01, 2012 at 6:56 pm, Rest in Peace, Hulu, We Hardly Knew Ye | Infinity News Network said:
[...] more at Death and Taxes Magazine. 1 min ago|Technology|Ned [...]
May 02, 2012 at 1:03 am, Jack Artagan Mackenna said:
I love that you blame "free market capitalism" for Hulu being crappy but fail to notice that that same "free market capitalism" brought you $8 a month Netflix.
May 02, 2012 at 7:58 am, Ae Wehr said:
The "free market capitalism" that brought you 8$ a month netflix and hulu was not the "market" at all, it was the rise of copyright infringement as an accepted institution by everyone who was not bought by the Motion Picture and Recording biggies.
If the market were actually free, copyright would not exist.
If the market were actuall free, software patents would not be used by apple to prevent your car stereo from remote-controlling your android phone the same way it does ipods.
May 05, 2012 at 3:33 am, Jack Artagan Mackenna said:
Hence why "free market capitalism" is in quotation marks, dear.
June 12, 2012 at 10:00 pm, Kyle Potter said:
Ae Wehr I don't think you know what a "free market" is…
June 12, 2012 at 10:00 pm, Kyle Potter said:
Ae Wehr I don't think you know what a "free market" is…
May 02, 2012 at 1:45 am, Amanda Elizabeth said:
This isn't even confirmed yet. The Post "claims" it is happening…there hasn't been a second source to back it up yet and it's not like it'll happen tomorrow, it'll take years which by that time there will be some new kind of streaming media.
May 02, 2012 at 2:27 am, Brittany Paige said:
No.
May 02, 2012 at 12:25 am, I just tried them for a week and cancelled before they could bill me. http://www.deathandtaxesmag… | Monty Brower said:
[...] http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/182508/rip-hulu-2007-2012/ RIP Hulu – 2007-2012 31 million users to drop service after Hulu tanks business model and shits in everyone's face. This was posted on Google+… #socialbuttonnav li{list-style:none;overflow:hidden;margin:0 auto;background:none;overflow:hidden;width:62px; height:80px; line-height:10px; margin-right:1px; float:left; text-align:center;} [...]
May 02, 2012 at 5:19 am, Eli Dragolov said:
This is horrid! I love hulu and am a hulu plus subscriber, but there no chance I am getting cable just for that. I guess will just go back to going directly to ABC, NBC, fox, ect. to still get those shows fit free.
May 02, 2012 at 2:13 pm, Stephanie Kwong said:
OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
May 02, 2012 at 3:56 pm, Jack Fleming said:
Do you have any verification that HBO GO is going to be available fora monthly fee without cable authentication. Everything I've heard out of HBO has been strongly against such a move and they seem to not think of cord cutters as a market they're interested in. Given that, it would be awesome if they actually went through with it. I'd cancel my Hulu Plus subscription and pick up HBO GO instead.
May 02, 2012 at 6:25 pm, Sam Thorp said:
Agreed. A very greedy & moronic move. I cancelled my cable in 2002, don't expect me to go back now.
May 02, 2012 at 9:47 pm, Brian J Crain said:
"This is where free market capitalism gets us."? I thought the article was pretty good until this last sentence. Tell me, what is better than free market capitalism? There are are more pros than cons in capitalism.
May 03, 2012 at 4:08 am, Jonathan McMullen said:
No sources, no evidence, not even a mention of where this MIGHT have come from. I call BULLSHIT on this.
January 05, 2013 at 12:42 am, Jonathan McMullen said:
And here we are 248 days later proving that I was indeed, right.
May 06, 2012 at 10:43 am, Tha Narcoleptica said:
there is no fucking way I am subscribing to cable. Guess its back to bit torrent fuck hulu.
May 07, 2012 at 7:00 pm, Zach Mannon said:
Can you clarify where you got this information: "…HBOGO is set to go to a small monthly fee – the $13 or so that one uses to pay for HBO anyway – to use their service…"
July 08, 2012 at 8:15 pm, Bryan Brown said:
We have already gone to the shows that are not allowed on Hulu via Blueray or DVD. I don't need to be in the now to enjoy the same show, and I don't have the marketing barrage to contend with. As for internet streaming if this is how it is going you are sure to watch Netflix follow shortly if the network giants have anything to say about it. They have enough money to throw at them to conform. I can only hope they do not yield to them…Go NETFLIX!
October 12, 2012 at 8:54 am, William Crafton said:
You guys realize these are op-eds, right?
January 04, 2013 at 3:14 pm, Ann Peterson said:
CHARGE CHARGE CHARGE! The whole world evolves around fee's! We pay for the internet why should we have to play for everything on it? It's like the fact that we pay for satellite tv and get nothing but INFOmercials! Hulu is not getting rick off of what was all original FREE TV shows. I find it offensive that they want me to pay to watch something that was on tv where I originally watched it for free. There are still free tv channels out there! I wanted to watch reruns of Downton Abby, which aired for FREE! The BBC and NET did not make tons of money by people paying to watch it, they ran for free to their audience and HULU should not get to make money by charging people! SCAM! I would donate money to the free channels before I would help make HULU rich!
March 03, 2013 at 5:06 pm, Hayley Victoria Morris said:
I realise you wrote this a while ago but I just thought I'd let you know if downton abbey is on bbc then someone did pay for it. Us in england paid for it, out of the tv license they force upon every house in britain even if you get your tv elsewhere. I think it's between 100 and £200 a year. We'd be happy if they got their money from adverts tbh.