Hulu to test its fee-supported service next week

By on June 25, 2010, 10:04 AM
Hulu could begin testing out its fee-supported service, dubbed Hulu Plus, as early as next week. According to "people briefed on the plans" talking to the Wall Street Journal, the popular video streaming site is working to finalize agreements with content owners and hopes to wrap them up in the coming days. Of course, not everyone is enthusiastic about the idea of paying for Hulu, but the current offering will reportedly remain 'as is', while those who pay the $10 monthly fee would get access to a deeper catalog of shows, plus the ability to watch it on other devices.

These includes mobile devices like Apple's iPad, and possibly even on video game consoles such as the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. In the past Hulu has actively blocked attempts to put its video on TV-friendly apps and devices, such as Boxee, but with a subscription plan in the works it appears the service is ready to spread the way Netflix has. After all, access to additional viewing platforms seems like a much better selling point than just offering old episodes.

Currently, Hulu lets you watch the five most recent episodes of popular shows such as House and The Office, usually posted with some kind of delay. If you're able to stay on top of your favorite shows in a timely manner then you probably won't feel compelled to sign up. However, if you could access more content from your living room or on the go, would you be willing to shell out a subscription fee each month?




User Comments: 10

Got something to say? Post a comment
TJGeezer said:

Hulu blocks me because I retired to Mexico. I wouldn't mind paying if it made the service available to me here. Of course, Usenet versions are free of commercials, but I'd still rather pay Hulu and keep it legal (not to mention, reward those who create and produce the shows I like to watch).

Guest said:

I am interesting to see how much demand for this there will be. There have been a lot of comparisons to netflix but I don't thing they really stand up. Netflix really provides 2 services in one and that allows them to target 2 different target audiences. This service will only be targeting the one audience. I also feel from first hand experience the older crowd was more accepting of netflix because they received the discs by mail than were able to find out about the streaming.

Vrmithrax Vrmithrax, TechSpot Paladin, said:

So, I get to pay monthly to still put up with ads, and get content I can usually find in other places on the net? I'm guessing they are just going to neuter the library of older titles they have for free now, and make you pay to get to them. You know, the old "scale back what we currently give for free, then charge them for access, and call it something clever like a 'deeper library' or something" routine.

If it was ad-free (like Netflix), I'd actually consider it. But damned if I'm going to pay them to double-dip and get ad revenue off my viewing experiences as well.

MrAnderson said:

The one thing you must remember is international agreement with content providers. Just like we are not able to get other services in other contries they cannot allow you to access this stuff outside you zone. It would be cool to have a service that gets access worldwide. Netflix may be the first but I'm sure there still will be an order to when content if available and where.

Guest said:

Let's see I get cable with my internet service, so really do I need to pay an extra $$ for Hulu? No, I don't think so.

Really what's the draw? What distinguishes it, what extra do I get for putting out money for this service over other vehicles for media consumption. None that I see. If anything the viewer has more to lose as Hulu likes to collect all sorts of info about you. No thanks, Hulu.

Relic Relic, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

I guess we'll have to see what Hulu Plus delivers once its out. Since they haven't mentioned any features I fear what Vrmithrax said will be more along the lines of what will happen. Charge for the same thing + ads and no real additions. However if they do add huge libraries like entire seasons of shows, start to add more relevant movies, and actually show content in HD without any ads then this might be a pretty good service especially if you plan to cancel cable. Now if only ESPN could get with the 21st century and stop this exclusive partnership non-sense for ESPN3 I'd be set. Of course its all wishful thinking that they'd do something pro-consumer =/ .

matrix86 matrix86 said:

Relic said:

Since they haven't mentioned any features

Hm...we must be reading two different articles.

From the article:

those who pay the $10 monthly fee would get access to a deeper catalog of shows, plus the ability to watch it on other devices.

Looks like they mentioned the features to me. I still wouldn't pay for the new subscription fee...even if they did get rid of the ads I still wouldn't pay. It doesn't bother me seeing a 30 second ad every 5 or 10 minutes (beats watching 5 one minute ads every 5 minutes on the TV). I think people who complain about the ads are a bunch of whiny babies who want everything their way and if they don't get it the service isn't any good. Shut up ya bunch of ****** and stop complaining about every d@$% thing that isn't the way you want it. *steps off of soap box*

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

I agree Matrix, im not fond of ads either but they are the reason that the content is free on the free side and not more than $10(in this example) that they are charging. for those old enough to remember, when cable first aired....er cabled, there were no ads, the content was limited and not of very high quality. now we have ads but much more to choose from and better quality...I mean burn Notice....cant beat that!

Relic Relic, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

matrix86 said:

Relic said:

Since they haven't mentioned any features

Hm...we must be reading two different articles.

From the article:

those who pay the $10 monthly fee would get access to a deeper catalog of shows, plus the ability to watch it on other devices.

Looks like they mentioned the features to me. I still wouldn't pay for the new subscription fee...even if they did get rid of the ads I still wouldn't pay. It doesn't bother me seeing a 30 second ad every 5 or 10 minutes (beats watching 5 one minute ads every 5 minutes on the TV). I think people who complain about the ads are a bunch of whiny babies who want everything their way and if they don't get it the service isn't any good. Shut up ya bunch of ****** and stop complaining about every d@$% thing that isn't the way you want it. *steps off of soap box*

Poor choice of words, I meant specifics which they have not mentioned from what I read (besides ipad). And I'm not exactly sure what your saying about ads, if it's a free service great makes sense to have ads. If its a paid service it's a bit irritating that they are double-dipping, especially since everyone wants to go that route.

Jane55 Jane55 said:

hmm, nice try, Hulu. personally, I love hulu TV very much.

paying $10 a month for HD streaming, not costing, the more is iPhone and iPad support, but more episodes maybe not so good, nobody would like to pay for the ads, I think.

Well, actually Im considering to put movies on my iPad with my summer vocation, I ran across this article " [link] " give me the good idea.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.