I'm not sure how that really follows what I said. The 360 has been out for what, three or four years now?
I was referencing to the fact that they just pissed away a buncha money and got a console that is sort of too late to get onto the ball with as too much has been released already to catch up, and also compounded by the fact that they have too many things already to read/play/watch.
I was referencing to the fact that they just pissed away a buncha money and got a console that is sort of too late to get onto the ball with as too much has been released already to catch up, and also compounded by the fact that they have too many things already to read/play/watch.
I only got it because it was really really cheap. Also because I already had controllers and a wireless headset for it, and because I am getting an HDTV soon. Also, because the media parts of it can hold me over until I can afford a new Mac mini. Also because with XNA I can make games with it. And also because there are some indy games for it I wanted to play that weren't available elsewhere. I specifically remember that a bunch of the PAX 10 were XBox only.
I'm not sure how that really follows what I said. The 360 has been out for what, three or four years now?
I was referencing to the fact that they just pissed away a buncha money and got a console that is sort of too late to get onto the ball with as too much has been released already to catch up, and also compounded by the fact that they have too many things already to read/play/watch.
I fail to understand what you mean by "catch up". Not everyone wants to own or play every (or even most) of the games on any given console. Moreover, there is no time limit in enjoying a system. Just because a new system comes out does not mean that one must purchase it and/or abandon the old system.
Hulu's primary purpose is not obtaining a certain number of viewers. It is to make money. If they lose viewers, but make more money, how is that a bad business decision?
I have said this time and time again. Torrenting is great, but not perfect. A business that charges a small price for a more convenient product can succeed. This means DRM free, and cheap. I would gladly pay for such a service. No worries about seeding ratios, consistently fast downloads, no worries about content becoming unavailable, consistent quality... that's all worth a price. Netflix is promising, but the lack of content is a dealbreaker.
If Hulu was $20 per month for unlimted (and sufficient) DRM-free content, I would gladly ditch cable TV. At a minimum, I would want the major broadcast and cable networks to have their shows available. If the content was real impressive, I'd probably pay $40 per month. Anything more than that and cable wins.
Kilarney, you are mostly right. However, I think you are missing one important thing.
While money does matter, losing viewers is the same as losing money. Let's use some made-up numbers for an example.
Let's say Hulu has a million viewers and gets a million dollars in ad revenues per month. Hulu switches to a pay model of $20 per month. They go down to 100,000 viewers, but they get two million in revenue per month. Seems good.
But now there are ten times fewer people watching their shows. That's ten times less water cooler talk. Ten times less publicity for the stars of those shows. Ten times less buzz on Twitter. The amount of marketing dollars they will have to spend to make up for that lost word of mouth on the content is going to be a hell of a lot.
You know what shows people are going to talk about? The ones that everyone can watch for free. The ones that people can link to. If you want people to pay $20 you have to have something they both want and something that can not be gotten for free. However, the things that people will most care about and want are the more popular things, which will be the free things.
Ask Jon Stewart if having free clips of his show up on the Internet helped or hurt his career. The way to make it these days is to be like Tiger Woods. You can watch him play Golf for free, but he still makes big time money.
But now there are ten times fewer people watching their shows. That's ten times less water cooler talk. Ten times less publicity for the stars of those shows. Ten times less buzz on Twitter. The amount of marketing dollars they will have to spend to make up for that lost word of mouth on the content is going to be a hell of a lot..
You are assuming that Hulu is the only source for these shows. You are completely ignoring those who get their TV via cable, satellite and antenna.
Oh, and their own self-sale is still ongoing. Nice timing, guys!
Nice, So I actually pay for Netflix and Hulu Plus because I got rid of cable and it was like 40 to 50 dollars cheaper to just go this route. I was however peeved that they still showed ads to people who were paying for Hulu Plus. Drrrr.
Comments
Hulu's primary purpose is not obtaining a certain number of viewers. It is to make money. If they lose viewers, but make more money, how is that a bad business decision?
I have said this time and time again. Torrenting is great, but not perfect. A business that charges a small price for a more convenient product can succeed. This means DRM free, and cheap. I would gladly pay for such a service. No worries about seeding ratios, consistently fast downloads, no worries about content becoming unavailable, consistent quality... that's all worth a price. Netflix is promising, but the lack of content is a dealbreaker.
If Hulu was $20 per month for unlimted (and sufficient) DRM-free content, I would gladly ditch cable TV. At a minimum, I would want the major broadcast and cable networks to have their shows available. If the content was real impressive, I'd probably pay $40 per month. Anything more than that and cable wins.
While money does matter, losing viewers is the same as losing money. Let's use some made-up numbers for an example.
Let's say Hulu has a million viewers and gets a million dollars in ad revenues per month. Hulu switches to a pay model of $20 per month. They go down to 100,000 viewers, but they get two million in revenue per month. Seems good.
But now there are ten times fewer people watching their shows. That's ten times less water cooler talk. Ten times less publicity for the stars of those shows. Ten times less buzz on Twitter. The amount of marketing dollars they will have to spend to make up for that lost word of mouth on the content is going to be a hell of a lot.
You know what shows people are going to talk about? The ones that everyone can watch for free. The ones that people can link to. If you want people to pay $20 you have to have something they both want and something that can not be gotten for free. However, the things that people will most care about and want are the more popular things, which will be the free things.
Ask Jon Stewart if having free clips of his show up on the Internet helped or hurt his career. The way to make it these days is to be like Tiger Woods. You can watch him play Golf for free, but he still makes big time money.
It looks like this business model is biting them in the ass now.
Hulu puts itself up for sale.
They're considering ad-free subscriptions.
Seriously, what took them so long?
Oh, and their own self-sale is still ongoing. Nice timing, guys!