More on Hulu going - or not going? - to paid service and iTunes & TV Networks

I know this strays a little bit from the mac mini as a HTPC, but it seems that these kind of topics fall in the context of what we're playing with. Hopefully, most readers will find this of interest.

So Hulu may not be going to paid service? Make up your minds!
Click here to read the official link, or look below.

And, Apple is talking with the major networks? Apple TV ver. 3.0 just came out and the ever mounting rumors of the tablet/slate/hand-held-thingy makes this of interest too...
Click here for the official post, or read below.

Report: Hulu will not go pay-only

by Dan Moren, Macworld.com

Sometimes, it seems like you just can’t take anything corporate executives say at face value these days. One day, it’s “we’re thinking about charging for Hulu!” and the next it’s “What? We would never do that! … Probably.”

Entertainment Weekly, of all places, quotes a source who insists that turning the online video-streaming service into a pay site is not in the cards. Well, mostly.

A source close to Hulu, however, tells EW that the site remains steadfastly committed to free content, explaining that any possible subscription or pay-per-view service has no set timeline and would only build upon what Hulu offers, not replace it.

The earlier remarks on Hulu's pay plans came from News Corp.’s Deputy Chairman, the alliteratively named Chase Carey, who said at a conference last month that Hulu might have to turn to a subscription model to start pulling in the dough.

As I speculated at the time, this seemed like another attempt by one of Hulu’s chief stake holders to hoist a flag and see which way the wind was blowing—given the amount of negative press generated by the suggestion, it was easy enough to reel it in again. Plus, Hulu gets to look like the good guy for shaking off its greedy corporate backers in favor of its users, and that kind of thing builds loyalty—loyalty that you can eventually turn into money when you do introduce some sort of pay model.

Look, I think there’s little question that there will be some pay-content on Hulu in the next year or two: were the service to acquire content produced by pay cable networks like HBO, for example, or start offering new release movies that would compete with the likes of the iTunes Store. But as along as the core experience of ad-supported streaming of new television sticks around, users will likely stay put—and some of them might even be willing to hand over money for additional features (that rumored iPhone app, perhaps?) and content.

Apple Pitching iTunes Subscriptions to TV Networks?

Monday November 02, 2009 12:15 PM EST
Written by Eric Slivka

MediaMemo reports that Apple has approached a number of TV networks in recent weeks to pitch its vision of a monthly subscription service that would allow the networks to deliver their content to consumers via iTunes with the idea of replacing consumers' cable packages.

Apple isn't tying the proposed service to a specific piece of hardware, like its underwhelming Apple TV box, or its long-rumored tablet/slate device. Instead, it is presenting the offer as an extension of its iTunes software, which already has a huge installed base: A year ago, Apple said it had 65 million iTunes customer accounts.

A so-called "over the top" service could theoretically rival the ones most consumers already buy from cable TV operators -- if Apple is able to get enough buy-in from broadcast and cable TV programmers.

Apple is reportedly looking to launch the service early next year but faces a number of hurdles, the most significant being that no networks have yet to sign on to the plan. Disney, which holds close ties with Apple CEO Steve Jobs and has been an early-adopter of iTunes distribution offerings, is viewed as the likely leader should the movement hope to gain momentum.

According to the report's sources, TV networks are intrigued by the potential for increased revenue streams that could be afforded by Apple's proposal, but are also leery of harming their existing relationships with the cable companies that carry their programming and advertisers who look to viewership numbers on those systems when targeting their campaigns.

The report notes that other companies, including Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, and Google's YouTube have also been moving into the digital delivery arena, indicating that the time may be right for Apple to make its move.

So Apple's proposed subscription service, which the company has floated in the past, is no longer a huge stretch. Says one executive briefed on the company's plans: "I think they might get it right this time."

Talk of Hulu going to a subscription fee based format

Its only a matter of time....

Click here for the official link

Say farewell to the free Wall Street Journal on the iPhone.

According to Paid Content, News Corp's Rupert Murdoch announced that readers of the WSJ on the Blackberry and iPhone will be charged $2 per week for the privilege of reading news through the respective apps. Online and print subscribers of the WSJ will only pay $1 a week. No time limit has been set yet, but Murdoch says it will be within the next few months.

There's bad news for Hulu lovers as well. Murdoch also said News Corp is considering either a pay-per-view or subscription model for Hulu. "No final decision has been made," Murdoch said via Webcast at an investor conference today. The WSJ itself reports that subscription offerings will roll out for media content before the end of the year, though it was made in a different context from the Hulu statement.

The Future of free TV & Hulu?

A very interesting post on the Ipod Observer about the future of TV and Hulu. Click here for the official link or read below:

The Free Internet TV Era Is Coming to a Close

Thursday, July 16th, 2009 at 2:07 PM - by John Martellaro

Free TV content on the Internet, notably via Hulu, has a lot of people exited, perhaps even canceling their Cable TV subscriptions. However, that teaser phenomenon isn't going to last. Hollywood places a lot of value on creative content, and the goal isn't to give it away, rather it's to create a new revenue stream. The viewer, that's you, will end up paying more.

For several years now, I have been subscribing to some key media related newsletters. They keep me up to date on the pulse of Hollywood and how those executives think. The one enduring theme is that people love to watch TV and movies, and creating new revenue streams, even to the extent of having people pay twice, is not out of the question.

For example, when you watched Eli Stone on ABC, you paid your Satellite or Cable provider the first time. But the recording was held hostage on your DVR with no way to move it to an archive, Later, when you bought the series on DVD or in iTunes, you paid a second time. This business philosophy is what, despite economic hard times, allows Hollywood executives to keep up on their Porsche payments.

Old TV from 1950s

The Teaser

Right now, the Internet is in teaser mode. The network studios are providing free content with limited commercials to capture additional customers, not relocate them. These are customers who may or may not also have Cable or Satellite TV. It's a question of time and space shifting plus convenience that lures may people onto Hulu or TV.com or the like.

Once these additional revenue streams begin to work, then the plan is to slowly start charging. That's why Hulu started out with registration and, later, a dedicated app. The idea is to have the viewer log on, designate as a customer, and ultimately pay up for special content, and ultimately, all content. Your frog will be boiled along the way.

Content Providers

There are content creators and content providers. Apple and Netflix are competing content content providers. They don't create content, they simply compete to deliver content and pass a lot of the money on the the creators. That's why we haven't seen Netflix available on Apple TV. Competitors to provide content usually don't play well with each other.

On the other hand, content providers often work deals with hardware manufacturers. For example, Netflix recently inked a deal with Sony to provide Netflix stream directly on some Sony Bravia HDTVs that have built-in Ethernet or, soon, Sony's Video Link. Because Apple already provides its own integrated hardware, the Apple TV, once again, there is little motivation for Apple to work directly with any one else.

Perils Await

The problem is that the collective surge of consciousness amongst the TV viewing community can often bypass what appears to be logical solution. For example, if events go in favor of Netflix, then some day, we could find ourselves automatically signing up for the consensus that Netflix is the natural way to watch movies on demand. Every other solution drops off our radar.

This phenomenon is why Hollywood puts as much content out there in as many different ways as possible. Movie theaters, Hulu, Blu-ray, DVD, Blockbuster, Netflix, Cable, Satellite, TiVo agreements, and so on. As content providers compete for your attention, some will flourish and some will fail. Hollywood, however, keeps raking in the cash.

Apple has fixated on the single idea that people will pay for TV and movie content sans commercials. Meanwhile, Hulu and others, keenly aware of the drop in advertising revenue these days, are working hard to generate new revenue streams. A day could come soon when you'll end up paying to watch Hulu with limited commercials. Don't think so? The history of the transition from free, over-the-air TV to Cable television proves how Hollywood executives think. Keep raising prices, develop new revenue steams and depend on the fact that most viewers just shrug and keep on paying. A few mavericks, cynics, and technical wizards notwithstanding.

Apple benefits from having a single, coherent mechanism in place with iTunes. Those who insist on not paying for anything will slowly become squeezed into paying on other delivery systems. Whether the Apple way or the Hulu way or the Netflix way becomes the dominant vehicle is really up to those companies, not the content creators. In that sense, Apple is on both solid ground and shaky ground.

Solid in sense that, thanks to Mr. Jobs and Apple's ties to Disney and content creators, the company profoundly knows that content has value and must be paid for. Shaky in the sense that if they don't keep up with the initiatives by other content providers, and Netflix comes to mind, Apple could end up losing the entire business base they've developed to supplement music sales. Keep moving, keep growing -- or be eclipsed.

In any case, no matter where your loyalties lie, the future holds the promise of more content in more ways and you'll pay for them all. Sometimes twice or more. The classic teaser, the free TV ride era is coming to a close. What Apple needs to do to come up a winner in this Hollywood double-pay bonanza is a subject that will have to wait for a future article.

The Threat to HULU and Free TV online

Here we are again - Time Warner & Comcast trying to dig in by charging for "premium" online content. There is also an article in the Wall Street Journal about this. Thanks to Tom H. for pointing this out to us!

Click here for the Wall Street Journal Article

Click here for the full Wired article via CNN , or read below

(WIRED) -- Two cable powerhouses have announced an ambitious pilot program that aims to convince their customers that, actually, TV on the web should not be free.

Jeffrey Bewkes, chairman and CEO of Time Warner, speaks at the NCTA conference in Washington.

With a service called TV Everywhere, Comcast and Time Warner will give cable subscribers access to "premium" television content via broadband, and later cellphone connections.

To begin with, 5,000 Comcast subscribers will begin testing the system next month, giving them access to Time Warner's TBS and TNT channels on their computers, and the same channels' video-on-demand catalogs on their cable boxes.

If you made peace long ago with the idea of paying a monthly cable bill, this probably sounds great. It means watching your existing subscription on new screens without paying additional fees or buying more hardware. (Of course, as consumers adopt TV Everywhere, they can probably expect price increases.)

But if you prefer to watch your television for free on ad-supported sites like Hulu while paying only for the internet connection that delivers it, you could be in for a rude awakening. TV Everywhere represents an alternative -- and possible threat -- to the popular Hulu model.

If the pilot program impresses the group -- and proves to other networks that its user-authentication system is secure -- Comcast and Time Warner expect the other television programmers, ISPs and mobile providers to join, giving all cable subscribers a way to watch the content they pay for on their televisions using any broadband-connected computer or authenticated cellphone.

Already "at least 92 percent of Americans qualify to watch this for free online," according to Jeff Bewkes, chairman and CEO of Time Warner.

For these subscribers, TV Everywhere represents a potential win. The only question is whether they will keep paying for the old cable subscription model as their viewing habits shift online.

There's nothing to stop television networks from putting their content on both Hulu and TV Everywhere, because TV Everywhere's contract will be non-exclusive, according to Bewkes. However, given the choice between Hulu and TV Everywhere, television programmers have an incentive to go with the latter.

Only the TV Everywhere model promises to port yesterday's lucrative business model onto today's platforms. And that, according to some critics, is exactly the problem.

"[TV Everywhere] raises substantial anti-competitive issues by restricting the availability of programming to the favored distribution methods," said Gigi B. Sohn, president and co-founder of the public interest group Public Knowledge. "Under the TV Everywhere plan, no other program distributors would be able to emerge, and no consumers will be able to 'cut the cord' because they find what they want online. As a result, consumers will be the losers.

"In addition, we are concerned that this program violates the open nature of the internet. By adding this additional toll lane, Comcast and Time Warner want to create their own 'managed channel' within the internet and turn the internet into their own private cable channel."

So, what about Hulu? Will its deals fall through given this new option?

"There will be some part [of Time Warner's content] that will be out there [on Hulu], said Bewkes."Short-form content, I think, will continue to be available -- promotional content will continue to be available."

However, only cable subscribers will be able to access other content online -- through officially licensed avenues, anyway.

Bewkes added that some other television programmers have avoided Hulu "for security concerns and because they didn't like the model," but that they will give TV Everywhere a chance.

"Consumers vote every single month with their pocketbook," he added. "They don't have to subscribe to cable. They don't have to pay for these services, yet they do. The number of people paying for subscription television has gone up and up and up every single quarter that we've been in the business."

Another new reason to cut cable

Should you not want to mess with Torrents, Hulu, is growing by leaps and bounds. ABC might be close to being on Hulu.

Click here for the official link, or read below:

It seems another network’s shows just might be ending up on Hulu sometime soon. In fact, Disney is supposedly discussing the move to show their ABC TV shows on the website. However, other Disney-owned shows might make it over as well.

TV shows like Lost might be making their Hulu debut soon. But Disney Channel shows and other Disney network programming could be shown as well. There’s no word on how close Disney and Hulu might be to making a deal, but the company is much more interested than before, now that Hulu has jumped in popularity.

Should this deal go through, Hulu would then have three of the four major networks on their web video service. This could make the site a more viable option than even iTunes. However, Steve Jobs is on Disney’s board of directors, so we’ll just have to see how this one turns out.