hulu.com on Tivo

Discussion in 'TiVo Suggestion Avenue' started by willp2, Aug 19, 2008.

  1. Apr 30, 2009 #61 of 132
    jeffw_00

    jeffw_00 Member

    860
    4
    Sep 19, 2000

    Advertisements

    I don't see the difference - we have YouTube, Amazon, Netflix on TiVo - please give us Hulu too. What distinguishes TiVo from a CableCo box is that TiVo is now a PORTAL to so many things, and is content-provider-agnostic. Hulu would be just another portal.
     
  2. Apr 30, 2009 #62 of 132
    rock342

    rock342 New Member

    5
    0
    Apr 13, 2007
    so now Disney / ABC are on board with Hulu.

    Come on TiVo, or my PS3 will start becoming my main video device...
     
  3. Apr 30, 2009 #63 of 132
    f0gax

    f0gax Member

    519
    0
    Aug 8, 2002
    Tampa, FL
    Lhorer... I think you make good points. And your arguments are well constructed, but I do think you might be coming at this sideways. You are, quite obviously, not a fan of advertising. And you are arguing from the conclusion that if the costs of advertising were eliminated, the price of goods and services would go down. Which is true of course. However, the same is also true if you swap "advertising" with "steel". If the cost of steel dropped to 0 or near 0, then the price of products made from steel would also drop.

    Now, you can argue that you can't make a car without steel, but you can sure as heck make a car without advertising. While being technically true, is not in reality at all accurate.

    In a wide-spread, heterogeneous marketplace, a producer of goods or services must "get the word out" about what they are selling. Be it standing on the street corner yelling about it, or buying space in the local fish wrapper. Either way, it is a cost of doing business.

    Any given for-profit business has but two "levers" to pull to realize their hoped-for profits; costs and prices. They can raise or lower either of them in accordance with their objectives. A big cost for most businesses is labor. So by the argument you put forward, if business cut back on labor then they could lower our prices; that your neighbor has a job is costing you money.

    I am not a fan of advertising either. But I am not foolish enough to think that I can get anything for "free" in this world. So, yes if a service like Hulu came to Tivo and only showed me a single commercial over the course of a 22 minute show (or 2 in 42, etc) that would be just fine with me. Because I spend at least 30 seconds per half hour FF'ing through ads as it is with recorded TV. And I can always do something else like talk to the other people in the room. No one is holding my eyeballs open and forcing me to consume the commercial.

    I'm sure you'll be dissecting this shortly in your reply. I look forward to it.
     
  4. May 4, 2009 #64 of 132
    herbf

    herbf Executive Member

    20
    0
    Oct 21, 2002
    NJ
    +1 for Hulu on Tivo.

    Lhorer, with all respect, this thread is for gaining Hulu support from Tivo or the ability to view sites like Hulu via a browser interface. It is not about ads and commercials, although they may be part of such an implementation. You are taking this topic off on tangents which water down what is being sought. If you feel this strongly, then please take your concerns regarding ads and commercials and start your own thread dedicated to that topic.

    I think it's kind of sad and pathetic that this thread is 8.5 months old, and not a single comment from the folks at Tivo which supposedly care for their customers.
     
  5. May 4, 2009 #65 of 132
    orangeboy

    orangeboy yes, I AM orangeboy!

    4,089
    0
    Apr 19, 2004
    East Moline, IL
  6. May 15, 2009 #66 of 132
    MakoShark

    MakoShark New Member

    3
    0
    Jan 23, 2009
    +1 for Hulu on Tivo
     
  7. May 15, 2009 #67 of 132
    Gavroche

    Gavroche Member

    422
    5
    May 26, 2007
    State of...
    No. It doens't make a lot of sense to me either.

    I've already been called a moron by this guy in another thread.

    I do understand his point (at least he actually explained his position in this thread) but it sounds to me like he wants to live in some fantasy world where there is never any advertising for anything.

    That is just not realistic, I'm afraid!

    Us "morons" that live in the real world know that advertising is part of the model. Best to make it useful. I can't say that I've ever bought any product advertised on Tivo, but I never would have bought a Tivo in the first place had I not found out about it through advertising.

    Hmmmm!
     
  8. May 30, 2009 #68 of 132
    crossbred900

    crossbred900 New Member

    7
    0
    Apr 4, 2006
    hulu plz ;)
     
  9. Jun 1, 2009 #69 of 132
    bkdtv

    bkdtv New Member

    7,902
    2
    Jan 9, 2003
    DC Metro Area
    From what I understand, Hulu's agreements with content providers expressly forbid that functionality from being integrated into a standalone box. Hence, we will not see built-in support for Hulu on any STB, DVR, or media player.

    TiVo could support Hulu, but I believe they would have to use a a gateway application running on your computer (such as TiVo Desktop). I think that would be a big boost for TiVo if they did that with TiVo Desktop 3.0.

    Edit: As it turns out, the Hulu.com license agreement prohibits this.
     
  10. Jun 1, 2009 #70 of 132
    FixItPete

    FixItPete Big Time Fan Newbie

    101
    0
    Oct 27, 2008
    FL - Comcast
    I'd consider buying another Tivo if I could get Hulu to work with it. :D
     
  11. Jun 2, 2009 #71 of 132
    classicsat

    classicsat Astute User

    17,877
    0
    Feb 18, 2004
    Ontario Canada.
    It wouldn't be TiVo that would make a Hulu Gateway, it at least would put them in a negative position with the content owners. At most they would have to play cat and mouse with Hulu like Boxee does.
    Leave it up to a 3rd party developer with no ties to the content industry to play that game.
     
  12. Jun 2, 2009 #72 of 132
    lew

    lew Well-Known Member

    4,243
    81
    Mar 12, 2002

    Once we accept a service such as Hulu which contains advertising; a service that will probably disable FF and 30 second skip (at least during commercials) we have to accept the inevitable increase in the number of commercials that will be added.

    I'd probably like to see Hulu added, but I'm not sure most of us will be happy with what the service will look like in a few years.
     
  13. Jun 2, 2009 #73 of 132
    wmcbrine

    wmcbrine Well-Known Mumbler

    11,861
    900
    Aug 2, 2003
    Citation needed.
     
  14. Jun 2, 2009 #74 of 132
    bkdtv

    bkdtv New Member

    7,902
    2
    Jan 9, 2003
    DC Metro Area
    I can't recall where I read that. Hulu.com does have the following statement as part of their Hulu Desktop software licensing agreement, which the user must agree to before proceeding with the install:

    From the Hulu.com terms of service:

    Even if what I read (or recollect having read) about Hulu's contracts is inaccurate, TiVo would still need written permission to incorporate that functionality into its products.
     
  15. Jun 15, 2009 #75 of 132
    herbf

    herbf Executive Member

    20
    0
    Oct 21, 2002
    NJ
    That is why an open source browser as mentioned in this suggestion, would make much more sense.
     
  16. Jun 15, 2009 #76 of 132
    lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,933
    10
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    In the following post I will be using the words "you", "your" and "yours". It should be understood that while I am responding to the post by f0gax, these terms are not really aimed specifically at him, but are used in an editorial sense to connote television consumers in general.

    Not necessarily. It's possible the costs might go up, and indeed they will for some items. For others the prices would indeed plummet. Many items would simply become unavailable. Others would flourish and enjoy greater profitability for the companies who provide them. The one true fact in any economy is that money will find a way to be spent. All of that, however, is beside the point.

    First of all, I never made any such claim. Secondly, large scale economies can can exist without anything resembling the advertising we see today, and have done so for thousands of years.

    First of all, it is untrue. Homo sapiens has engaged in commerce for over 12,000 years. Advertising in the form of 3rd party solutions has only existed for about 250 years. Advertising supported entertainment / media has existed less than 70 years. Trillions of real dollars have been made throughout the centuries without anything remotely resembling advertising supported entertainment, or any formal form of advertising. The fact in our society it is extremely convenient and ubiquitously practiced does not mean it is necessary. More to the point, as I have said many times, I am not objecting to all forms of advertising. Directed advertising is fine, as one is paying for the advertising up front. One is in such cases consuming the advertising.

    That's true, as any corporate exec can tell you. One of the first cost-cutting moves any company makes is to reduce their workforce. It is not relevant to the discussion, however. If my neighbor works for a car manufacturer, I have a choice to support my neighbor's efforts by buying from that manufacturer or to not support him by not buying from them. The effectiveness of his labor and that of his colleagues is voted upon by my dollars, and I can choose not to spend them on his product. I cannot choose not to spend my money on Days of Our Lives, Monday Night Football, or Survivor. I do not wish to support any of them, or any of the other programs on Network television, yet I am forced to do so.

    Many people, including participants in this thread, vociferously express the opinion they think they can.

    More importantly, if you realize it is not free, then why aren't you paying for it up front?

    That's the whole point. As a consumer, you don't consume the commercial. Neither do I. If you did, and paid for it, and I did not and thus did not pay for it, it would be fine. We are both forced to pay for the cost of the commercial, though, and that is unethical. It is nothing but legalized theft. You, however, do apparently wish to consume the programming. That's great. It is not, however, ethical to force me to pay for your enjoyment. I'll happily pay (and I do) whatever premium I must to enjoy the things I want, and everyone else should do the same. Don't make those of us who have no interest in supporting your entertainment pay for it. What's worse, not only are you forcing me to pay for it, but you are also forcing me to line the pockets of a number of people who have done nothing worthwhile to earn it. We are not talking about a few thousand dollars here and there, either. We are talking about over $600 Billion a year.
     
  17. Jun 15, 2009 #77 of 132
    lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,933
    10
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    Oh, really? Let us take a look at the very first post:

    This post suggests such a deal would be free to the consumer and that this should be a reason to support such a venture. It entirely ignores the fact such deals in toto will invariably cost the consumer much more, perhaps orders of magnitude more, than simply doing the ethical and economically prudent thing by paying up front for any and every service of which the consumer makes use, rather than trying to get something for free. Such efforts all but invariably will fail, but confidence artists, of which ad agencies are an example, are exceedingly quick to take advantage of such avarice.

    Why would I take my objection to adding services like Hulu.com to a thread other than one in which adding Hulu.com has been proposed? Perhaps I was not clear. The reason I do not want such services to be added is because it will cost more to do so. The fact my TiVo bill might be less in the long run is irrelevant, but it is all that many people in the thread are considering. It is the total cost to the consumer which needs to be considered, not the cost of one item.

    Try it this way. Adding Hulu.com to the TiVo lineup will cost you $3000*. No matter what you think, or how you add it up, it will cost you $3000. The money won't be added to your Tivo bill (maybe), and the odds are you will be completely unable to discern exactly where and when you paid the $3000, but it will still cost you $3000, nonetheless. Now, do you still want it?

    Why would you expect them to comment, regardless of how much they might care or not care?

    * - $3000 is of course an estimate. The actual cost could be higher or lower, but the amount is in-line with the estimated value of a subscriber to advertising concerns.
     
  18. Jun 15, 2009 #78 of 132
    lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,933
    10
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    The universe and its workings, including economic relationships, are not required to make sense to you. That said, I don't see what is so hard to understand about two unalterable facts:

    1. The national television networks by themselves rake in more than $600 Billion a year in advertising fees to clients who produce products. Adding in the other advertising media will bring that number to something in excess of $1 Trillion.

    2. Every single last penny of that $1 Trillion is paid by consumers. That's you.

    I don't recall ever calling anyone a moron. I may have said your statements were moronic, but that is a different matter. Please provide a link, and if indeed I did call you a moron, then I will apologize.

    How many advertisements do you think King Solomon watched? Do you think Kublai Khan had to deal with commercials? How much of the billions of dollars of Ramasses II wealth was spent on advertising? How much did the enterprises of Marcus Licinius Crassus have to pay for (or did they receive from) advertising? The fact is a world without significant amounts of paid advertising is not a fantasy world, it is the world in which all humans lived for more than 99.99% of our total existence, and more than 98% of our existence in monetary societies. That you are used to it in no way makes it normal, essential, or desirable.

    All that said, and for the dozenth time, I am not opposed to direct advertising, only to indirect advertising and specifically advertising supported entertainment. This form of advertising forces those who do not partake or wish to partake of the entertainment to pay for it, nonetheless, and suffers very little of the normal feedback inherent in and essential to the proper functioning of a free market.

    Your assessments of what is or is not realistic is quite suspect. I am forced to wonder how realistic you would have considered Einstein's papers of 1905, how realistic plans to reach the moon were in 1918, or how realistic a great depression would have been in 1928.

    Tell me, if you will, were you surprised when the World Trade Center was attacked on September 11, 2001? How realistic was that expectation?

    Do you know what a model is? Here's a clue: we humans create them, and we humans can modify them in any way we choose. Of course it is part of the model, but it has only been so for a very short time, and there is no good reason for it to be so, except that some very rich people have discovered how to milk this cash cow, and the cow is oblivious to the fact its milk is being stolen. The cow is looking at a lot of pretty pictures and thinking it is getting them free.

    Now that is moronic. You are apparently happy having as much as 20% of your salary stolen from you by advertising executives, but I am not so complacent.

    You would have found something to spend it on, advertising or not. I certainly did not buy a TiVo based upon advertising, but be that as may or may not does not make it any more ethical. More to the point, the fact you were induced to buy a Tivo via advertising does not imply you could not have done so without advertising. That you cannot imagine it being so does not prevent it from being so. Finally, there is no question that a lack of advertising will result in lower sales for many products. Again, it is beside the point. Some businesses would see a small reduction in sales more than offset by the reduction in ad costs. Others would have to work harder to maintain their profit margins. Still others would go bankrupt. The question is not whether it is easier for many companies to be profitable when they employ advertising, but whether advertising companies have the right to extract money from my pocket when I do not make any use of their product nor care to do so.
     
  19. Jun 16, 2009 #79 of 132
    BJezz

    BJezz New Member

    68
    0
    Jan 11, 2009
    So as I understand it, you're opposed to the idea of Hulu on TiVo because you indirectly pay for the it through increased prices on products and services that are advertised.

    But you don't get a discount because you don't watch Hulu. So if you don't watch Hulu, you're still indirectly paying for it.

    It sounds as though we have to get Hulu on TiVo and we have to watch it, otherwise we're just wasting our money!

    :D
     
  20. Jun 17, 2009 #80 of 132
    lrhorer

    lrhorer Active Member

    6,933
    10
    Aug 31, 2003
    San...
    'Not just Hulu, but yes. The problem is complacency and ignorance. People do not get a monthly bill with an itemized statement which says:

    Code:
    Surcharge for NBC programming  -  $87
    Surcharge for ABC programming  -  $78
    Surcharge for CBS programming  -  $102
    Surcharge for Hulu programming  -  $12
    Surcharge for TBS programming  -  $17
    etc...
    Since they do not, they rarely ever stop to consider just where all their money is actually going. This thread is ample evidence of this. Yet this is precisely* the fact of the matter and this is exactly what people need to consider as their primary concern whenever supporting or using "free" services. Whenever any individual looks to speek about "free" services, they need to stop, substitute the phrase "hideously expensive extortion" where they were planning to use the word "free" and reconsider their position in that light.

    That's the whole point. If Hulu took in money directly from its users and only from its users, I would have no problem with it. Those who wish to obtain a service and are willing to pay for the privilege should be allowed to do so. Foisting the cost off onto everyone else is not acceptable.

    In the short term, in effect that is correct. Nothing worthwhile is ever obtained without at least a small measure of sacrifice. 'Nor am I so delusional as to believe a handful of members on this small forum can by themselves make significant headway against the multi-trillion dollar advertising industry merely by not watching a few programs on TV.

    Indeed, I cannot delude myself that any number of posts by me will have any real effect in the big picture. I only know that I have in my power the right to vote and to speak my mind, and that each and every one of us has a duty to try to stamp out ignorance and misinformation whenever we can (given an appropriate forum, of course). In the mean time, look at the fictitious bill above. Imagine yourself receiving this very bill* each and every month. Can you really say you would not be compelled to call up and complain about all the surcharges? If the ad agencies were an ethical business, then we could do just that, and we could also simply terminate services with them as not being worth it. Since all these surcharges are hidden bit by bit in a myriad of essential services, however, we consumers have no one to whom we can call to complain and no means of terminating these grossly over-billed services.

    * - The figures represented are only examples, and the actual amounts charged to each consumer will vary greatly, but these numbers are well in the ballpark for most middle-class Americans.
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements