vnzjunk wrote:

New or just plain lazy. One of the past postings, someone was asking about something and came rite out and said that they didn't have time to look it up.
Ok, fair........and guess what. I don't have time to look it up for you either or providing it if I already knew the answer. Personally I try to limit my asking to cases where I hit a dead end in looking for the answer myself. And while we are at it, anyone else notice a raft of posts starting out with "I am STUPID", or "I know this is a STUPID question" or the similar. I remember back in school being told that the only 'STUPID' question is the one not asked. But I mite add to that..........Not researched before hand (search box) and then not asked.

mkiker2089 wrote:

tobarefeet wrote:

You understand that with over a million units sold there are new people joining forums all the time right? You realize you probably asked a question when you first got here that had been answered "a million times', RIGHT?
I really hate the snark factor here sometimes.

I believe that is what the search button is for. People may be new to Roku but the problem is that people are new to net etiquette as well.

I'm with tobarefeet...if it bothers you so much why answer?

SuetyStanes wrote:

See, but there is a lot of content you can only get with a Hulu+ subscription. So you can watch all of the regular Hulu stuff AND all the Hulu+ stuff on your computer with a subscription. You can even watch all the extra Hulu+ only stuff on your tv in HD with a streaming device, and you can watch all of the Hulu+ stuff on your mobile device.

That is a lot of added content and functionality, which leaves me scratching my head when people say it's less than what they get with regular Hulu. Regular Hulu doesn't go away when you start paying 8 bucks a month.

I agree if you assume that I want to watch TV shows on my mobile device (I don't have a mobile device capable of TV viewing) and my PC (which is a console system in another room) in addition to my PC. I don't. I just want to use a box connected to my TV and watch TV on my TV.

vnzjunk wrote:

And while we are at it, anyone else notice a raft of posts starting out with "I am STUPID", or "I know this is a STUPID question" or the similar. I remember back in school being told that the only 'STUPID' question is the one not asked. But I mite add to that..........Not researched before hand (search box) and then not asked.

This group of sentences is too rich for words. Honestly, if you are going to be calling people stupid you should be a little more careful with spelling, grammar, and punctuation. I'm no grammar Nazi and I'm guilty about getting lazy with mine sometimes as well, however I would be extra careful about things like spelling "mite" wrong while acting superior to others. Never mind the multiple other obvious mistakes in that little gem.

If you want to be pompous then you really should cover your bases man.

mbratch wrote:

I agree if you assume that I want to watch TV shows on my mobile device (I don't have a mobile device capable of TV viewing) and my PC (which is a console system in another room) in addition to my PC. I don't. I just want to use a box connected to my TV and watch TV on my TV.

That's nice, but Hulu CAN'T show you the bulk of web-only material, even if it wanted to - it doesn't have the rights to it. Regardless of your feelings or in-house technology, Hulu still exists, whether or not you subscribe to Hulu+. Nothing was EVER "taken away" or promised with Hulu+, only added.

I don't even know if it's a case of "can't" get the licensing for things, more like a case of "won't". Not the guy's at Hulu's fault obviously. The owners of Hulu have to be very careful about jeopardizing their other revenue streams as this article says. That's why cable network programming (and I'm not talking nonsense like Jersey Shore or Skins) has not and probably will not appear on plus. If I could get my History Channel and SyFy shows for $7.99/month I'd never even *think* of ever getting cable again. I'm not sure, but I think Hulu's starting to stall out because it's becoming too much of that threat

stratcat96 wrote:

I don't even know if it's a case of "can't" get the licensing for things, more like a case of "won't". Not the guy's at Hulu's fault obviously. The owners of Hulu have to be very careful about jeopardizing their other revenue streams as this article says. That's why cable network programming (and I'm not talking nonsense like Jersey Shore or Skins) has not and probably will not appear on plus. If I could get my History Channel and SyFy shows for $7.99/month I'd never even *think* of ever getting cable again. I'm not sure, but I think Hulu's starting to stall out because it's becoming too much of that threat

But Hulu is owned by the networks, at least partially.

There's a lot of licensing for shows that they just can't get, because there are a dozen companies involved in the production of any given television show, even one "branded" to a network.

mikebdoss wrote:

stratcat96 wrote:

I don't even know if it's a case of "can't" get the licensing for things, more like a case of "won't". Not the guy's at Hulu's fault obviously. The owners of Hulu have to be very careful about jeopardizing their other revenue streams as this article says. That's why cable network programming (and I'm not talking nonsense like Jersey Shore or Skins) has not and probably will not appear on plus. If I could get my History Channel and SyFy shows for $7.99/month I'd never even *think* of ever getting cable again. I'm not sure, but I think Hulu's starting to stall out because it's becoming too much of that threat

But Hulu is owned by the networks, at least partially.

There's a lot of licensing for shows that they just can't get, because there are a dozen companies involved in the production of any given television show, even one "branded" to a network.

Hulu is owned partially by networks, and one of those networks is owned by a cable AND internet provider.. Those guys aren't stupid, they're not going to cut off their nose to spite their face. Hulu has always been a controlled experiment

mikebdoss wrote:

mbratch wrote:

I agree if you assume that I want to watch TV shows on my mobile device (I don't have a mobile device capable of TV viewing) and my PC (which is a console system in another room) in addition to my PC. I don't. I just want to use a box connected to my TV and watch TV on my TV.

That's nice, but Hulu CAN'T show you the bulk of web-only material, even if it wanted to - it doesn't have the rights to it. Regardless of your feelings or in-house technology, Hulu still exists, whether or not you subscribe to Hulu+. Nothing was EVER "taken away" or promised with Hulu+, only added.

And that, sir, is precisely my point. I know it wasn't "taken away" per se. For a streaming-video-box-only user, it has that net effect. In other words, I want to go to only using Roku, I need Hulu+, but then I lose a bunch of shows due to the restrictions. That's all I'm saying. I like Hulu+, don't get me wrong. I'm not criticizing them at all. I was merely pointing out that there are restrictions for Roku dedicated users who don't want to hop onto a PC or iPhone to watch the more restricted shows.

mbratch wrote:

And that, sir, is precisely my point. I know it wasn't "taken away" per se. For a streaming-video-box-only user, it has that net effect. In other words, I want to go to only using Roku, I need Hulu+, but then I lose a bunch of shows due to the restrictions. That's all I'm saying. I like Hulu+, don't get me wrong. I'm not criticizing them at all. I was merely pointing out that there are restrictions for Roku dedicated users who don't want to hop onto a PC or iPhone to watch the more restricted shows.

You can't "lose" something if it was never offered to you in the first place. Non-Hulu+ stuff hasn't ever been offered on set-top boxes.

Also, the restrictions aren't just for Roku - they're across the board on ALL TV devices.

mbratch wrote:

mikebdoss wrote:

mbratch wrote:

I agree if you assume that I want to watch TV shows on my mobile device (I don't have a mobile device capable of TV viewing) and my PC (which is a console system in another room) in addition to my PC. I don't. I just want to use a box connected to my TV and watch TV on my TV.

That's nice, but Hulu CAN'T show you the bulk of web-only material, even if it wanted to - it doesn't have the rights to it. Regardless of your feelings or in-house technology, Hulu still exists, whether or not you subscribe to Hulu+. Nothing was EVER "taken away" or promised with Hulu+, only added.

And that, sir, is precisely my point. I know it wasn't "taken away" per se. For a streaming-video-box-only user, it has that net effect. In other words, I want to go to only using Roku, I need Hulu+, but then I lose a bunch of shows due to the restrictions. That's all I'm saying. I like Hulu+, don't get me wrong. I'm not criticizing them at all. I was merely pointing out that there are restrictions for Roku dedicated users who don't want to hop onto a PC or iPhone to watch the more restricted shows.

If, according to your previous post, you only watch what Hulu delivers to televisions, how on earth do you expect me to agree with you that you've lost something? You've never been able to watch Hulu on your TV without a Hulu+ subscription. And you have more content with a Hulu+ subscription that you do with free Hulu (notwithstanding your artificial requirement that it has to be on the TV or nothing).

You have not lost anything, only gained is my point.

I think the argument is that paying for a service and receieving less content (under any circumstance) is a little counter-intuitive.

Common sense would dictate that paying for the service (so as to get it on Roku, iOS, etc.) doesn't inherently mean that content would be reduced. The two don't have anything to do with one-another unless you happen to be aware (and sensitive to) the myriad licensing agreements that dictate what can be shown on one computer (my desktop) versus another (my iPhone or Roku).

I think it would make a lot more sense if Hulu "free" was offered on all devices and these obtuse and confusing licensing agreements were a little more obvious. Ignorance isn't an excuse, but to expect a consumer to pay for something called "Plus" and then reduce the content in exchange for a different set of viewing options is confusing and hard to connect.

kidblue wrote:

I think the argument is that paying for a service and receieving less content (under any circumstance) is a little counter-intuitive.

Common sense would dictate that paying for the service (so as to get it on Roku, iOS, etc.) doesn't inherently mean that content would be reduced. The two don't have anything to do with one-another unless you happen to be aware (and sensitive to) the myriad licensing agreements that dictate what can be shown on one computer (my desktop) versus another (my iPhone or Roku).

I think it would make a lot more sense if Hulu "free" was offered on all devices and these obtuse and confusing licensing agreements were a little more obvious. Ignorance isn't an excuse, but to expect a consumer to pay for something called "Plus" and then reduce the content in exchange for a different set of viewing options is confusing and hard to connect.

And I don't understand the arithmetic that people go through to feel that they're getting less.

Does subscribing to Hulu+ mean you can't watch what you always have been able to for free on the computer? No. Does it mean that you have access to more shows and older episodes? Yes. Does it mean you can watch this additional content on a mobile device? Yes. Does it mean you can now stream the additional content on your television? Yes.

You get more with Hulu+. Period. It takes mental gymnastics to pretend otherwise, and it's a pretty nasty sense of entitlement that displays when people complain that they're not getting a free service however they want it delivered.

and the fact that I don't know of anyone who paid for Hulu Plus so they can watch *more* on their computer. Sure they may be out there, but the vast majority paid for Plus so they can watch *current TV* on their TV/iOS device. When they get less current TV on that device than there is on Hulu.com they see it as a minus. Perception is reality. In fact, I doubt anyone signed up for plus solely so they can watch old reruns of Adam 12 or the Criterion collection stuff, they signed up for current TV on their TV. Because of licensing, etc. they can't get all that so Hulu throws that stuff in as filler as not to make people feel so bad about paying.

SuetyStanes wrote:

and it's a pretty nasty sense of entitlement that displays when people complain that they're not getting a free service however they want it delivered.

They are actually complaining that they are not getting the contents of a free service even though they are paying $$. I look at it as "it is what it is" and if the discrepancies btw the two services leave the shows I want only on Hulu.com then I just won't subscribe. The belly-aching about it is silly I agree, and there's no excuse for not being an informed consumer, but to the "average Joe" you could imagine the confusion as to "why" there's a difference.

I would respectfully disagree, at least from the perspective of the average consumer, which it's safe to say, we are not. We're educated, enlightened consumers who are discussing this in a forum that is populated by folks who are tech-savvy and content-savvy.

That said, if the average consumer watches Hulu on their computer, for free, and comes to enjoy the variety, the next logical step is to pay for more access. From what they see, Hulu Plus offers the same experience on more devices. That makes sense and creates a value. By limiting the content, it adds a "next step" for the consumer to consider, that they wouldn't expect if they weren't previous educated in how the licensing works.

In other words, it isn't about valuing the trade-off between more devices and less content, it's the expectation on the part of an average consumer to know that it is an issue to begin with.

Obviously, all content can still be viewed on the desktop/laptop computer, but that process of education, of clarifying how something is lost (anything) by paying for the service, is I think what frustrates a lot of potential customers.

The trade-off simply doesn't make much common sense. In fact, Netflix is a great example of over-all licensing. Consumers can view the same licensed Netflix content on their iOS device, computer and set-top-box. So to expect them to inherently understand and sympathize with an alternative structure is a little too much to ask, in my opinion.

To paraphrase a previous poster, " I don't know of anyone who paid for Hulu Plus so they can watch *more* on their computer. Sure they may be out there, but the vast majority paid for Plus so they can watch *current TV* on their TV/iOS device. When they get less current TV on that device than there is on Hulu.com they see it as a minus. Perception is reality." - This is the argument and it's rather valid.