View Poll Results: Would you pay for a Hulu app?

Voters
107. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes!..bring it on at any price!

    11 10.28%
  • Yes, but only if it's less than $10

    27 25.23%
  • Yes, but only if it's less than $5

    48 44.86%
  • Not interested in Hulu

    16 14.95%
  • What's Hulu?

    5 4.67%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29
  1. edlex's Avatar
    Posts
    657 Posts
    Global Posts
    660 Global Posts
       #1  
    With the advent of Flash 10.1 in the near term and the possibility that Hulu will block their content, question remains, would you pay for it?
    FYI: My Pre is as plain vanilla as the day it came out of the box...
  2. #2  
    Why would Hulu block their content?
  3. rogeratm's Avatar
    Posts
    15 Posts
    Global Posts
    51 Global Posts
    #3  
    No, I would not purchase a Hulu application. Why would I want something to drain my battery even faster! Video is nice but probably not a great use for the Palm Pre, given its poor battery performance. Yes, I will use video but certainly won't pay for poor performance!
  4. dwags's Avatar
    Posts
    45 Posts
    Global Posts
    46 Global Posts
    #4  
    I would pay for a hulu app, assuming it was officially supported/endorsed or released by Hulu (i.e. when Hulu decides to release one of their own, they wouldnt send a C&D to the other apps).
    I would also pay for Hulu. It's so great that I've freed myself from cable or satellite TV and don't feel like I'm missing much.
  5. #5  
    Official Hulu app, without ads, probably, if the price was decent. With ads, however, I refuse. Unofficial, really depends on the UI, as well as being able to bypass ads would be a decent incentive.
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysian893 View Post
    Why would Hulu block their content?
    He may be referring to the subscription based content that Hulu is considering going to..
  7. #7  
    I put less than $5, but it would have to be really kickin' to get any money from me, being that I will be watching their advertisements and should then get a player for free.

    If Hulu does not create one and someone does a good job in third party, then I'm fine with paying a little, as they don't get any of Hulu's income stream.
    Your Pre wants Word Whirl from the App Catalog.

    It told me.
  8. #8  
    Bring it on, as long as it's smooth playback, not that streaming crap on Sprint TV, I've seen.
  9. edlex's Avatar
    Posts
    657 Posts
    Global Posts
    660 Global Posts
       #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysian893 View Post
    Why would Hulu block their content?
    From what I have heard Hulu's licensing agreements don't allow for mobile phone use and they've actively blocked mobile browsers that already support Flash.
    FYI: My Pre is as plain vanilla as the day it came out of the box...
  10. Jawbox's Avatar
    Posts
    91 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #10  
    I'd pay for one. No more than $10, and I don't even know if I'd really use it however Hulu has been a great service and I'm happy to support them.

    I wouldn't even care if there were ads.
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysian893 View Post
    Why would Hulu block their content?
    Why I don't know but they have. When I had a Diamond there was/is a browser that supported flash and it worked for a while and they blocked it eventually. They did the same thing for Boxee. I imagine it has a lot to do with the TV studios not wanting it to be to wide spread that it is going to cut to much into people actually watching TV and therefor eating into their advertising income.
  12. #12  
    Ads are played before the program starts (and runs in between the beginning and end). Those ads, however, will not help the developer. If you need to run Youtube-like ads on the bottom to help make money, I am all for it...as long as they go away like the ones on Youtube.

    I would pay up to $20, especially if you can find a way to incorporate ESPN360, NCAA's live content (March Madness, baby!), and some other free video content.
  13. #13  
    I would easily pay for a Hulu app. Hell, I'd probably pay for pretty much anything useful or entertaining.
  14. #14  
    how about just no. i watch hulu @ home, but would not pay for it
  15. urkel's Avatar
    Posts
    944 Posts
    Global Posts
    946 Global Posts
    #15  
    No, because I haven't ever been tempted to watch a first run TV show on a 3" screen or have been sold on TV with unskippable ads.

    As an early Hulu user then I started envisioning a future where "streaming" was the ONLY way to watch TV. I even started budgeting how much I'd save by dumping my CableTV bill and putting the savings into higher bandwidth and even bought a MacMini to run as a dedicated TV Box. But after a few weeks of Hulu then I gave up on it. The "non-intrusive ads" are even more annoying than real ones because they're too short to get up and do something, pausing screws up everything and aren't nearly as convenient as a plain old TiVo.

    I understand why ads are necessary but maybe I'm just not hip enough to get into streaming. So I'm sticking with the system that's the most convenient for me. TiVo, Torrents and marathon weekends of watching shows after a season ends.
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyusaku View Post
    Official Hulu app, without ads, probably, if the price was decent. With ads, however, I refuse. Unofficial, really depends on the UI, as well as being able to bypass ads would be a decent incentive.
    Why such a strong objection to ads? Content has to be paid for in some fashion--would you rather simply pay for the content directly?
    Treo 600 > Treo 650 > HTC Mogul (*****!) > HTC Touch Pro (***** squared!) > PRE! > Epic
  17. #17  
    I would be more than willing to accept ads in a hulu app so long as they aren't intrusive (i.e. stopping the video mid-scene to play a commercial. An ad played at a break in between scenes like a regular commercial wouldn't be so bad). Ads generally don't bother me unless there is an overabundance of them. And especially for the content I'd be getting with hulu, putting up with ads is well worth it.
  18. #18  
    where is the no option?
  19. urkel's Avatar
    Posts
    944 Posts
    Global Posts
    946 Global Posts
    #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by wynand32 View Post
    Why such a strong objection to ads? Content has to be paid for in some fashion--would you rather simply pay for the content directly?
    I'd gladly pay for ad-free content. But the problem is that the current price of that is downright offensive. $3 for a TV show at Amazon/iTunes? $30 a season? For what? Files that take an enormous amount of space and that is DRM'd and can only be played on devices THEY approve of? If you want people to follow the rules then you simply can't make it more difficult to legally get content than it is to get it illegally.

    What I've always felt is that the best option for both sides would be Subscription Based Television. Something like the Zune pass. Pay a monthly charge for commercial free streaming and even if it costs $40/mo that's still half of our cable bills.
  20. #20  
    You're asking me if I would like to pay so a company can show me advertisements? Bah! Where is the "It should be free" option?
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions