Poll: How much would you pay for Hulu on your TV?

by Ben Drawbaugh posted Jun 3rd 2009 at 10:06AM

Hulu has made it very clear that it doesn't want the likes of Boxee, or anyone else really, making Hulu work on your TV. Not only has Hulu been willing to play cat-and-mouse games with Boxee, but in the EULA of the new Hulu desktop application, it specifically states that "You may not download, install or use the Hulu Software on any device other than a Personal Computer including without limitation digital media receiver devices (such as Apple TV)." Competitors have previously stated that Hulu advertisements are generating "scant incremental revenue," so with the recent Xbox 360 and Roku rumors we wonder, how much would you pay for Hulu on your TV?

Filed under: Industry, Polls, Media streamers

Tags: Apple TV, Boxee, Hulu, subscriptions

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

Highest Ranked

solodragon @ Jun 3rd 2009 10:14AM

Yeah, the HDMI port in my lappy says I won't be paying anything to watch Hulu on the ol' 42' plasma. :)

Highly Ranked

Loban @ Jun 5th 2009 9:53AM

My membership to tvtorrents.com says I won't be paying anything for any kind of TV service.

Highest Ranked

solodragon @ Jun 3rd 2009 10:16AM

Gah! 42 inch plasma, not 42 foot plasma. Geez, I wish.

Highly Ranked

Isaac @ Jun 3rd 2009 10:25AM

LOL! Don't tell Hulu but I DO watch Hulu on my TV. Its called Playon. ;)
http://www.themediamall.com/playon

Highest Ranked

Ordeith @ Jun 4th 2009 3:08PM

And you paid $40 to do so.

of course, for the more frugally minded, there is always Tversity.

Lowest Ranked

jordanandallison @ Jun 3rd 2009 10:27AM

Why!?
What's with the language? Does this make you cool? Does this make people want to be your friend? Does this make you mom proud of you?
Nobody wants to hear from you if you post like that. Just go away. Yes, cable and phone companies require you to pay for their services. You have to pay for cloths, you have to pay for a house, where is your issue with those things? This isn't a complicated problem. If you don't like paying for it; don't. You won't have the services, but you won't have to pay for it.

Problem solved?

Highest Ranked

Jamus @ Jun 3rd 2009 10:38AM

So they want to hit me up with ads AND make me pay? Haven't we had enough of this already from the dinosaur cable industry? No pay. Drop the ads and get off their damned high horse about hooking up a computer to a TV, then I will consider it for a SMALL fee.

Highest Ranked

Frankinla @ Jun 3rd 2009 1:21PM

That's the way I see. I you run ads, then sponsors pay, not me. I you're gonna charge me, I don't wanna see no stinkin' ads!

Highest Ranked

Frankinla @ Jun 3rd 2009 1:23PM

That's the way I see it. If you run ads, then sponsors pay, not me. I you're gonna charge me, I don't wanna see no stinkin' ads!

Sorry 'bout the repost... fingers got all f'd up

Neutral

Michael @ Jun 5th 2009 9:58AM

If you watch TV on cable, you see ads and pay. While I disagree with this method, it's been the norm for years.

I don't see a problem with paying a nominal fee to get Hulu on your TV. I paid $30 to PlayOn to get it as a one time fee, and I'm ok with that. I've gotten well over my $30 worth through my Xbox 360 and PS3.

I would be really upset if somehow Hulu disabled that ability, but if they released a "pay for" app download on either gaming system, I'd buy it.

Neutral

Daniel @ Jun 3rd 2009 1:52PM

I don't have cable or satellite TV service. My Mac mini's display is in fact my TV. Problem solved.

Neutral

scyber @ Jun 3rd 2009 10:41AM

If Hulu doesn't make enough money via ads, shouldn't they charge more for the ads then? If there business model is to sell ads for streaming video, then shouldn't additional views be benficial to their business model?

That said, I'd consider paying a subscription fee for Hulu (less than cable), but only on 2 considerations:

1) The advertising stays as limited as it is now and doesn't expand to be like cable. 18 minutes of commercials for a 60 minute show is too much.
2) They expand their selection to include more content. IIRC, some networks still don't have their content on hulu, rather you have to go to the network site to stream it (abc is like this i htink). I'd only pay a subscription if it included access to all of that content too.

Neutral

Ordeith @ Jun 4th 2009 3:09PM

their

Neutral

Pete Langlois @ Jun 3rd 2009 10:58AM

I watch HULU on my PS3 through HDMI at 1080p.

Highest Ranked

David Hildreth @ Jun 3rd 2009 12:10PM

Nothing on that site is 1080p.

Highly Ranked

teej @ Jun 3rd 2009 4:20PM

lol owned.

Neutral

Wes @ Jun 4th 2009 12:44AM

Its hopeless David, most ps3 games still believe their ps3 games are "true" 1080p and don't realize it upscaled from near dvd quality like 640p to 680p at best.

Neutral

Loban @ Jun 5th 2009 9:53AM

Poor Poor Pete. You think that just because your PS3 is outputting a signal in 1080p, that means the material you're watching is also in 1080p. It doesn't work that way my friend. You can set your PS3 to output in any resolution you want, most games are still 720 (or less) and most videos are also 720.

Highest Ranked

Byrdman @ Jun 3rd 2009 11:00AM

I would consider paying a small fee for Hulu on one condition: HD. None of this 480p high quality BS, If I'm paying for it, it should be in HD.

Highest Ranked

AztecPilot @ Jun 3rd 2009 12:02PM

I agree. I would change my answer from nothing to something, if it streamed 720P or better. I will not pay for SD anything. I currently CAN watch HULU on my TV. I have a DVI to HDMI cable and a coax audio out on my laptop. It connects very nicely to my reciever. PlayOn also works. However, even though I CAN, I don't. due to picture quality.

Neutral

Loban @ Jun 5th 2009 9:53AM

Agreed, which is exactly why in my house tvtorrents.com > HULU.

Highest Ranked

Brian @ Jun 3rd 2009 11:08AM

This kind of response is why television is changing into something many people don't like: If viewers aren't willing to pay for high quality programming -- and pay enough to motivate companies to produce and distribute high quality programming -- then they bear the responsibility for the deterioration of both the overall quality of programming and the availability of quality programming. The sense of entitlement that pervades the perspective of many television viewers does nothing to foster a healthy system to deliver them the high-quality programming they claim they want.

Ask yourself this -- and be honest -- don't snow yourself with the same old childish rhetoric you post online: Why would you invest your money producing or distribution television programs, when you can make more profit investing in hotels or retailing or medical devices?

Highly Ranked

kosh56 @ Jun 3rd 2009 11:35AM

Very well said Brian! I'm tired of the sense of entitlement people have when it comes to media. I don't understand why it is viewed differently from any other product or service.
High quality content costs money to make.
If you want free video there are millions on YouTube.

Having said that, I do have a problem with the current Cable distribution method, but that is for another conversation.

Highest Ranked

glenn s @ Jun 3rd 2009 12:10PM

You make a good point. The counterpoint is that the media companies wield too much market power and an arms length contract for services with consumers at a reasonable price is unattainable. So the market is broken. 'Take it or leave it' is not what is intended by free market economics. In a free market, if the price is to high, someone else will enter the market and offer a product or service at a lower price that people are willing to pay. Until recently, that was near impossible because of the cable monopolies. To some extent the internet is the first opportunity in a really long time where the barrier to entry for mass media is low enough that the market approach might actually work. That is as long as we don't allow the Hulu's of the world, or the broadband/cable providers to dictate the terms. The winds of change are blowing. Just like the internet is killing print news media, it is going to change broadcast media as well. Whether you think this is a good thing or a bad thing is not the point. It is going to happen either way.

Low Ranked

Brian @ Jun 3rd 2009 12:28PM

There is a competitive marketplace for subscription television service, in every municipality in the country. DirecTV, Dish Network, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox, Charter, Cablevision, U-Verse, FiOS, etc. -- each municipality has at least three available.

What you're asking for isn't a fair market, but rather a market biased in the consumers' favor, where there is so much competition that none of the suppliers have a chance of making a profit. That's an unreasonable expectation.

The prices we see now are the prices that are reflective of the actual value we are provided. That's how much things should cost. And as Hulu becomes more mainstream, that's how much things are going to cost through Hulu, as well.

Highly Ranked

AL @ Jun 3rd 2009 2:58PM

@Brian
Its not an issue of entitlement really. Some people act like they are entitled to the content. But there is also a certain thing called "supply and demand". The idea is if networks are trying to sell a product no one wants to buy, then you can't blame the consumer for it. Granted, it is always the consumer that drives the market.

To me, if Hulu wasnt free, I just wouldnt watch it. Theres a lot of people out there that would do the same. And honestly, its the right of Hulu to charge whatever the hell they want. If people pay for it, good for them. If they lose their audience, too bad. Doesnt matter to me one way or another. If they cant figure out a way to make profit on television shows, then they should be doing something else. Why should I feel bad if the networks cant afford to put quality program up? I can live without TV, and there are other forms of entertainment out there I'm more willing to pay for anyways.

Lowest Ranked

Spiza @ Jun 3rd 2009 3:24PM

Welcome to Socialism Brian! Up next, health care.

Highest Ranked

poster @ Jun 4th 2009 12:17AM

All points you make are bad because I already pay $107 a month to my satellite provider and I'll not pay a penny more. At what point does the amount we pay for content break our backs? They will always want more. They can't be happy with what they have, they come at us with more and more ways to pay for what we already deserve. Hulu should be a gratis service to all cable and satellite suscribers that already receive their channel. It should be a whip cream on the top, not a screw you get more.

I have no issues with not paying them. None!

Highly Ranked

Wes @ Jun 4th 2009 12:51AM

Wow, you pay $107.00? Thats insane. At that price, I'd almost rather ditch your service, just watch over-the-air-hdtv for local news and buy 2-3 complete seasons of 2-3 different favorite tv shows. Or buy a super-good internet connection such as fios? or better and download 720p mkv of all the tv shows you like, watch them at your leisure, without commercials on any device you want and say 'f-hulu' I found something better.

Neutral

Schwinn @ Jun 4th 2009 9:37AM

@Brian's
"here is a competitive marketplace for subscription television service, in every municipality in the country. DirecTV, Dish Network, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox, Charter, Cablevision, U-Verse, FiOS, etc. -- each municipality has at least three available."

Wrong. That's the problem. In my city, I have a choice of 1 - Comcast (no FIOS). I suppose you can consider DirecTV or Dish in some areas, but my house, like many others, are unable to use it since I have a nice big hill and lots of tall tress blocking my LOS. Of course, the trees aren't on my property, so there's nothing I can do about it.

To date, even Comcast can't get me a decent ANALOG signal - I'm getting an F-ed up downconversion that they simply won't troubleshoot with me, and literally blew me off from support... how's that for competition? It's not my house wiring (they have confirmed that) but they refuse to fix it...

Anyway, long story short... I have no entitlement... I just expect to get what I pay for, and I'm not getting even that... and my rates continue to increase. Now you want me to pay more for Hulu? And, I fully expect they'll make it Windows only, rendering my MythTV box incapable... so instead I'll torrent what I want at a far higher quality than paying for SD/Windows Hulu.

Highly Ranked

WebDev511 @ Jun 3rd 2009 11:35AM

If it were part of Xbox live Gold, I'd go gold. I think $5 would be more palitable though. If they could get Hulu running at full resolution (720p/1080i) like the movie service is going to be this fall, that might do a lot to persuade me too.

Neutral

202allday @ Jun 3rd 2009 12:08PM

Can you say HDMI?, lol run hulu destop and add it as another monitor.

Neutral

Randall Lind @ Jun 3rd 2009 12:09PM

I just flip my HDTV to PC mode and hook my laptop to it an watch Hulu. If they want me to pay for Hulu they need at least 720 HD and a 24 hour turn a round. Fox makes you wait 8 days to watch shows that just aired.

I would consider paying if I could see a show that aired tonight on Hulu next day.

Neutral

David Hildreth @ Jun 3rd 2009 12:11PM

Fill the breaks up with ads. I'm not paying a monthly fee for broadcast TV.

Highest Ranked

glenn s @ Jun 3rd 2009 12:13PM

I watch Hulu on my PC, so I am following their rules. It happens to be hooked up to a 42" Plasma TV. So there Hulu. I f@rt in your general direction. You silly english k-nig-t.

Neutral

Orionzdrm @ Jun 3rd 2009 12:20PM

I watch Hulu right now on my xbox 360 and PS3.... Playon rocks...

Neutral

chumley @ Jun 3rd 2009 12:32PM

I might watch Hulu if I could do so through my Tivo, otherwise It's not generally worth the hassle to me. I have enough other programming choices since I have cable and Netflix.

Neutral

James T @ Jun 3rd 2009 12:51PM

I'd be willing to pay $10/month, but I already get on my TV now. Thanks Apple for the Mac Mini.

Highest Ranked

xnappo @ Jun 3rd 2009 2:19PM

What? Making me watch the same forest fire ad 4 times in an hour isn't making them money? How strange...

I don't understand why they don't have a model where you have to have an account and have a little questionnaire about your interests. Seems to me like there HAS to be money in targetted advertising. It is a huge advantage over traditional TV for ad revenue.

xnappo

Neutral

tony @ Jun 4th 2009 6:40PM

Excellent point xnappo! Why are these idiots trying to apply the same paradigm to Internet streaming as for network TV. They are indeed missing a huge opportunity to do scalpel sharp targeted advertising to each individual customer. Plus, since I would be served ads based on my preferences, interests, etc. then they would be much less annoying to me, I might actually watch more of them, and therefore they are much more likely to be effective. How stupid are these guys that they would miss such an obvious opportunity like this?!? I am amazed that most executives can keep their jobs. The world is run by morons!

Highest Ranked

Martin @ Jun 3rd 2009 2:42PM

I am ALREADY paying for hulu. What do you think that those commercials are that they stick in with the content. Plus all of the advertising that is already in the content to begin with. It is like on IMDB where they make you watch a commercial before you can watch a trailer. How funny is that. You have to watch an advertisement to watch an advertisment...

Neutral

feat-us @ Jun 3rd 2009 10:36PM

@Martin: exactly this. this is part of the problem with cable at the moment. not only is the distribution method broken, but the prices are going up (at least with comcast) while the ads become even more intrusive. i'm not willing to pay it anymore so i cancelled comcast. at this point the only thing that could persuade me to pay for television is an a-la-carte model. make my money through advertisements like it was done for decades. someone else up above mentioned hulu utilizing targeted advertising, which is a brilliant solution.

Neutral

angal @ Jun 3rd 2009 7:18PM

Hah, why would I pay to get hulu on my tv? Hulu is neat and all, but the obvious appeal of Hulu is that it's free, legal, and easy. Break any of those and it doesn't get you anywhere.

Neutral

Jonny561201 @ Jun 3rd 2009 3:09PM

As much as I detest my cable company I am hardly willing to replace one poor subscription service for another. Paying a premium for their services then having to endure endless commercials is hard enough to swallow from my cable provider. Luckily there are workarounds on platforms such as media center, which i intend to use. If I cant get the same thing from Hulu I would rather not waste my time.

I wouldnt mind paying a monthly fee if I had a choice between commercials or a subscription service without, but we all know we cant have our cake and eat it too.

On a slight upside, media center developers are integrating the Hulu desktop into media center....sorta.

Neutral

rdclark @ Jun 3rd 2009 3:24PM

I like Hulu. I purchased a license for PlayOn and use it with my PS3 and am satisfied with the results. If I can use this setup to access HD content, it would be happy to pay an additional reasonable license fee, if necessary.

But I have reached my limit on monthly fees. I'm trying to cut back on them, not add more. Maybe it's time to move to the woods.

Neutral

su2lly @ Jun 8th 2009 12:37PM

I too watch Hulu on my TV via an HDMI cable from my Laptop. This is all coming about because the old man that owns Fox (which is part owner of Hulu) thinks people should pay for the stuff they look at on a computer screen. This old man would be wrong. There will always be free content on the web. There used to be companys that thought people would pay a monthly fee to use there search engine on the interwebs. How are they makin' out these days?

Neutral

Matt @ Jun 3rd 2009 4:15PM

I would honestly pay $10 a month IF AND ONLY IF:

1 - The quality was up to par. Define par if you wish
2 - It didn't stutter and load and make me wait. It should work like I am watching tv.
3 - The advertisements stayed the way they are. One 30 second ad every 15min is just fine.

Neutral

Paul @ Jun 3rd 2009 4:54PM

I am not understanding why the Roku can't play Hulu when Netflix Streaming has many NBC shows and Nickelodeon shows that update one or two days after the original airs and there are NO commercials.

Neutral

bkdtv @ Jun 3rd 2009 5:03PM

>>I am not understanding why the Roku can't play Hulu when Netflix Streaming has many
>>NBC shows and Nickelodeon shows that update one or two days after the original airs and
>> there are NO commercials.

Netflix pays for the right to stream those NBC and Nickelodeon shows. Hulu doesn't pay anything. Hulu's agreement with content providers may only allow them to stream to PCs.

Neutral

Paul @ Jun 3rd 2009 7:32PM

Hulu is owned by NBC, FOX, and some other network I forget. Why would they charge themselves to put their content up?

| 1 | 2 | Most Recent | Next 50 Comments

Star Trek Online shipping on Stardate 63554.5 (Feb. 2, 2010) Report: EA layoffs at four major divisions Inspect Kratos' HD facelift in God of War Collection	One Finger Discount takes on MacHeist with 20% off tons of Mac apps Comodo Easy VPN is a fast, free Hamachi alternative for Windows Rumor: Google buys Gizmo5, expanded VoIP service coming soon?
Time names Apple MacBook, iPod touch among best travel gadgets MobileMe is MobileSlow today iMac touchscreens, iPod HD radio and iPhone sync issue fixed	Hewlett-Packard: Strong uptrend Insiders eye Novatel (NVTL) Google gets mobile with a $750 million deal for AdMob
XBLM Deal of the Week: Saints Row 2 DLC Crackdown HDD installation now available Reminder: Watch the first episode of Halo Legends today [update: It's gone]	Hyundai wins Advertising Age Marketer of the Year award VIDEO: Bewerp Savage Rivale Roadyacht GTS actually takes to the ~~road~~ sidewalk First Look: Bugatti 16C Galibier Concept
Activision to use Modern Warfare 2 launch to help US Veterans Magic The Gathering: Duels of the Planeswalkers coming to the PC Dvinity II release date announced; PC owners denied pre-order bonus	Larry Johnson Cut by Kansas City Bengals a Win Away From Controlling AFC North Four 'Contenders' in Serious Trouble