Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Hulu Launches With Few YouTube Killing Qualities 107

Hulu.com, the online video venture from NBC Universal and News Corp., has launched a private beta program. Early reports suggest it's far from being a YouTube killer. "Although Hulu's parent companies have done a lot of things right with the service, the scheduling leaves something to be desired. For the time being, the site will only feature five weeks worth of content for any given show. From there, it's assumed that older content will get the boot in favor of newer episodes and movies. This isn't necessarily a deal breaker for us, but for a lot of viewers this will prevent the service from becoming with online video Shangri-La they'd imagined. Furthermore, with the lack of user-generated content, it falls short of the end-all be-all site for online video. Viewers are still going to go to YouTube and still click their ads -- but in terms of piracy a minor rebellion may have been quelled."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hulu Launches With Few YouTube Killing Qualities

Comments Filter:
  • by ardor ( 673957 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @03:49PM (#21161593)
    is this: http://stage6.divx.com/ [divx.com]
    • Well, that link crashed both safari and firefox. Looks more like a browser killer to me.
      • It works in Firefox 2 (Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.8) Gecko/20071008 Firefox/2.0.0.8) Probably, one or more of these applies: -Either browser needs to be updated -You don't have DivX installed -The DivX site doesn't like Macs or Linux (if you are using one) If you are using a Mac, it exemplifies the fact that the World Wide Web isn't the all compatible network of documents that it was meant to be.
        • by j79 ( 875929 )
          It works fine for me. In both Safari and FireFox. I'm guessing he doesn't have DivX installed.
      • Worked for me
      • by krunk7 ( 748055 )

        Well, that link crashed both safari and firefox. Looks more like a browser killer to me.

        Works in both safari and firefox for me. I'd start looking at something more user specific like plugins or some such. Been using stage6 for a good while now.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      is this: http://stage6.divx.com/ [divx.com]
      In a word, no.

      Any website that requires the installation of yet another shitty plugin(tm) can piss off.
      • Any website that requires the installation of yet another shitty plugin(tm) can piss off.

        I'm not quite that dogmatic, but I am reluctant to download plugins (especially media-related) without knowing a lot about who I'm downloading from. And who wrote the plugin.

    • by krunk7 ( 748055 )

      is this: http://stage6.divx.com/ [divx.com]

      Problem with stage6 is that their search features are horrendous. No exact string searches or the ability to "drill down" with advanced search that I can find.

  • by garett_spencley ( 193892 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @03:52PM (#21161637) Journal
    ... is NBC trying to create a "Youtube Killer" ?

    I thought they were just trying to provide a service where you can get their videos through a medium that they control ?

    Also, (while I didn't RTFA), if they provide full length episodes in a single stream then they do offer something over Youtube. While I can often find complete episodes on youtube they need to be broken up in to 10 minute clips and sometimes you find the first 10 minutes and then can't find the rest of the episode and that's really annoying.

    From the summary it sounds like their major "gripe" (for lack of a better word) is the lack of user generated content and only fresh episodes ... but if all NBC is trying to do is offer their recent tv shows online then it sounds like NBC is doing exactly what they set out to. Did NBC ever mention trying to compete with Youtube ? I thought they just didn't want random people uploading random content that NBC owns the copyright to on Youtube. Not trying to steal the "market" or something.

    • by HTH NE1 ( 675604 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @04:12PM (#21161973)

      ... is NBC trying to create a "Youtube Killer" ?
      Indeed, I thought this was to be NBC trying to create an iTunes Video killer [slashdot.org].
    • by KingSkippus ( 799657 ) * on Monday October 29, 2007 @04:48PM (#21162589) Homepage Journal

      To me, it's an entirely different question.

      Can I watch it on my television?

      I think it's really weird that Amazon.com, Hulu, Netflix, and so many others think that I watch television on my computer. I don't. I watch television on... well, I watch it on my television.

      Now, I know, some of you have fancy media PCs set up so that you can watch television on your computer on your television, and if you do, congratulations, sounds like you've got a nice setup. But the vast majority of people don't.

      A while back, I bought one of the AppleTV boxes. Know why? So that I can watch television on my television, not on my computer. So now, I buy shows from iTunes. I've also been known to rent a movie or two on my Xbox 360, which is also hooked up to... well, you already know what it's hooked up to, right?

      So to NBC, and to anyone else who wants me to watch their stuff, unless it's short clips that are posted on sites like YouTube, it doesn't matter how great the quality your programming is, it doesn't matter how simple it is to download and watch it on my computer. If you can't give me a relatively simple way to watch it on my television, I'm not going to be watching it. Period, end of story.

      By the way, that's one of the things that would be so hypothetically great about downloading torrents of movies and/or television shows, if I participated in such illegal activities. With a few button presses, I could have a DVD copy of anything I download to watch at my leisure... ON MY TELEVISION!

      Come back when shows on Hulu can be watched on an AppleTV, or when you're willing to let me burn a copy to DVD. Maybe then, we'll talk. (Somehow, I kind of doubt we'll be talking anytime soon.)

      Now mod me up, dammit, that's one of my better rants, and something painfully obvious that I don't see discussed very often in these threads.

      • Depends... does your computer display on your TV?
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by KingSkippus ( 799657 ) *

          Nope, and I doubt it will anytime soon. When I use my computer, I tend to want to sit close to the screen to make out detail. When I watch television, I tend to sit six to ten feet away and don't care so much if I can make out itty bitty fonts.

          I'm just not willing to switch back and forth right now. I wouldn't mind having a cheap dedicated computer for the purpose of serving as a media center, something with a simple interface (I don't want a keyboard interface to watching television). You know... lik

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *
          I've got my TV setup like this and it's not that easy to set up (harder than most people think). First of all, if you have a SD TV with s-video or component inputs, you can't just hook it directly up to your video card unless you want really annoying ground loop artifacts (banding in the video and buzzing in the audio which get worse over time). You're going to need ground loop isolators, which will run you over $100 for both audio and video.

          You're also going to need long cables if your computer is any di

      • by schlick ( 73861 )
        Um yeah you can watch it on your TV, either:
        1) when it airs
        2) from your VCR or PVR
        3) if you have a decent cable package that has "On Demand"

        Maybe you don't want to watch this content on your computer but many of us do. This is who they are serving.

        Seriously watching TV is passive enough, soon you'll be complaining that the things you want aren't beamed directly into your head.
        • by node 3 ( 115640 )
          4) Via iTunes on a computer, iPod, iPhone, AppleTV--REVOKED--

          That's the problem here.

          Seriously watching TV is passive enough, soon you'll be complaining that the things you want aren't beamed directly into your head.

          No, he wants the very active method of watching the content via iTunes, which is *vastly* more flexible to the three options you listed.

          The progression from the physical to the digital has its best hopes right now set on iTunes. Eventually, iTunes will need to drop DRM altogether, but iTunes+DRM is more useful than DVD+DRM or over-the-air or On Demand, etc. NBC pulling out of iTunes and going their own way is going to set

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by KingSkippus ( 799657 ) *

          Um yeah you can watch it on your TV, either:
          1) when it airs
          2) from your VCR or PVR
          3) if you have a decent cable package that has "On Demand"

          Maybe you don't want to watch this content on your computer but many of us do. This is who they are serving.

          And more power to you, but you've completely missed the point.

          Like I said, the vast majority of users out there do NOT watch television on their computers. Which means that any service that requires one to do so is serving to a very minute audience, an

          • by EatHam ( 597465 )

            I don't do BitTorrent to get television shows or movies.

            Me either, and for the same (basic) reasons as you. It is a pain in the ass. Download a show/movie, then I have to burn it to a DVD if I want to watch it on my TV which I do want, which means I'll probably have to either downgrade the quality or remove a bunch of the extras, etc., etc., etc. It's not worth it, I'd rather either go without or wait until what I want shows up on On Demand or something.
      • At least, it has been for me, for TWELVE YEARS NOW. Get with the times and quit yer whining. There is no need to have a separate device for doing X at home, when your computer can already do X at home. Typewriters were made obsolete first, then tape recorders and cd players, and now cable boxes and dvd players. Or, you can continue to purchase redundant functionality while simultaneously limiting your options (The programming I have to choose from is far more than anybody I know who uses no computer in
        • At least, it has been for me, for TWELVE YEARS NOW. Get with the times and quit yer whining. There is no need to have a separate device for doing X at home, when your computer can already do X at home.

          Like I said, if you want to watch stuff on your computer, then more power to you. I don't, and as it so happens, hundreds of millions of my fellow Americans don't, also.

          So you need to quit your whining, unless you plan on trying to convince hundreds of millions of Americans (not to mention probably BILLIO

          • a decent monitor costs exactly as much as a decent television because they are one in the same. 1920x1080 desktop. No other monitor. This is it. 42-inch 1080p LCD $2350 Costco this month. Nice to finally escape 800x600-land (SDTV practical limit). I guess the television isn't inexpensive, but nobody actually needs a monitor that big, because the TV is already a dot-by-dot pixel-perfect LCD. It's yummy.
      • I think it's really weird that Amazon.com, Hulu, Netflix, and so many others think that I watch television on my computer....[snip]...A while back, I bought one of the AppleTV boxes.

        And right there you've identified why they "think [you] watch television on [your] computer". They do not, in fact, believe that everyone watches TV on their computers. They just know that most people won't buy a $300-$400 box just to receive TV shows from a single service when they can generally get the same TV shows on cab

        • And right there you've identified why they "think [you] watch television on [your] computer". They do not, in fact, believe that everyone watches TV on their computers. They just know that most people won't buy a $300-$400 box just to receive TV shows from a single service when they can generally get the same TV shows on cable/broadcast.

          Haven't they been worredly obsessing over TiVo and other DVR's for years, which cost upwards of that much, along with a monthly service fee, "just to record shows using
          • Haven't they been worredly obsessing over TiVo and other DVR's for years, which cost upwards of that much, along with a monthly service fee, "just to record shows using a single service while they ARE getting the same TV shows on cable/broadcast?"

            Yeah, but at least TiVO is sort of self-contained. You buy it, and then it works on your normal TV signal. The problem with the idea of a Netflix set-top-box is that it ties you to Netflix content. If Netflix suddenly goes down the tube or something, the box i

            • If Netflix suddenly goes down the tube or something, the box is completely useless.

              Yes, but the people selling you settop box don't care about that. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some day we see a service that is predicated on selling a bunch of boxes and the folding and walking off with the profit.

              I've already got all the hardware I need to get video off the Internet and on to my TV. If your service can't work with it then I guess I won't be using your service. I'm already drowning in gadgets and
      • Actually, since you have an XBox 360, Windows XP SP2 and Windows Vista Home Premium (and Ultimate) will let you connect your XBox to your WiMP library over your network. So, assuming it Just Works, you should already be able to watch anything you can in WiMP on your television.

      • Can I watch it on my television?

        That's what I keep asking. About the only thing that works at all right now is Youtube (I don't have Apple TV, but I have been thinking about getting a video dock of some kind for the iPod). So how do I watch Youtube? My Nintendo Wii. It's simple, plays cool games that even the chicks like, easy wireless connectivity, and it's got a decent browser (although I don't use it much except for stuff like watching video). Pretty cheap device, too. Unfortunately, there's not

      • I watch TV on my cheapy HDTV in VGA mode hooked up to my mid line MacBook. If you swapped in a Mac Mini, you could do it for way cheaper than that.
      • My fancy setup consists of a fairly inexpensive video card with an S-Video cable connecting my computer to my TV.

        Presto...Television, via my computer, on my TV.

        And it looks good, too.

      • by pruss ( 246395 )
        I don't have a "fancy media PC", but with practice it takes no time at all to take our home laptop (a low-end Dell), plug an S-Video cable into the end of it (the other end of the S-Video cable is always plugged into the TV), unplug the speakers from the DVD player, plug the speakers into the side of the laptop, and press fn-F2. A remote control would be nice, but it works fine without it, too. We've done a lot of Netflix "Watch Instantly" watching this way. Hulu works, too.
      • I watch television on my computer. It's just a PC hooked up to a DLP projector and a quality speaker system. It cost a LOT less than buying a traditional TV home theater system cost, and I have total control over it, not just the control the cable company wants me to have.

        I watch ABC and NBC episodes using their HD web players, I play games on it, I have my entire DVD library on a RAID--just click to watch, no searching for disks. The next setup is to get some voice control app, so I just have to name the m
    • ... is NBC trying to create a "Youtube Killer" ?

      According to this [npr.org] slightly dated segment from National Public Radio (March, 2007), yes they are. I also heard a quotation from NPR today attesting to the same, but have been unable to locate it on NPR's site.

      NBC-Universal has made no secret of their desire to part company with YouTube in favor of their own service, de-emphasizing their former agreement with YouTube as "promotional." [newteevee.com]

      Whether or not this means they are directly competing from a market standpoint may depend on how Google/YouTube con

  • Complementary (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 4D6963 ( 933028 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @03:56PM (#21161697)

    Actually this service has little to do with YouTube, and doesn't risk to kill it, since Hulu and YouTube are actually complementary. YouTube serves user-submitted content and no shows, and Hulu serves no user-submitted content and nothing but shows. So actually it has little to do with YouTube, it's just a free web-based VoD service, I guess. Sorry if I'm stating the obvious, but that's just no YouTube killer at all.

    • Sorry if I'm stating the obvious, but that's just no YouTube killer at all.

      Obvious to you, me, and 99.9% of slashdot. Apparently not obvious to Wired or ScuttleMonkey.
    • Hulu serves no user-submitted content and nothing but shows
      Also, the content on Hulu is only available to US-based IPs. It's not even an global market effort. They just want the revenue they're loosing for not having their shows on itunes anymore.
  • Youtube killer? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SamP2 ( 1097897 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @03:58PM (#21161733)
    So one is a corporate outlet for streaming their shows, while the other one is a hobbyist amateur creative outlet.

    They compete with each other how, exactly? How is one the killer of another, when they operate in a completely different niche?
    • Time spent watching one outlet is time not spent at the other.
      Ad revenue for Hulu then lowers the ad-value of YouTube, and vice versa.
      • by node 3 ( 115640 )
        Which is meaningless. In that way, *everything* competes with *everything* else. Charmin competes with Sony, butterflies compete with Toyota, etc.

        Hulu and YouTube aren't direct competitors in any useful sense of the word.

        They are similar in that they are video websites, so they do occupy a similar space, but their offerings don't really overlap.
        • No, not meaningless.

          Both are online ad-sponsored video streaming sites. The source of the video content differs, but the implementation and use case are similar.

          If GM has a budget for online advertising, they must split it now between Google AdSense, YouTube videos, and Hulu videos.
    • I wouldn't exactly call Youtube a niche. It's kinda one of the biggest sites on the internets.
    • Hardly anyone would watch youtube if it was just crappy homemade videos. Youtube is popular in large part because of commercial content, and Google knows that.
  • click their ads? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gEvil (beta) ( 945888 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @03:59PM (#21161771)
    Viewers are still going to go to YouTube and still click their ads

    Okay, I get the first part, but the second confuses me. Does anyone actually do this?
  • by Grandiloquence ( 1180099 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @04:01PM (#21161795)
    If it can't kill YouTube, can it at least kill the mouth-breathing YouTube comments? I would also settle for just killing the comments at the source.
    • Whoa, whoa, whoa... now, hold on just a second. Kill the mouth-breathing comments? No more "dude, that's SO gay" to be found ANYWHERE? Do you realize what you're saying? You just negated the whole "collaborative" Web 2.0 paradigm shift, for chrissakes! Ixnay! IXNAY!!!!
      • I used to think that way about youtube comments until I read a comment on a video about Einstein's "train" thought experiment that started: "Listen up, retards! The bitch in the train...". They are sometimes a strange mix of boorishness and intellectual curiosity/insightfulness that I find quite entertaining.

        Oh well. I suppose if wanted to get rid of the comments altogether you could write a greasemonkey script or something, couldn't you?
  • Hulu.com (Score:5, Funny)

    by Junior J. Junior III ( 192702 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @04:07PM (#21161897) Homepage
    I can only hope, that somewhere on their intranet, they've got a subdomain called ct. Please please please make it so if anyone reading this has the power.
  • Except... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by christopherfinke ( 608750 ) <chris@efinke.com> on Monday October 29, 2007 @04:07PM (#21161901) Homepage Journal

    Hulu Launches With Few YouTube Killing Qualities


    Except for legitimate, good-quality copies of popular TV shows and movies that are free to watch in a standard-ish format. I don't know about you, but that kills YouTube for me.
    • by enoz ( 1181117 )
      The best part of YouTube is that you can save any video and watch it later (ie: without an internet connection). I expect most of the readers here already know how to do this. [lifehack.org]
    • quality is such a word considering that a youtube video tends to have better quality than my Latin American cable company...

      I use youtube more to find old episodes I'd like to remember or to find the ones I miss from their emissions, in this place I am often away by a whole season from the ones in the states so this hulu thing is not going to be a killer...

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Alsee ( 515537 )
      Except for legitimate, good-quality copies of popular TV shows and movies that are free to watch in a standard-ish format. I don't know about you, but that kills YouTube for me.

      COOL!
      What site did you go to? Because I want it too! It sure as heck wasn't Hulu.

      Oh sure it's got the "legitimate, [] copies of popular TV shows and movies that are free to watch []". But the quality is painfully unwatchable crap, and I can't imagine what prompted you call it a standard format. The resolution was perfect but the fram
      • I'll agree with you on one point. That they still don't understand the internet. But no one wants it on television, and no one cares if it's in AVI or MPEG. I'm going to explain to you the nature of how this entire industry actually is right now. (Please be warned, this is a very biased opinion of what I think about the media industry, and is inspired by cultural theorists Max Horkheimer [wikipedia.org] and Theodor W. Adorno [wikipedia.org]

        (I'm going to say 'They' alot.. so lets try and define 'They' "The Media, specifically referring
        • by Alsee ( 515537 )
          streaming [] you seem not to like

          You misunderstood my complaint. Well, actually I also complained about Hulu's settings of a max frame quality & unwatchably low framerate, but that wasn't really the issue I ranted about. My complaint was their DRM Derangement Disorder of refusing to offer anything but a stream, out of the mentality that stream magically *prevents* it from being a download. Streaming technology is fine, so long as you realize that it is merely an enhanced download format that can be view
          • Oh, yeah, of course! Yeah sorry about that. I just started on some crazy rant about the industry because the more I was thinking about what you said, the more I was getting angry at the industry. .. I think yeah I prefer avi my self, and would get a lot more value out of it without DRM... no one wants crippled media, as specially if you're paying for it!
  • by Paktu ( 1103861 )
    This doesn't surprise me at all. Youtube was started by a couple nerds who wanted to create a simple, easy to use video sharing site. Hulu is being created by decree from old media executives with conflicting priorities- they want lots of people to see their content but also want to control its distribution. And I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the engineers and programmers working for NBC are slightly less capable than those working for Google.
  • HULU THAR, DURLINGS!

    Pluse, PLUSE cahm and jewn mah nee sayte! Oot's gahing tah boo FUBULUS! Wa'll heve OOLL the cahlest vadeas freem sume af thu antirnut's BOGGEST und BASTEST toolents!

    LAVE und KESSES,
    Dame Edna Hulu
  • by webmaster404 ( 1148909 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @04:16PM (#21162015)
    Its the Microsoft effect working, people don't like change even if Hulu managed to be 100X better then YouTube people for the next 5 years would still be on YouTube, why hasn't the Mac and Linux gotten more appeal even though most people agree that its a better operating system? Its the unknown and the average web browser/computer user won't remember about Hulu. And also, about the "pirated" things, its not the things that are on NBC, ABC, FOX and CBS that people want, its the things that they can't get off-air such as Comedy Central, Disney and things that aren't out in America/Europe/Japan such as most Anime, T.V. shows and movies. People would have no problem paying if they could get the content they wanted, for a reasonable price with No DRM that works on Every format (Linux, Windows, iPod, MP3 player, DVD player, PS3, etc.) with infinite free downloads if your hard drive/flash drive fails. No one is going to change from going to YouTube in any large crowd anytime soon, and not to NBC who seems to be a foe of open content.
  • Wow. Imagine that. Some tool trying to create a "web 2.0" service and giving it a Chinese, Hawaiian or Swahili word name.And why hulu? A site with videos of NBC content named after a chinese word for "health"? What the fuck? That makes no sense.
  • by oahazmatt ( 868057 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @04:18PM (#21162051) Journal
    I've previously ranted on my dislike of the [product]-killer label, but considering my diminutive post count I'm certain no one has read those comments.

    Labeling any new product as its primary rivals (and defacto market leader) as the killer of the original product by any party does no good to actually help the product succeed. Continued reference to the original product by the new product's producing company can reek of arrogance, whereas the reference by either that party or by any media coverage can imply that the new product does not have the foothold in the market necessary to become successful and still publicizes the name of the original product, keeping the original product in the spotlight.

    For example, and I am not using this to ruffle feathers, simply as an example, the Zune was labeled as an iPod-killer by multiple parties. Were I an uninformed consumer looking for a new digital music player and happened to be reading a commentary on the "Zune" which referred to it as "Microsoft's iPod-Killer" two things would come to my mind. 1) What is an iPod, and 2) Why does an iPod need to be killed?

    Labeling a product as the killer of another product can also be the byproduct of a lack of objectivity in a review, which can also be inferred by the reader as a lack of faith in the product. Are many users satisfied with their Zune purchase? Yes. However, as an uninformed reader, if I see a paragraph begin "Unfortunately, Microsoft's iPod-Killer doesn't---" then I may consider evaluating my future purchase when the Zune may have suited my needs perfectly.

    And I realize that this is not at large the fault of the Slashdot submitter, and often these are quotes from the article, but I find it very disconcerning to see such remarks in what should b an unbiased critque of an application in a private beta stage being compared to a well-identified landmark on the internet.
  • by Scrameustache ( 459504 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @04:20PM (#21162059) Homepage Journal

    for a lot of viewers this will prevent the service from becoming with online video Shangri-La they'd imagined.
    No viewer that actually exists ever imagined this would be an online video Shangri-La.
    • Now if lots of media companies got together and said we want to broadcast to the world (not just the US) have lots of everybodys shows online, maybe after they air on cable or broadcast, maybe have pilots and one off episodes to test the waters, allow user content to be submitted, including a deal with youtube and metacafe, and present the videos in a format with a cross platform media client. Maybe imbed watermark ads (but not too intrusively - but at least that way even when the clips are ripped, the eyeb
  • Really, what kind of blood do they require for the EULA? Think I will pass.
  • if you are gonna just drop older episodes of your shows, and the visitors would be required to be informed of your scheduling so that they wont miss episodes, i cant just use your goddamn service.

    we are living in a fast paced world, there are already loads of things that i need to keep track. keeping track of 3-4 tv shows, nomatter how i may like them is totaly off the agenda for me. id rather save the variable space in me brain for more important stuff.

    in short, im basically telling you to shove your
  • I'm no expert on US trademark law, but it seems to me that NBC could be in some hot water for entering a market that already has among its players the established brand "Lulu" by trading one letter out and calling their competetive service "Hulu".

    I know the TV networks got away with this decades ago (NBC vs. ABC) but this is getting a little silly.
  • by smart2000 ( 28662 ) <karl@karlkraft.com> on Monday October 29, 2007 @07:49PM (#21165061) Homepage
    On the corporate blog [hulu.com] there is a sample video. The URL to watch any video is of the form:
    http://www.hulu.com/embed/1734 [hulu.com] In a stunning lack of foresight the number is the primary key of the record in the database. You can enter anything less than 1850 and view the shows. Since they give permission to embed on your own web pages, I've embedded a sample of ten random shows [karlkraft.com]
  • by jgc7 ( 910200 ) on Monday October 29, 2007 @07:55PM (#21165101) Homepage
    That damn headline is a real disservice to slashdot and wired...

    Let's see.
    1) Real TV Shows
    2) Runs on Linux
    3) No DRM
    4) 100% Legal
    5) Free (as in Ad supported)


    The headline should read, "NBC, FOX finally get it right. Let's hope it lasts."
    The comparison to YouTube is just moronic, and the gripe about only 5 episodes being available just shows how stupid the author really is. Does anyone actually expect the networks to canabalize DVD sales by releasing the archives for free?
  • 1) upload and share mp3, oggs and other audio to share with everyone, no need to create a stupid one frame video to make it acceptable to youtube 2) Upload photos 3) Playlisting of everything, and the ability to mashup things - i.e. photo slideshow + music 4) Some decent social functions 5) Better video quality than youtube's crappy 320x240
    • www.esnips.com is very similar to what you're describing, although it is a tad lacking in content currently unless you like club music.
      • by szyzyg ( 7313 )
        imeem.com [imeem.com] does all that, and it's also 100% legal. It's got any kind of music you care to name, available to listen to instantly.
  • Disclaimer: I don't watch or know the titles of any good NBC shows.

    I had a look at hulu earlier. I was as impressed as everyone else. [Hits the snooze bar] Everything that was on there that I find interesting, I could just go to Fox on Demand to see along with other shows that weren't listed on Hulu.

    I do like the concept behind it. It offers the benefit of legal viewing of TV shows and it alleviates the hassle of waiting an hour for something to download from bittorrent. Really, if they offered more shows
    • Here's my killer set-up. SageTV and a TV Tuner, with a good cable package. Extremely easy to set up, and completely legal. I'm already paying for cable (as are most of the users of these download services), I'm not going to pay to download the shows that are already broadcast to me every week. I can put stuff on DVD to play on my TV, or convert it to play on my iPod Nano. From my point of view, it's a very easy to use system, that gives me complete control over the shows I want to watch.
  • "Hulu" is the Chinese word for "oink," i.e. the sounds that pigs make. Coincidence?
  • Just tried one of Hulu's videos [hulu.com] thanks to earlier posting by smart2000. No shock that here in the UK, I get the predictable message:

    Unfortunately this video is not currently available in your region. We apologize for the inconvenience.

    So they'll let me browse the Web site with my UK IP, even let me sign up to the private beta with my UK IP, they'll let me load in the flash video viewer with my UK IP (none of this has warnings to say "go way you UK person"), only to be brought to a halt when I actually

  • Can I rip the content (read: steal) and play on other devices? Sorry, NBC, we want our video our way!
  • I think that folks misunderstand the purpose of his site. it isn't supposed to be a user generated content site like YouTube. It is going to have a *lot* of Hollywood content. What we are seeing now is still beta and they have a lot of work to do to prepare the content for the site and get it ready. I've heard that when they are really ready you'll be able to have things like all the episodes of the Simpson's available online and be able to watch ad supported. They are also planning on doing cool thing

A company is known by the men it keeps.

Working...