No clown, Hulu looks great
Don't look now, but the so-called clown company may get the last laugh.
Sure, Hulu.com is still saddled with a silly name. The video site started by NBC Universal and News Corp. also isn't packaged very well, and offers too few shows and too little to do outside of watching video.
But a review of a test version of Hulu, which launched Monday, reveals that Hulu nailed the basics. Fans of The Simpsons, Bionic Woman, or My Name is Earl can go to the site, click on a couple of links, and watch the TV shows in their entirety. The images are clear, free of any of the aggravations that sometimes plague streaming video, such as stalled pictures or pixilated images.
One thing is for sure: watching full-length episodes of Heroes and King of the Hill at Hulu is far superior viewing experience than watching grainy, five-minute clips at YouTube or other video-sharing sites.
I've heard all the reasons skeptics give on why Hulu is destined to fail. Big media companies simply don't get the Web. YouTube has all the users, most of whom aren't interested in watching long-form content online. The networks are better off allowing YouTube to promote their shows to a whole new generation. In the months leading up to Hulu's launch, critics and YouTube employees began calling the joint venture "the clown company."
Nonetheless, NBC and companies like Viacom have insisted on controlling their own material and distributing their shows online themselves.
Delivering high-quality images free of charge and providing simple site navigation is all mainstream TV fans need. They won't care that NBC decided last week to stop posting promotional clips on YouTube. They care about watching their favorite shows. They will go wherever they can do that; at Hulu.com or at any of the partner sites that have agreed to distribute Hulu's material, such as MSN, Yahoo, and AOL.
To be sure, Hulu needs work. The site featured a bare bones look, just a laundry list of show titles and thumbnails. Click on a link and a video player appears. Below the player are links to other recent episodes. Right off the bat, I felt myself wishing they offered shows from previous seasons. If you've never watched Heroes before, a show with lots of characters and subplots, good luck trying to get caught up on Hulu.com.
I also couldn't find any shows with commercials in them, and ads could go a long way toward spoiling the viewing experience if they're too intrusive. The good news for Hulu is that advertisers should love the service. They've been working with video for decades on broadcast TV. TV shows, not three-minute clips, are what advertisers understand.
The site could use some fan reviews or message boards, as well as a way to bone up on a show's plot and back story. Most importantly, Hulu need more shows. If the site is to become a true online video powerhouse, it has to offer content from CBS, ABC, and HBO.
Winning over those rivals won't be easy, but it could be vital to Hulu's success.
Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET. 
http://www.laudontech.com/hulu/hulu.html
http://www.laudontech.com/hulu/hulu.html
want to give me high quality, full screen streaming video with no
hassles or costs? Fine, I'm in. You start inserting advertising and
bombarding me with popups and forcing me to sit through adverts
at the top (hello Microsoft), and count me out.
Oh, and it better not be crappy WMV format either.
Like iTunes is any better?
Don't get me wrong... love my itunes library and stream to TV thru AppleTV and MacMini... but WMV on Amazon Unbox is far superior in video quality.
Shame we didn't get one.
No.
Do I need to register to watch YouTube?
No.
Do I need to register to watch Hulu?
Yes.
Will I watch Hulu?
No.
company of CNet.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/
archive/1998/06/10/BU21194.DTL&type=printable
- CNet is in 'Stratigic Content Provider' for the new web site:
http://www.allbusiness.com/services/business-services/
4341089-1.html
It is in beta and if you are lucky you can get an invite if not you have to wait.
It would be nice if you all reported that it is not open for public use yet. I was all exicted but I am left out of the hulu dance.
Back to abc.go.com to watch tv shows.
While I can understand why you might want to control the free viewing of your content via your own Hulu.com website, as opposed to illegal uploads of your material via Youtube.com, I do not understand why you folks are battling Apple and their iTunes website.
iTunes is the most important music model that has come along in my 41 years. Ever since the advent of CDs, I have loathed purchasing an expensive CD album just to obtain one hit song. It was not often that a CD single of a hit song was even available, and if it was, I found the price to be expensive. As a consumer, I felt I was being taken advantage of, by a company who chose to limit my choices for the sake of their profits. Since I found the product unaffordable by my past standards, I simply did without much of the music I enjoyed during my youth.
It is also important to express that I do not support pirated or ?bootleg? CD/DVD content. I like to own my content legitimately. But much of today?s music is simply brief ear candy. A catchy beat, a cute phrase, but no staying power. There are so many one hit wonders, and unlike in my youth (or my parent?s day), many of today?s artists are not great vocalists. Many music publishers find a new hot body and pretty face with a passable voice, and then the folks do all the great post-production studio work to make a hit song. Or you have the young rappers who blatantly state on their songs that they are singing simply to get rich. These new artists do not care about their craft. It?s like soda. Empty calories with no nutritional value. So today?s music is a short-lived, disposable commodity, and like any other commodity, a low selling price should be the goal. Because, frankly, if I have to pay a lot for the bulk of the poor music out there, I can do without it.
iTunes gives me the ability to PURCHASE MUSIC AND CONTENT THAT I OTHERWISE MIGHT NOT PURCHASE. That?s a very important point, and one that you content providers must understand. I am willing to spend 99 cents on a non-DRM 128 or 256 bitrate song. It?s an impulse purchase, much like buying a pack of gum at the supermarket checkout line. Doesn?t cost much and won?t dent my budget. If the artist is worth it, than I am willing to purchase a higher quality CD of the entire album, just as long as I can load I can load it into iTunes for my iPod/Apple TV listening pleasure. 99 cents per song, for a bunch of downloaded Zeros and Ones, with no manufacturing/packaging/shipping costs. That?s all I?m willing to pay. I won?t pay more for a hot new release. I will simply not buy it, just as I did in my younger days.
I also disagree with your firm trying to receive a cut of Apple?s hardware sales. I understand that you get $1 for each Zune sold. What if the purchaser of the MP3 player NEVER purchased a Universal song? He/she has just paid a tax to Universal and received nothing in return! I did not purchase an iPod based on the available content from Universal. I purchased an iPod because it was demonstrably the best MP3 player experience on the market. It seems that where I have choice as a consumer, Universal seeks to eliminate my choice in a set of actions that primarily benefits no one but Universal. That?s not how a free marketplace works.
In closing, it is my hope that you will rethink you iTunes stance. Having your content for sale via iTunes can only be considered a compliment to your Hulu.com Ad based service, and another revenue stream that requires little on your part. If I cannot purchase Universal content in the manner that I choose, I will be forced to give up purchasing Universal content entirely, and I don?t see how that benefits anyone.
Sincerely,
Michael W.
Internet.
You can't DO anything with these shows. They have no
permanence, they can't be put on an iPod, they can't be enjoyed
when you're bored and away from the Internet - like on a train,
car trip, or airplane ride.
And frankly, it doesn't look "great". Better than YouTube is not
the same as "as good as iTunes".
What do people at NBC and Fox envision people doing? If I
wanted to sit in front of a box tethered to a wall and watch TV
shows...well, I'd USE MY TV. (Which conveniently has a recording
device attached, unlike Hulu.)
Hulu: TV on a computer for people who don't have TVs. What a
great pitch. No wonder Zucker is looking for another job - if he
doesn't leave NBC quickly, he's going to be a middle manager at
GE Aircraft engines.
You really missed the point. (and my RSS reader keeps showing
the date of this article as October 7, 2023.)
They seriously need to work on their system for setting dates.....
hmm me thinks there's a pattern here.
Anything that can be detrimental to apple seems to have a long
date that it will stay at the top. Anybody else see a pattern here?
If watching TV is a social experience, you simply have to get one of these:
http://www.internetvue.com/iv2020.htm. You?d also then have to option of viewing content via the Internet at your leisure without needing to download, etc.
incorrect date-come on guys, its RSS, not rocket science.
date so the same story, and company name are in peoples faces
for a looong time.
NEWS site.
(thanks for the heads up, Bernie :) )
- Not as great as iTunes
- by moogarp November 9, 2007 7:48 PM PST
- I really hope NBC figures it out. I was happily paying to whatch
- Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (26 Comments)their programs... now I don't watch them. I'm obviously not the
only one.