But Hulu Desktop is the just the same Flash bullshit, with the same ridiculously awful performance.
If you're going to go to the trouble of distributing a desktop app, why the fuck would you still accept playback 100x crappier than native implementations?
What's the distinction though? Hulu was created and is owned by the content owners.
Sure the folks building Hulu may feel that way but this is a business that's still figuring out how to do this in a way that works for everyone involved and right now TV ads are the cash cow for the networks.
From Hulu's perspective really the best thing to do right now is deploy their content in the most restrictive way possible because they don't want to identify a model that works and then be in a position of having to limit functionality or access to existing users in order to make it happen. Its always better to be able to add access then to take it away.
I think the distinction is that Hulu has an outward appearance of a proper hacker-run site. From very early on, it had an excellent feature set and a strong feeling of quality and pride. It seems that it isn't run by dinosaurs; just owned by them.
Well, it is run by Jason Kilar, a former Amazon SVP, who appears not to be of the same mind as the content owners. I remember reading an article which described how he disagreed with them quite vigorously about a few things around launch...unfortunately, I can't find it now, don't remember enough details.
Yeah, this isn't going to really accomplish much except annoy users.
They're going to have to win an Olympic gold medal to block people like me though: Mac Mini + TV. Their beta desktop software runs very nice, better than Boxee in fact. Haven't paid a penny for Cable TV in two months and never plan on doing so ever again. :)
Yes I have the same thing! It's so easy to connect and the Mini fits nicely within my entertainment cabinet. Also I enjoy the full Internet from my couch; youtube, hulu, cbsnews, hacker news, etc, etc...
I guess ppl think this type of set up is not intuitive as they need a wireless mouse or think they won't be able to read the text from 10' away. I use a wireless handheld mouse (gyration) and firefox mouse gestures add on to motion down to enlarge text when needed; few clicks and text is large enough to read.
Well this is the solution I've used for years and I prefer it over any boxee or whatever. Those don't give u the full Internet.
Haven't paid a penny for Cable TV in two months and never plan on doing so ever again.
I've been doing that for almost four years now, without the help of Hulu or Boxee. I have a DLP projector mounted to the ceiling with VGA cables going to it from my iMac, and a piece of foamcore on the wall. Voila. Big screen. All the content I want, lots of which isn't on cable. iTunes, Netflix instant, Amazon, HDTV receiver, and anything else I want off of Bittorrent.
I used to ride my exercise bike to Google Tech Talks. Today, I rode it while watching Feynman interviews.
Exactly. I've been in love with Hulu but after Boxee and now this, a big FU HULU.
I had no problem the commercials in Hulu (would even pay for premium Hulu access), I know people need to get paid. But if the conglomerates are going to force proprietary delivery channels to strictly Hulu-approved devices/software, then they didn't learn a damn thing from the music business and deserve everything coming.
I'm hoping that a Boxee developer makes a plugin that gives me access to my usenet accounts, handles the download, unparing, etc. Very high quality (often 1080p), commercial free, no latency/skipping and super fast for only $18 month.
Some Usenet providers do this on the server-side and just give you an HTTP download. Watching a show consists of starting the download, and invoking VLC on that. (The download is faster than real-time, so it "streams".)
Easynews also has RSS feeds, so it would be a simple matter of programming to write an app that searches for your favorite shows and lets you immediately start watching them.
Bittorrent clients also have RSS feed readers. For less than HD, you can often watch a show for only 30 minutes lead time. If you have things set to download automatically, then there are probably unwatched shows waiting for you all the time. Then, it's like Tivo.
As long as you have a usenet account, and a computer that can run Python, the above software will do what you want. Granted, it helps a lot more if you have a newzbin account.
"...might be the final push viewers need to dump their TV subscriptions altogether."
I recently dumped DirecTV. I have a Mac Mini running Plex. The latter nicely integrates seamlessly with Hulu, TheDailyShow.com, TheColbertReport.com and Netflix (watch instantly), and to round out my TV watching experience I download the rest from P2P (eztv.it, currently down with "hardware problems").
I've been giving preference to Hulu, TDS and TCR over P2P so that the content providers know I'm watching. I also want Hulu to make some money on the ads, which aren't too bad.
What I don't understand: from the point of view of content providers, Hulu should be preferred, because, after all, I can't skip commercials. TiVo, my old DirecTV DVR and other means all allow me to skip commercials. They should embrace Hulu. It will save their asses.
So I have a 23" widescreen monitor that can do 1080p. What if I had a 30" monitor? Would Hulu want to block it then? What if I have a 50" monitor? When does it turn into a "TV" that Hulu would block?
When you put a couch in front of the monitor. Then it becomes "TV"
Try writing the Terms of Service for that. "You are authorized to watch Hulu on a computer monitor up to 30" in size. You are not authorized to watch hulu while sitting on a couch, or in the presence of more than 2 people, or with munchies."
The owners of Hulu don't hate Hulu on TV. They simply don't want to sacrifice the revenue they get from live broadcasting. Not all shows on Hulu make as much as The Simpsons does.
The content is only free b/c advertising pays for it. Without the ads, that shit would be very expensive.
Indeed, They want to add a 'computer' revenue stream, not convert 'television' users to 'computer' users.
That reasoning makes sense when you're thinking about a particular configuration, but that's changing. If my partner and I had a child right now, he/she would grow up having no idea what a television is, because there isn't one in the house.
Before this would be strange, limited only to hippies wanting to make a statement. But the three people in my house aren't morally opposed, all grew up with TVs, and I'm the only geek. We don't have a TV because it never occurred to any of us to buy one when we moved in together (it's only been brought up once). All content which we'd wish to see is available online, for free, most even legally. It doesn't seem odd, only a minority of my friends (mid-to-late 20s) have a TV, so if broadcasters want to keep their jobs they should probably figure something out quickly...
It should be mentioned that I'm living in Holland which has most programming available online (uitzendinggemist.nl). Many US programs are available via their own website (Daily Show, Colbert, etc), and we were watching Hulu until they became geographically impaired. Result: we watch something else or someone downloads it if it was 'important'.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulu