Overblown. It will likely move to a freemium model. Everyone made fun of Hulu before it launched, but it ended up being quite good - there's no reason to think they don't understand the impact of making it pay-only.<p><a href="http://gizmodo.com/5387909/hulus-glorious-free-days-are-officially-numbered" rel="nofollow">http://gizmodo.com/5387909/hulus-glorious-free-days-are-offi...</a><p><i>Don't worry, Hulu's mission has always been to help people find and enjoy the world's premium, professionally produced content. We continue to believe that the ad-supported, free service is the one that resonates most with the largest group of users and any possible new business models would serve to complement our existing offering.<p>Thanks,<p>Betina Chan-Martin<p>Hulu</i>
Hulu is competing against torrents and DVRs. Their entire value add is convenience. That makes me doubt the viability of a subscription model.<p>Other ways hulu could make money:<p>- allow viewers to purchase music played in the show (or even just related music)<p>- link to the products that have been not so subtly placed in the show. In all likelihood, seeing James Bond use an awesome new gadget will prompt a few people to click a link to see more of it.<p>- per show fees for things like HBO and showtime shows that cost extra already.<p>- sell dvds of the TV shows. If I can watch 4 episodes of Sons of Anarchy and am brain dead enough to like it, I might buy the first season on DVD.<p>Hell, I'd actually consider some of these "content" more than "advertisements".
Also: Netcraft confirms, BSD is dying. That is to say, I'll believe it when they turn out the lights. Until then, headline hyperbole ftw, or something.<p>I don't know if anyone else noticed, but one of the things they're expecting to make available with their pay model is stuff like HBO's series (Entourage was specifically mentioned, which, while not my cup of tea, implies that more of their catalog will also be available). Hopefully, that would mean Showtime's series, too. This is something I, and a lot of other people, would happily pay for.<p>As others have mentioned, people are moving away from the cable/satellite model, and getting their teevee from the internet in increasing numbers. Hulu is incredibly well-positioned to make a stupid amount of money off that phenomenon, provided they aren't unmitigated idiots about it. (Say, putting all their content behind the pay wall, or charging subscription fees that are a substantial fraction of the typical cable/satellite monthly bill.)
One thing, if they start charging for service, they better not try to go the cable way and charge for service but still air commercials on their content because most tv channels now offer free viewing of episodes of most of their shows on their website with similar viewing experience to hulu (except for linux users).
God forbid someone would <i>charge money</i> for a valuable service! Blasphemy!<p>This is my all-time number one gripe about the Internet. Users too often feel entitled to getting things for free.
I just recently dropped my $80/mo satellite bill and switched to Netflix+Roku for the TV and Hulu and Netflix streaming on the computers. If Hulu really does start charging it needs to be a very low fee, I'm not interested in paying any more for entertainment than I already am.