If they want it to be worth $10 (or more), there's one big thing they'd need to do: live streaming (or, at least upload shows right when the episode ends).

Like Dustin Curtis said, "Netflix killed Blockbuster, but Hulu is going to kill Netflix. So much death, and I still can't watch fucking live TV on the internet."

Why would Hulu kill Netflix? Hulu may be a bit better on TV content, but Netflix blows them out of the water on the rest. I'd put my money on Netflix.

I totally agree. Most TV shows appear on BitTorrent networks within an hour of airing. Why can't hulu beat those delivery times when they have a partnership with the content producers?

fan subed anime is up within an hour... local distribution is 12+ months behind.

That's an awesome quote, hadn't seen it before! Pretty much sums it all up, doesn't it?

live TV? What is your definition of that? LIve broadcasts of sporting and entertainment events? Or just a contiguous stream of shows? If you want the latter Justin.tv offers that.

As for Hulu Plus I think it's a great start and shocked by all the monkeys and trolls who left reviews re: hulu plus iphone app. They completely diss it because it cost $10 bucks and has ads. How much you pay for cable TV service with ads?

Live TV, as in whats playing on the TV right now. As in, an internet broadcast of a TV channel.

I don't.

Wait, why would I want to pay to watch whatever's on right now? I have a TV and an antenna for that.

Because most live sporting events don't broadcast for your antenna to receive. Maybe that doesn't matter to you but it does to me.

I just want a service that will stream all of the sports I currently get on basic cable (local teams and nationally televised games), along with what I can get from Hulu. It would also be nice to be able to get a daily or monthly stream of a channel on an a la carte basis.

Fair enough. But hulu doesn't carry any sport right now, does it?

Personally I'd pay to see the Formula 1 live, but that's about it. I don't think even cable carries that in the US.

I don't believe they have any sport, which is why it can't replace cable for me.

Just checked on Formula 1 and it looks like Fox is broadcasting the next race live. Subsequent races appear to be live on SPEED.

Then you're not exactly their target audience... and not everyone has free OTA access to the shows they want to watch, if it's even aired that way.

For instance: I haven't seen Bill Nye since PBS stopped airing his show.

I'm looking at it as a way to replace cable tv for first run network shows (30 rock, modern family, etc.). They say they will stream that stuff at 720p. I'd love to know how that compared to comcast. I would watch with a Mac mini attached to the tv.

Get an antenna.

Yep, I have a HD antenna and watch network TV in 1080p. Sadly I think most people are conditioned to believe that you cant get these channels without cable.

Sad especially considering that you can record TV via Windows Media Center for a couple hundred bucks in hardware and no monthly fee.

Could you please explain or link to more information about how this works?

Get an antenna from <any store that sells TVs>, plug it into your HD-ready TV and scan for channels. You should get ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, PBS and other local channels. Most channels have sub-channels that might show weather, alternate programming or older shows from the 70s or 80s.

If you don't have an HD-ready TV, you can get a converter box from the same store that you plug your antenna into.

If you asking about the 1080p part, most (all?) HD channels broadcast in 720p or 1080i.

And you don't even need a fancy "HD antenna". I'm using a broken old antenna from analog days to receive 1080i HD from 4 of the major networks, PBS, and then some. I also have an Eyetv connected to my computer so i have DVR functionality.

And then pay $10/month more for internet. For me it makes more sense to get a basic TV plan and get more than what you get with an antenna. Especially if you have multiple TVs or get poor reception. You'll pay more than internet alone but it's mitigated by the $10 you'll save.

ABC has an iPad app, and they've been adding more and more tv shows (and they do all episodes). Would be cool if other networks did the same.

For movies, nothing beats netflix (I don't really watch TV, but I devour 3 to 4 films a week).

The letdown of Hulu Plus and the horrendous monstrosity that is Netflix (and its even worse iPad app) are at least movements in the right direction. I find solace in the mere idea that one day I might be able to go to a website, select an episode, and watch television content on my computer screen.

I don't know why this is so hard. I am willing to pay money for it! I will open my wallet and pay money to watch TV on my computer! Even with ads!

> horrendous monstrosity that is Netflix

What is wrong with Netflix (besides silverlight)? I used the service for a very long time to satisfy almost all of my TV viewing needs.

I was about the ask the same question. My girlfriend and I watch TV shows via Netflix on our Roku almost every evening and the experience is very good. The only problem is everything is a bit dated (with a few exceptions), but it's still entertaining and the back log is big enough to last us for at least a year of casual use.

The DVD service I can't really complain about as it does exactly what they say it will do, delivers DVDs to my door within a day for much cheaper then renting at Blockbuster.

Agreed. I find Netflix "Watch Instantly" to be fantastic. The iPad app is prone to problems, and the content isn't quite there, but it's still unbelievably amazing.

For $10/mo I have unlimited viewing of thousands of movies/shows. For anyone that grew up with VHS tapes that's just staggering.

I have only two requests: Even more content (I'd pay $20/mo for 5 times more content), and a more solid iPad app.

I love netflix. I usually watch on a big ass TV via PS3 - bluray discs, regular DVD, and streaming.

As a paying customer, the last thing I should have to sit through is ads. Let's not encourage a continuation of that practice.

There are lots of cable customers who are willing to pay extreme amounts of money for content and have no problem with ads...

It's so hard because the Media Industry has been resistant to change / technology that would help them for a rather long time. Vinyl/Cassettes/CDs/MP3s/DRM-free MP3s were going to starve musicians. VHS/DVD/Blu-Ray/3D home TVs were going to kill theaters. The Internet was/is going to <insert doomsday prediction here, any will work>. Piraters were/are going to kill all content creation.

It's all BS, that's why it's so hard. But maybe I'm just bitter about all this.

I do not know how Hulu Plus is steaming data to the iP(ad)hone, but there has to be some sort of encryption. The reason so many streaming sites use Adobe Flash and/or Microsoft SilverLight is because they offer it. Youtube wrote a blog post about HTML5 and included some insight on this[1].

-----

Content Protection :: YouTube doesn't own the videos that you watch - they're owned by their respective creators, who control how those videos are distributed through YouTube. For YouTube Rentals, video owners require us to use secure streaming technology, such as the Flash Platform's RTMPE protocol, to ensure their videos are not redistributed. Without content protection, we would not be able to offer videos like this.

-----

[1] http://apiblog.youtube.com/2010/06/flash-and-html5-tag.html

My wife and I watch a lot of Netflix streaming movies, have been for a long time, and are very happy with the service.

I think that the combination of having up to 2 blu-rays at a time, and streaming movies all for $15/month is about the best deal in entertainment. Contrast to our $96/month DirecTV bill: a really nice service, but not nearly as good a deal.

Sounds like a no. But I assume the strategy is to slowly move everything across from "regular" to "plus".

Still, at a significant fraction of the cost of a Netflix subscription, which really does give value for money, I can't see myself ever paying it.

Actually if your primary interest is online streaming netflix offers unlimited streaming in their 8.99 a month plan, a bit less than hulu.

It's even further cheaper when you place a value on your time spent watching Hulu's commercials. Not to mention the decreased entertainment experience from the commercial interruptions.

Hulu ads aren't bad. Mute the computer and switch to another tab for thirty seconds. Far better than ads on actual television, since you know exactly when they're going to end, and even if you miss it you can always rewind.

It's all about perspective - when comparing to actual television sure Hulu's single ad is a welcome breath of fresh air. When compared to Netflix, iTunes, Amazon, DVD, etc ads become distracting whether it's 1 ad or multiple ads - you are interrupted from the task at and either way.

BTW I certainly don't want to come across as sounding entitled. I realize advertisers help pay the bill so that I can enjoy great shows.

I like of Netflix that the kids can play it on the Wii while I watch something else on the laptop. Some newer big-screen TVs also come Netflix-ready these days. Does Hulu play on anything non-computer?

They insert ads into movies? That is a dealbreaker.

You don't even need Hulu plus to watch on a PS3. Hulu blocks PS3's user agent string. You can just proxy the PS3 through a computer and replace the user agent string.