Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Necros wrote:
Hulu has ads? Isn't there a membership fee? Or is it like it's free with ads, but no ads if you pay?

There are levels of subscription. The cheapest level has ads, but it only costs $5.99/month. You can pay a little more for no ads which is $11.99.

The most expensive add on is HBO which is another $15.99, the rest are between $8 and $12.

Yeah, not only do you, have to subscribe monthly, but there are still ads unless you pay for a higher membership tier. They're also mind bogglingly repetitive, often you'll see the same ad 2 or 3 times in a row

I haven't tried Hulu through a browser lately, does Adblock work there like it does on YouTube?

11.99 for ad-free is hardly exploitative.

 Grey Templar wrote:
11.99 for ad-free is hardly exploitative.

I think thats a fair price. but I do find charging for the version with ads to be a bit much. I remember when Hulu was free to watch any shows most recent 5 episodes and all the subscription got you was ad-free and the backlog for shows.

Okay, contrary opinion.

We get a fair amount of use from our cable -- sports, news, specialty channels, etc. With streaming...eh? It's mostly background-noise-level entertainment. I mean, I literally mostly have streaming on while I'm doing something else. My Fios may be overpriced, but I'm less and less sure that Netflix is worth having at all. There are some shows and movies that I/we look forward to, but most of the content is mediocre. I could probably join for one month a year and catch up.

The choice is like paying less for a meal I don't want versus overpaying for a meal I do want. Our finances aren't an issue, so if push comes to shove I'm choosing the latter.

balmong7 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
11.99 for ad-free is hardly exploitative.

I think thats a fair price. but I do find charging for the version with ads to be a bit much. I remember when Hulu was free to watch any shows most recent 5 episodes and all the subscription got you was ad-free and the backlog for shows.

From what I've heard about advertising in general, and its somewhat backed up by ads even on cable TV being repetitive, its actually kinda oversaturated at this point. There is so much ad space available, and not really enough people buying it up.

Especially with non-premium ad spaces, the ad revenue on Hulu is probably so low that they can't afford to give the streaming out for free. The best they can do is have it subsidize their streaming, and encourage people to maybe pony up for the ad-free level.

 gorgon wrote:
Okay, contrary opinion.

We get a fair amount of use from our cable -- sports, news, specialty channels, etc. With streaming...eh? It's mostly background-noise-level entertainment. I mean, I literally mostly have streaming on while I'm doing something else. My Fios may be overpriced, but I'm less and less sure that Netflix is worth having at all. There are some shows and movies that I/we look forward to, but most of the content is mediocre. I could probably join for one month a year and catch up.

The choice is like paying less for a meal I don't want versus overpaying for a meal I do want. Our finances aren't an issue, so if push comes to shove I'm choosing the latter.

From my perspective, news is free and streamable from any number of different sites, every major station and news outlet will have their content online. Specialty channels offer a lot of streaming already or are substantially behind whats available on YouTube (e.g. compare most cooking shows to the stuff available on YouTube and you can get up and running way faster, while the History Channel is absolute garbage next to what's available on YouTube). Sports are probably the roughest thing since they're live events with exclusive broadcast agreements that make cable semiattractive though there are plenty of streaming services (and piracy options) for sports, but sports (and especially sports broadcasts) arent much my thing so ive never looked too much into it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
11.99 for ad-free is hardly exploitative.

In a strict absolute sense, sure. From my subjective opinion, it just doesn't work for me. Their primary competition doesn't have the issue, alternatives either don't have it either or have workarounds, there's no original content on Hulu that I've found to be compelling enough to overcome that thus far, and they've engaged in a lot of licensing shennanigans that have seen content pulled from elsewhere to be exclusive to them that has bitten me several times.

My inherent inner cynical anticorporatist side is also offended at the idea of a sub service having ads (and insanely irritating and poorly targeted ones at that) that require me to pay even more to remove them. I get the concept they're going for, but it grates on me in the worst way

I could never imagine paying a monthly fee and still watching ads regardless of the rationale or price point.

I mean, it's a moot point for me, I get everything I watch via Usenet feeding into Plex. I've never had cable.

 Argive wrote:
People still watch TV ?

:O

There are a few nuggets worth watching, but I don't think there's enough to pay for cable. Ghost Adventures, for instance, can be watched on my Travel Channel sub through Roku, so that one I can't justify having cable for. Just one example.

Streaming services are going the way of cable.

I can't wait until struggling streaming service start to "bundle" themselves together to start competing with the big boys.

..... it's like we learn nothing from the past....

 Easy E wrote:
Streaming services are going the way of cable.

I can't wait until struggling streaming service start to "bundle" themselves together to start competing with the big boys.

..... it's like we learn nothing from the past....

It's called VRV and its $10 a month. Crunchyroll, HiDive, Curiosity Stream, Nick Toons, Cartoon Hangover, Boomerang, Mondo, rooster Teeth. (Used to also have Shutter, and Funimation but they have been cycled out)

balmong7 wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Streaming services are going the way of cable.

I can't wait until struggling streaming service start to "bundle" themselves together to start competing with the big boys.

..... it's like we learn nothing from the past....

It's called VRV and its $10 a month. Crunchyroll, HiDive, Curiosity Stream, Nick Toons, Cartoon Hangover, Boomerang, Mondo, rooster Teeth. (Used to also have Shutter, and Funimation but they have been cycled out)

Nah, not quite the same.

Throw in some random cooking streaming service which you have no choice but to pay for and you've got the cable packages system down

Nope and unlikely to do. The tv itself is cheap enough and as I pay for the tv use whether I have tv or not no point getting rid of it. Not fan of getting n+1 streaming services either.

I got rid of cable 8 years ago and I've never looked back. I don't have anything but the free version of youtube and torrents.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
Streaming services are going the way of cable.

I can't wait until struggling streaming service start to "bundle" themselves together to start competing with the big boys.

..... it's like we learn nothing from the past....

Based on what?

Aren't streaming the most popular atm? What would replace them?

Based on this here technology in my tin foil hat!

I've apparently learned nothing from the past. I'm still using the archaic, outdated, kids-will-laugh-at-me streaming services! Can you imagine how embarrassed I'll be when the last Netflix store closes!?

Haven't had Cable since 2010. Don't miss it at all.

 Togusa wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
Streaming services are going the way of cable.

I can't wait until struggling streaming service start to "bundle" themselves together to start competing with the big boys.

..... it's like we learn nothing from the past....

Based on what?

Aren't streaming the most popular atm? What would replace them?

I don't think he really means they'll get replaced. More that they'd change form slightly.

Streaming services at first had a good thing going. They had content from most if not all content producers that could be accessed on demand. Then these streaming services started becoming content producers themselves, and content producers began having their own streaming services. This resulted in everybody beginning to stop offering their content on competing streaming services because everybody was suddenly jumping on the bandwagon.

Customers however are getting quite annoyed at having to have a billion different subscriptions to watch all their desired content. This means there is a niche for a streaming service that has everything all "bundled" together. Which is where streaming services were more or less where this whole thing got started.

IMO, the best option for a streaming service's long term survival is for them to be content neutral. IE: Don't produce anything of your own. Instead, license streaming of as much stuff as possible so you can appeal to the widest possible customer base. Likewise, for content producers like Disney, HBO, etc... the smartest thing to do is get your content on as many platforms as possible. Have your own service if you want, but don't make your content exclusive to your platform.

This is where Netflix is failing. They're losing mainstream content left and right and jacking their price up well beyond what their own content is worth.

Disney is probably the only company that could afford to isolate their content to being exclusively on their own streaming service simply because there is so much that it will always be a good deal for the customer. but everybody else should try and offer their content on as many platforms as possible because you need exposure.

Ultimately, this does result in Streaming services really resembling the old Cable TV. Definitely in a slightly more appealing dressup, but its still a bunch of content all bundled together and you didn't necessarily want all of it but you get it anyway.

I still have cable, but only as a consequence of my location. TECHNICALLY speaking, my area of the country should have some of the fastest internet, as all of our stuff has been upgraded to high-end fiber optic lines. However, my specific corner of the city has fiber optic running up to it, but they decided to utterly skip hooking up our little subdivision of about 12 houses. The last 200 feet or so is just 1990's era coax cable. This means that any serious streaming is fraught with buffering.

Also, I have kids too young for a cell-phone, and for emergencies I like to have a land line. When bundling in cable, phone, and internet is only a couple bucks more than internet and phone alone, it's hard to pass up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As a side note, I plan on building a studio-style weekend cabin in the hills at some point (aiming for about 2025ish). When that happens I was to be as off-the-grid as possible. I think I'll only have an antenna and decent selection of DVD's. After all, I'm not going to be there to zone out in front of a screen.

I didn't even bother to buy a TV when I moved to my own place.
When I want to watch a movie, I watch it on PC via HBO GO, or alternative services.

No annoying ads
No biased news
No idiotic shows

I'm happy.

Cable was never as popular in Australia as the US in the first place, but I grew up with cable and when I moved out I just completely forewent TV. Bought a gaming PC and I've never owned my own TV since, that was about 15 years ago. The place I live in now my housemate has a TV which I watch once in a blue moon.

Netflix on my PC is my go to now, even though netflix in Oz is crap compared to the US (I hear US folk complaining a lot about netflix, but it's a hell of a lot better than what we get). I don't really feel like I'm missing out. Internet is a better source of news anyway and I'm not a big sports fan, paid for a streaming service for a couple of months (which costed about twice of what netflix does) then dropped it because I wasn't watching enough to justify it.

 Vaktathi wrote:
while the History Channel is absolute garbage next to what's available on YouTube). Sports are probably the roughest thing since they're live events with exclusive broadcast agreements that make cable semiattractive though there are plenty of streaming services (and piracy options) for sports

In terms of history being on History Channel, there's definitely far far better stuff on YT, but at the same time, its just as easy to find stuff far far worse than even history channel on YT. I cannot even begin to recount to you how many times I've tried to help people unlearn historical nonsense that they "learned" on a YT video.

The Sports thing is probably the #1 reason I still have directv. That, and at least with directv I have a virtual storage system where I can watch my european sports on my schedule and don't have to wake up at 3am or whatever.

We did this a while back, too - the only thing I miss is some live sports, but if I ever get my act together many of those are viewable with an over-the-air antenna.

I haven't had cable in nearly 3 years. Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime kept us fairly entertained.

I use Netflix and Amazon. I don't watch TV as I hate adverts. I tried watching Game of Thrones on Sky Atlantic once and just couldn't stand the breaks, just waited and got them......elsewhere.

Have you considered just... not watching any of it? I mean, how much of your day do you really want to throw away on TV shows?