# hulu.com on Tivo



## willp2

It would be great if they could strike a deal with hulu.com to allow access to their content much like youtube.com is now. 

hulu would provide a very useful, free on demand library of TV and movies that can only be accessed via a computer at the moment.

Thanks


----------



## deecee

http://www.themediamall.com/playon


----------



## willp2

I was aware that this is not available for Tivo, hence the suggestion.

Thanks for the comments.


----------



## aus1ander

I agree TiVo needs to work on getting a contractual agreement with Hulu to allow streaming (with commercials) to S3/HD TiVos. This would totally rock.


----------



## ZeoTiVo

I agree that Hulu on TiVo would rock.

problem is the Idea of unskipable commercials on HULU (which I am fine with for free content) is not how TiVo works now and they have the two fold issue of time and money to incorporate that in to Hulu streaming
and
figure out how the PR works for having unskippable on HULU only and of course everyone declares it will soon be for everything despite the fallacy of such statements.




or else TiVo figures out some other way to present ads for Hulu stuff that works


----------



## Videodrome

ZeoTiVo said:


> I agree that Hulu on TiVo would rock.
> 
> problem is the Idea of unskipable commercials on HULU (which I am fine with for free content) is not how TiVo works now and they have the two fold issue of time and money to incorporate that in to Hulu streaming
> and
> figure out how the PR works for having unskippable on HULU only and of course everyone declares it will soon be for everything despite the fallacy of such statements.
> 
> or else TiVo figures out some other way to present ads for Hulu stuff that works


Too bad they couldnt just make it part of a HULU on top of tivo. So its app which behaves the same way. So the commercials are still played. I would rather banner ads anyway, they are less annoying then forced commercials. 99% of the commercials dont apply to me, or just annoy me.


----------



## robojerk

I sure hope Tivo is working on a deal with Hulu. The only thing I'm afraid of is that they might have a contract with Amazon, Netflix, youtube, etc that might prevent that from happening just at this time. Before Netflix arrived on the Tivo I wished I had streaming services like that available but just assumed Amazon had a contract blocking Tivo from adding other services that would compete with them.


----------



## johnny99

Hulu is my #1 feature request for Tivo.


----------



## deek_md

johnny99 said:


> Hulu is my #1 feature request for Tivo.


Maybe not my #1, but it's up there for sure.
Until then, I will use my PS3 (coming in mail Monday!!  ) to try to stream some stuff through the service referenced in 2nd post above.


----------



## fivedvrs

hulu.com on Tivo could be quite interesting.


----------



## justinrocks58

I think this would be great! I seen the ondemand stuff and i did not see much for download! Hula.com is a great site to see shows and it would be nice to see on tivo.


----------



## johnny99

Lots of support for Hulu at this year's CES. Is Tivo missing the boat?


----------



## lkupersmith

+1 for Hulu support


----------



## McDrewn

I too would love nothing more then hulu on my TiVo, and it may or may not happen. So what I would love to hear as a loyal TiVo supscriber and promoter of over 5 years, is a responce from TiVo. "Yes we are looking into it" or "No, we have no plans to work with hulu at this time", ya know that kind of thing. Thanks.


----------



## DAccardi

wait a minute, one of the greatest things about TiVO was skipping advertisements. One of the biggest complaints I see is how TiVo is putting ads everywhere now. And now there is talk of wanting a service with commercials that you must watch. I vote NO to Hulu. I enjoy my 30 second skip button very much.


----------



## willp2

DAccardi said:


> wait a minute, one of the greatest things about TiVO was skipping advertisements. One of the biggest complaints I see is how TiVo is putting ads everywhere now. And now there is talk of wanting a service with commercials that you must watch. I vote NO to Hulu. I enjoy my 30 second skip button very much.


I don't think anyone is saying that you have to use Hulu if they add it. If the ads bother you to much, then don't watch it. You can always use Amazon or Netflix.

For me at least (and I assume many others), I would gladly take the commercials as they are a small price to pay for access to a huge and growing library of "free" good content.

So I really do get why you would not want to use something with commercials. That said, if they add it and you decide not to use it, then nothing has changed for you. Meanwhile for me and many others we have access to a valuable new service.

Since there are many people who would find this useful, perhaps you could just vote no by not using it once its added?


----------



## DAccardi

I meant in good fun. I have no problem with features being added as long as I have the choice. But I do find it a little amusing how now commercials will be embraced


----------



## willp2

I agree with that for sure. It is odd, although in this case we're talking a trade of ads for access to specific content. 

I also do find it a bit maddening that we are paying a pretty steep monthly fee for what amounts to access to the guide data and still must put up with ads in the Tivo menus. I understand that Tivo&#8217;s got to make a buck, but seriously what is that about?


----------



## magnus

Tivo really needs to make this happen.


----------



## eric_n_dfw

With news of Hulu being ripped out of Hulu (and xbmc, I believe) at the behest of their content providers I doubt we'll be seeing it on Tivo any time soon.

http://blog.hulu.com/2009/2/18/doing-hard-things
http://blog.boxee.tv/2009/02/18/the-hulu-situation/


----------



## wmcbrine

Actually, that doesn't follow at all. TiVo could make a deal with Hulu that would deliver the content while locking it down to the providers' satisfaction, as they did with Amazon and Netflix.

What it does mean, though, is that you're unlikely to see Hulu support emerge from third-party developers like me.


----------



## Beryl

I searched on "free movies" and found this thread.

I also hope Tivo begins to over free programming like Fear.net and popular TV series. I missed on-demand and so retained a Comcast box at $7/month.


----------



## muerte33

I agree with Beryl, I want the fear.net on-demand stuff from TIVO in addition to HULU.
Great Suggestion!


----------



## eric_n_dfw

wmcbrine said:


> Actually, that doesn't follow at all. TiVo could make a deal with Hulu that would deliver the content while locking it down to the providers' satisfaction, as they did with Amazon and Netflix.
> 
> What it does mean, though, is that you're unlikely to see Hulu support emerge from third-party developers like me.


I hope you are right (actually I hope the providers change their mind), but I fear that since the current browser platform is not "locked down" that the only reason they are limiting it now is because they don't want people watching Hulu on their big screens in a simple manner. They'll let you watch it on your computer, but if you want the TV experience, you need to watch it on our networks.

Presumably, they make millions of dollars in ad revenue from broadcast distribution and much less from streaming. I think they just don't want advertisers pulling commercials from the former because more people start watching streaming on their TV sets.


----------



## drye

With Boxee's latest RSS implementation, I don't see why this can't be done on TIVO. @wmcbrine has a app that somehow lets you stream some RSS fed content. I'd post a link but I can't yet. Check out the latest news from Boxee about how they implement RSS HULU support.


----------



## lrhorer

willp2 said:


> I don't think anyone is saying that you have to use Hulu if they add it. If the ads bother you to much, then don't watch it. You can always use Amazon or Netflix.


The adds bother me because they cost me money. 'Much more money than any pay or rental service. They also bother me because I am forced to pay the money whether I make use of the service or not.



willp2 said:


> For me at least (and I assume many others), I would gladly take the commercials as they are a small price to pay for access to a huge and growing library of "free" good content.


Why do people keep saying such moronic things? Commercial ad based content costs you in real dollars much, much more than any subscription content would ever dare to attempt to charge. A subscription to CATV, Satellite, or DVD Rental services costs most people around $1000 a year, or so - often much less. The national television networks bilked us consumers of over $600 Billion dollars last year. That's on the order of $4000 per working individual.  Far from being "free", advertising based content is far more expensive than pay services, and unlike pay services, one is forced to pay for the content whether one watches it or not, and no matter how lousy, lame, or offensive one may find it. A pay service rightly will wither and die from dwindling revenue if people findits content less than worth the cost. This feedback is nearly non-existent for ad based services, because as you yourself so aptly demonstrate, the people who watch them do not feel as if they are paying for them. This, despite the fact they are in reality paying a great deal more for them than for any subscription service.



willp2 said:


> So I really do get why you would not want to use something with commercials. That said, if they add it and you decide not to use it, then nothing has changed for you.


Yes, it has. He has to pay for it. From where do you think the money to pay for the commercials comes? It comes from surcharges on the products each and every one of us buys at the store or online.



willp2 said:


> Meanwhile for me and many others we have access to a valuable new service.


At our expense. That makes you a thief. I know you don't intend to be. I'm sure you don't want to be. Obviously you didn't realize it. The fact nonetheless remains when you take advantage of such content, you are forcing the rest of us who do not wish to take advantage of it to pay for your privilege. Forcibly taking money from another individual is theft, especially when the proceeds are used for the benefit of the individual taking the money. If you want "access to a valuable new service", then you pay for it. Don't make the rest of us who have no interest whatsoever in using it pay for it. (Note: you already do pay for it, which is fine, but you also force the rest of us to pay for it, which is not.)



willp2 said:


> Since there are many people who would find this useful, perhaps you could just vote no by not using it once its added?


That's fine by me, as long as you agree to send me a check for $30 a month to reimburse me for what it costs me to provide you with this "access to a valuable new service".

What every person in this country needs to start doing is this: Every single time the viewer sees an ad on TV, think to himself, "This ad costs me $15." Every time he sees an ad in a magazine, he needs to think to himself, "This ad costs me $5".


----------



## lrhorer

willp2 said:


> I agree with that for sure. It is odd, although in this case we're talking a trade of ads for access to specific content.
> 
> I also do find it a bit maddening that we are paying a pretty steep monthly fee for what amounts to access to the guide data and still must put up with ads in the Tivo menus. I understand that Tivos got to make a buck, but seriously what is that about?


It's about making a profit, but at least it is an honest profit. I would gladly pay ten times the amount for a TiVo subscription and three times the amount for a CATV subscription if it meant all advertising based entertainment were shut down entirely. It would save me a tremendous amount of money. There is absolutely nothing on Earth more expensive to the consumer than advertising based "free" content.


----------



## aspen0

+1 votes for Hulu.

I have no problems with commercials. It isn't even bad, they make you watch like 1 30 second commercial for a 22 minute sitcom on hulu.com. I can sit through 30 seconds for free HD streaming of GOOD and TIMELY TV. As opposed to annoying and stale "Free" on demand offerings available elsewhere.

Quite frankly though, screw Hulu support. Just give Tivo a web browser and a wireless USB keyboard.

Why work out a private deal with all these individual websites when you could just put a web browser on the system?


----------



## magnus

Please give a list of all the subscription based channels that do NOT have commercials.

It would seem that you are DOUBLE paying for cable and satellite... you pay once for the service... and then again for the commercials.



lrhorer said:


> Why do people keep saying such moronic things? Commercial ad based content costs you in real dollars much, much more than any subscription content would ever dare to attempt to charge. A subscription to CATV, Satellite, or DVD Rental services costs most people around $1000 a year, or so - often much less. The national television networks bilked us consumers of over $600 Billion dollars last year. That's on the order of $4000 per working individual. Far from being "free", advertising based content is far more expensive than pay services, and unlike pay services, one is forced to pay for the content whether one watches it or not, and no matter how lousy, lame, or offensive one may find it. A pay service rightly will wither and die from dwindling revenue if people findits content less than worth the cost. This feedback is nearly non-existent for ad based services, because as you yourself so aptly demonstrate, the people who watch them do not feel as if they are paying for them. This, despite the fact they are in reality paying a great deal more for them than for any subscription service.


----------



## alemoine85

I stay on hulu.com when I am bored, lol... It would be great with Tivo


----------



## NYHeel

lrhorer said:


> The adds bother me because they cost me money. 'Much more money than any pay or rental service. They also bother me because I am forced to pay the money whether I make use of the service or not.
> 
> Why do people keep saying such moronic things? Commercial ad based content costs you in real dollars much, much more than any subscription content would ever dare to attempt to charge. A subscription to CATV, Satellite, or DVD Rental services costs most people around $1000 a year, or so - often much less. The national television networks bilked us consumers of over $600 Billion dollars last year. That's on the order of $4000 per working individual. Far from being "free", advertising based content is far more expensive than pay services, and unlike pay services, one is forced to pay for the content whether one watches it or not, and no matter how lousy, lame, or offensive one may find it. A pay service rightly will wither and die from dwindling revenue if people findits content less than worth the cost. This feedback is nearly non-existent for ad based services, because as you yourself so aptly demonstrate, the people who watch them do not feel as if they are paying for them. This, despite the fact they are in reality paying a great deal more for them than for any subscription service.
> 
> Yes, it has. He has to pay for it. From where do you think the money to pay for the commercials comes? It comes from surcharges on the products each and every one of us buys at the store or online.
> 
> At our expense. That makes you a thief. I know you don't intend to be. I'm sure you don't want to be. Obviously you didn't realize it. The fact nonetheless remains when you take advantage of such content, you are forcing the rest of us who do not wish to take advantage of it to pay for your privilege. Forcibly taking money from another individual is theft, especially when the proceeds are used for the benefit of the individual taking the money. If you want "access to a valuable new service", then you pay for it. Don't make the rest of us who have no interest whatsoever in using it pay for it. (Note: you already do pay for it, which is fine, but you also force the rest of us to pay for it, which is not.)
> 
> That's fine by me, as long as you agree to send me a check for $30 a month to reimburse me for what it costs me to provide you with this "access to a valuable new service".
> 
> What every person in this country needs to start doing is this: Every single time the viewer sees an ad on TV, think to himself, "This ad costs me $15." Every time he sees an ad in a magazine, he needs to think to himself, "This ad costs me $5".


Am I the only one who thinks that this makes no sense. The whole premise of the post is (I think) that we pay for advertising because it increases the price of the products that are being advertised. I don't believe that this is true. Pricing is not based on the cost of manufacturing and advertising the product but based on what you think the market will pay for the product. You're thinking of things in reverse. Cost of production, including advertising, affects profit not pricing. A company sets the price based on the market demands and then must keep production costs low enough to make a profit. It uses advertising when it feels that the cost of the advertising is lower than the additional sales that it brings in. It doesn't really affect pricing. The only way it could affect pricing is if the advertising creates significant buzz that manages to increase what the market will pay for the product. Remember, it's all about the market.


----------



## BJezz

I agree with NYHeel. Also if I'm shown an advertisement but the advertisement does not encourage me to buy the product, the only thing that it has cost me is time. Sure, you could calculate the cost of the electricity to view the commercial, a wear and tear cost on your equipment or you could even calculate the monetary value you put on your free time, but I'm not going to worry about these things. And even if I do buy the product, the cost is not going to be related to how many advertisements I watched for it, so there's no cost per advertisement watched there either. In reality, if the advertising makes the product popular, it may actually be cheaper than if few people knew about it.

However, advertisements are mostly so cheesy that I have no interest in watching them no matter what they are trying to sell, so would rather get rid of them. But I welcome increased choice of what to watch, so I'd be happy if Hulu support or any other similar service such as Joost were available on the TiVo.


----------



## lrhorer

NYHeel said:


> Am I the only one who thinks that this makes no sense. The whole premise of the post is (I think) that we pay for advertising because it increases the price of the products that are being advertised.


It increases their cost. Long term and averaged over an entire economy this means it increases prices without fail. Money and the resources on which it is based do not just suddenly appear. Nor does any profitable business ever incur any costs of production. Every single cost, from material acquisition, to labor and management, to shipping and receiving, to taxes, to warehousing, to interest, to building and land leases to - yes - advertising must eventually and ultimately be passed to the consumer, unless of course the company goes bankrupt, in which case the stock owners are forced to relinquish a chunk of change they expected to be returned to them. It's true a company may temporarily sell at a loss in order to gather business, but it is not sustainable. It's also true in some cases a company may for a short time gouge its customers and bask in a fantastic profit margin, but if so, in general sooner or later someone will come along and produce the same product for much less, forcing the company to reduce its prices. There are more exceptions and longer lasting ones to the latter rule than the former.

In short, one cannot sell at a loss and make up for it in volume.



NYHeel said:


> I don't believe that this is true.


What you, I or anyone else believe is irrelevant. Accounting is a hard, cold, unrelenting, and completely objective discipline. With almost no variation, if a business pays for something, they *MUST* charge their customers for it, one way or another. Of course, one may play all sorts of fancy footwork with a diverse product line. One may sell a game console at a loss but sell the games at a premium. One may offer popcorn and salted peanuts free, but jack up the price of soft drinks and beer to cover (indeed, the induced thirst encourages a greater consumption of beverages). One may offer a buffet, where the added cost of servicing hearty eaters is offset by others who eat sparingly. The point is, by hook or by crook the costs of production must be covered, and that includes any advertising.

It is a simple fact. The national television networks haul in the better part of a *TRILLION* dollars every year. Arguments about the price of goods or the effectiveness of advertising are completely irrelevant. Although the checks have names like Toyota, General Foods, Walgreens, Revlon, Levi Straus, Apple, Southwest Airlines, and McDonald's on them, the funds in the bank which prevent those checks from bouncing come partly directly and partly indirectly from John Q. Public, period.



NYHeel said:


> Pricing is not based on the cost of manufacturing and advertising the product but based on what you think the market will pay for the product.


Nonsense! What anyone thinks is not relevant at all. It is what the market *WILL* pay, not what someone *THINKS* it will pay. I know people who think they can sell their ordinary products for vast profits. They are wrong. The moment someone sells a product for a great deal more than it costs them to produce it, someone else will produce it or a substitute for less, taking legal restrictions into account, of course. By the same token, anyone who sells their products for less than it costs to produce them will be out of business very, very soon. This whether advertising is any part of teh cost, or not.



NYHeel said:


> You're thinking of things in reverse. Cost of production, including advertising, affects profit not pricing.


In any free economy (admittedly an ideal far from most of what is found in the American business today), profits are vanishingly small. Even in real business, for most sectors profits are razor thin, or even non-existent. Again, these are two simple facts: profit margins in most sectors constitute much less than 5% of product retail price, while advertising comprises on average 30% of that same price. That $600 Billion dollar a year income is tacked right on to the price tag of almost every single item one may purchase. The corporate profits of the companies doing the advertising are probably much less than $100 Billion. Of course, the consumer bears both costs, a fact which I do not understand how anyone can miss.



NYHeel said:


> A company sets the price based on the market demands


Most often a company sets the price based upon the current price of competing products, or on similar products. In lieu of that, a product being so unique as to have few if any substitutes in the marketplace, the company sets the price based upon what it will cost to deliver the product, plus a profit margin.



NYHeel said:


> and then must keep production costs low enough to make a profit.


If a company can lower production costs without impacting their product or its delivery, but don't, then it is comprised of total idiots, because no matter what, reducing production costs means better profits. It is simultaneously driving customers away to the competition, because no competitor in his right mind is going to fail to take advantage of an ability to undercut the competition. Of course, there is some significant wiggle room here between theory and practice, in large measure because we have allowed our economy to become largely void of competition. If there were 10,000 auto manufacturers (as there should be) instead of 3, then market forces would rule completely, and no competitor would be able to sell a product for more than a comparative pence more than rock-bottom production costs. The point is, however, even allowing for exorbitant profit margins and a vast lack of real competition, it's still true that all costs of advertising are passed directly to the consumer. If you think you are not paying for network broadcast television, then you need to think again, really hard, because other than for your home, there is likely nothing else for which you pay more.



NYHeel said:


> It uses advertising when it feels that the cost of the advertising is lower than the additional sales that it brings in.


Of course they do! What, did you expect I thought they did it just because they like to advertise? Because they like giving their competition the opportunity to undersell them by not advertising? I'm not stupid. (Although in fact your statement is not correct as made. It's not additional sales that are important, but additional profits. The two are not necessarily the same, as unprofitable sales are quite common, and additional revenue does not always mean additional profits.)



NYHeel said:


> It doesn't really affect pricing.


Remind me not to let you balance my checkbook. You might also consider that corporate accounting is one of my principle duties. I am the one who determines on a daily basis how much we need to charge for a product based upon my knowledge of how much it costs to deliver the product. If the product is tarriffed, and we cannot produce it at a profit for the tarriffed amount, we walk away on my say-so, no matter how much the salesmen whine about it. If it is not tarriffed, then I set the minimum amount for which we will sell the product, and the sales staff try to sell it for that or more, again no matter how much the salesmen whine about being undercut by our competition. Since we deliver services that are unique in cost for every customer, my peers and I must perform these calculations for each and every customer in our respective markets.



NYHeel said:


> The only way it could affect pricing is if the advertising creates significant buzz that manages to increase what the market will pay for the product. Remember, it's all about the market.


If the market will not pay for the cost of the product, then the business cannot sell it - not and stay in business. Yes, some products can enjoy greater global demand through advertising, and that will affect how much people are willing to pay. You are correct it is the market conditions which determines how much people are willing to pay. You are completely incorrect in thinking advertising is not a part of that price. You are also completely incorrect in thinking advertising does not interact with the market at a fundamental level. If every vendor is advertising, then the minimum cost at which the item can be found includes that cost. This is what inlarge measure sets the market expectations. If a vendor decides to stop advertising to save money, but all the other vendors continue to advertise, then the vendor in question will enjoy a brief burst of additional profitability as his cost reductions allow him to sell at or below the market price and not have to pay for advertising. Over time, however, his market share will shrink because he has sequestered himself from the rest of the market's senses, and he may find it difficult to maintain sufficient revenue levels to support his baseline costs, despite his greater profitability on a per unit basis.

No matter how much you wave your hands, a business cannot spend $10 per unit in advertising and sell the unit for $9.

No matter how much Madison Avenue would like to make businesses believe it, a business cannot spend $10 per unit in advertising and sell the unit for $9.

No matter how loudly people too incompetent and lazy to successfully run a business so they become "economists" and "business analysts" claim it to be true, a business cannot spend $10 per unit in advertising and sell the unit for $9.

Not even a toothpick or a pet rock can be successfully sold for less than the cost of producing it. While it is true supply and demand are linked to pricing, and that in general an increasing supply with a fixed demand means decreasing prices while increasing demand with a fixed supply means increasing prices, it is not true an infinite supply means the price of the product falls to zero. Nor is it true a zero supply results in infinite price increases. For virtually any product, there is a price above which no one at all will purchase a product no matter how scarce it may become. (Of course, at some point there is a price above which no one on Earth COULD pay, even if they were hysterically desperate and the richest man on Earth.) There is also a price below which a product cannot be sold in any quantity no matter how vast the supply. I'll give you a good example. I am an avid SCUBA diver, and I sometimes used to teach SCUBA classes in my spare time for a local dive shop. I also would from time to time sell SCUBA equipment and supplies, including air, while working at the dive shop. Now I can't think of anything more freely available and easily obtainable than air. Yet we sold 80 cubic feet of air - less than that in a rather small bedroom closet - for $6. Were we ripping people off? No. Could we have sold it for less? No. No one even made a commission off the sale, and the shop barely broke even on the transaction. It cost money to buy the compressor, it cost money to maintain the compressor, and it cost money for the electricity to run the compressor and to supply it with oil and filter media. No amount of management or clever accounting could lower the production costs of delivering air to those consumers.


----------



## lrhorer

BJezz said:


> I agree with NYHeel. Also if I'm shown an advertisement but the advertisement does not encourage me to buy the product, the only thing that it has cost me is time.


That would only be true if none of the products you do purhase had any advertising surcharge. Yes, it's true if you watch a Ford commercial and buy a Chevy, then you are not paying directly for Ford's advertising, but it is only because GM spends the same amount more or less on advertising that both Ford and GM can load the cost of nearly identical $13,000 trucks with an additional $7000 in advertising. If Ford weren't paying for commercials, and you knew you could get one for $7000 less than a very comparable Chevy, then you would almost surely buy the Ford.



BJezz said:


> Sure, you could calculate the cost of the electricity to view the commercial, a wear and tear cost on your equipment or you could even calculate the monetary value you put on your free time, but I'm not going to worry about these things.


Apathy of this sort is a major contributor to the financial mess we are in as a country. It would be untrue to say advertising caused all the mortgage failures with which this country is now plagued, but if consumers had the 7 or 8 trillion dollars in their pockets which were extorted from them by the national broadcast networks over the last 10 years or so, then it is reasonable to believe a great deal fewer homeowners would have suffered foreclosures.



BJezz said:


> And even if I do buy the product, the cost is not going to be related to how many advertisements I watched for it


No, and that's the worst part of it. The cost is related to how many advertisements *someone else* watched. They get to watch some moronic reality show, or whatever while you have to pay for it. I avoid watching advertising supported TV as much as I can, but even my aunt, who is deaf and blind, and so watches nothing whatsoever, is forced to pay at least $100 a month or more for the privilege. It is neither moral nor ethical.



BJezz said:


> so there's no cost per advertisement watched there either. In reality, if the advertising makes the product popular, it may actually be cheaper than if few people knew about it.


With some exceptions, very little advertising informs people of the existence of products. Immoral artifacts of modern life such as advertising are so ubiquitous people believe it is necessary - or at least not evil - and has always existed. Neither is the case. Advertising in its current form has existed less than 70 years. The entire concept of advertising supported media is less than 250 years old. I am not suggesting all advertising be eliminated. Far from it. I am only suggesting subsidy advertising should be eliminated. Trade and buyer magazines, infomercials, billboards, etc, are fine. Let those who wish to see a soap opera pay for a subscription to it. The cost of doing so will be vastly cheaper than the 30% surcharge placed on goods allowed only by the fact we cannot in practical terms avoid paying it. Ask any marketing executive and they will tell you they are painfully aware of the fact at least half their advertising dollars are completely wasted. "The problem," as one journalist in Fortune Magazine once put it, "is figuriung out which half."



BJezz said:


> However, advertisements are mostly so cheesy that I have no interest in watching them no matter what they are trying to sell


That's deliberate. One quite effective method of advertising relies upon subliminal and subconscious conditioning. Essentially, the viewer consciously wishes to avoid the commercial because it is so offensive, but in order to do so one must recall the name so one can recognize the product when another commercial for it comes on. All that's really important when it comes time to purchase the product is that the name is familiar.



BJezz said:


> so would rather get rid of them. But I welcome increased choice of what to watch, so I'd be happy if Hulu support or any other similar service such as Joost were available on the TiVo.


Then please pay for it, as I do, and quit expecting those of us who don't wish to watch it to pay for it. Note, I might well wish to watch Hulu or Joost, and there are even a very small handful of Network programs I might like to watch, but let me pay directly for the programs (or channels - I'm not too worried about packaging) I want, and the others not at all. The foundation of capitalism and of a free economy is the consumer gets to vote for a product with his cash, withholding it for any product he feels is not worth it. Those who try to foist inferior products on the consumer and overcharge him should find themselves starving. Instead, they grow obscenely rich, implement all sorts of idiotic and patronizing rules, and force the consumer to foot the bill. My share of that $600 Billion a year usually comes in somewhere around the $3000 - $5000 mark, and I want that money back, because I most decidedly do not want to watch Gray's Anatomy, Survivor, 30 Rock, Days of Our Lives, or Wheel of Fortune. The main point here, though, is not the cost. Although eliminating ad subsidized entertainment would in fact save money in the long run, I would be very willing to pay more overall for the right to not have money extorted from me, and to not have a comparative handful of advertising and network executives grow ever richer and more arrogant at my expense. I could be wrong, but frankly I believe most people if given a choice between giving up network television and being forced to spend $2000 a year would give up watching network television. The problem is, one can give up television entirely, but one is still forced to cough up the cash for the product, no matter how lousy it is.


----------



## magnus

Could you site some examples of pay service TV where there are NO commercials? I think you're saying that pay service TV is always going to be cheaper but I have a feeling that you're paying double. You're paying the fee for the service and according to you... you're also paying for the advertising.



lrhorer said:


> Why do people keep saying such moronic things? Commercial ad based content costs you in real dollars much, much more than any subscription content would ever dare to attempt to charge. A subscription to CATV, Satellite, or DVD Rental services costs most people around $1000 a year, or so - often much less. The national television networks bilked us consumers of over $600 Billion dollars last year. That's on the order of $4000 per working individual. Far from being "free", advertising based content is far more expensive than pay services, and unlike pay services, one is forced to pay for the content whether one watches it or not, and no matter how lousy, lame, or offensive one may find it. A pay service rightly will wither and die from dwindling revenue if people findits content less than worth the cost. This feedback is nearly non-existent for ad based services, because as you yourself so aptly demonstrate, the people who watch them do not feel as if they are paying for them. This, despite the fact they are in reality paying a great deal more for them than for any subscription service.


----------



## magnus

bump... wondering what channels on pay systems don't have commercials.


----------



## BJezz

lrhorer, don't get me wrong. I'd be happy if advertising disappeared if the impact on me were simply that I didn't have to watch advertisements and that products got cheaper, but would that really be the limit of the impact? I'm not so sure.

I think we can agree that advertising either increases sales or has been grotesquely unsuccessful. For any given campaign, the belief must be that the costs of the advertising will be more than offset by the increase in sales, otherwise there would be no point to it. So regardless of whether the cost per unit is increased by the advertising, the increase in units sold may be responsible for the company staying in business. If the number of units sold increases, the manufacturing costs of those units are likely to decrease. So in some cases the cost per unit could be lower with advertising than without.

Also if we didn't have advertising to pay for certain TV services that are generally perceived as free, I think it is reasonable to assume that the number of people using the service would be significantly lowered. It is quite possible that services such as Hulu or Joost just would not be sustainable if they weren't paid for by advertising, because there may be no sweet spot where the subscription fee attracts enough subscribers to cover the cost of offering the service.

At the end of the day, whether or not you watch Hulu, Joost or any other service paid for by advertising, it isn't really going to make any real difference to the cost of products advertised on them. So why not enjoy the content of these services since the advertisers are paying for it? If you resent the cost of products advertised on these services helping to pay for them, maybe avoid buying anything advertised on them. Personally I generally try to avoid buying anything advertised through unsolicited e-mail or phone calls since I resent these forms of advertising so much.

I hear what you are saying about wanting to pay for what you use and not wanting to subsidize the services that you don't use, but again often the current method may be the better deal. For example, there are TiVo features that I do not use, some that I never even plan to. I do not watch everything on the channels that I pay for. But in a fair world where everybody pays for only what they use and nothing more, everything has to be tracked. My subscription fees will include the cost of monitoring and recording exactly what I have used including the cost of resolving disputes where people believe they have been charged incorrectly. Another model could involve me picking the specific TiVo features or programs that I want to use or watch and having a mechanism to disable everything else, but operating that kind of service is again going to be more expensive. Just paying one fee and using whatever I feel like is so much simpler and cheaper. I'm happy to pay that and not worry about what I don't use. In fact I prefer it because there are shows that I watch and enjoy that I probably wouldn't watch if I had to pay extra for them.


----------



## NYHeel

I don't have the time to get in a lengthy argument with you about this issue although it would probably be an interesting one. However, my premise is that pricing is based on what the market will pay. Take Tivo for example. They come out with an HD DVR that they list for $800. However, this is not a price that the market is willing to pay. So they come out with a new $300 box. Obviously to make a profit or reduce the loss on the box they cut their costs. Granted Tivo is a bad example because they don't make their money on hardware sales. The point is that the price comes before the cost. You price based on competitive forces in the market. 

You said that the company sets the price based upon what it will cost to deliver the product, plus a profit margin. I don't think that's true. Maybe it is initially but the price will be adjusted based on the market and competition. By following the profit margin practice you may end pricing a product at too low or too high a price. I'm also assuming that the product is not something that's mandated by law and/or has no competition. In those cases the government usually regulates pricing.

Take a made up new sneaker company. They produce sneakers for $25 a pair and believe that the market will pay $39.99 for the pair (let's eliminate the retail/wholesale difference). However, nobody is going to buy the sneaker if they've never heard of it and there's no buzz. So they spend 30 million on advertising. Well they better be able to sell well over 2,000,000 pairs of sneakers. They can't simply charge $55 a pair just because they decided to advertise if the market won't pay that price.


----------



## ldconfig

+1 for hulu
I also would love to see anyone from Tivo post here to let us know if its in the works or not.
The content cartels have a great scam going. Charging for TV thats already paid for with commercials(see cable bill). I think hulu would be great on Tivo. The content is already paid for with commercials so we should have the same access to it as we do with over the air content. 
later
ldconfig


----------



## classicsat

The content isn't only paid for by commercials, it is paid for with subscription fees also (or it at least it pays for delivery). The content cartels want to maintain that business, so restrict how their content can be veiwed online to only computer screens.


----------



## magnus

It's not always going to be that way... we're already seeing Tivo break down those barriers.



classicsat said:


> The content isn't only paid for by commercials, it is paid for with subscription fees also (or it at least it pays for delivery). The content cartels want to maintain that business, so restrict how their content can be veiwed online to only computer screens.


----------



## classicsat

But the cable channels and providers will push hard for a long time to maintain their existing business model.


----------



## ddillard

I would love to see Hulu partnered with Tivo, but I figure that if they were to do this that it would only be for the S3/HD units, which would not do me any good at all. I don't really understand why they are not adding some of the streaming video options for the S2 units. I feel like Tivo does not value the business that I provide by the use of the S2 Tivos that I have in my home. I know they are pushing to sell the higher cost units, but I have absolutely no use for them since I could not watch HDTV in my home even if I wanted to unless I replaced all of my televisions which is not going to happen, so alas I guess that I will have to resign to not receiving any of the new features offered by Tivo.


----------



## CuriousMark

ddillard said:


> I don't really understand why they are not adding some of the streaming video options for the S2 units.


The reason is that the S2 units don't have the hardware to do it, while the S3 platform units do. If TiVo could bring it to S2s I am sure they would. Technology marches on, our S2s are getting long in the tooth and simply can't support the newer features.

Most streaming services use mpeg-4 encodings because it uses far less bandwidth than mpeg-2. That savings allows the streams to work over lower bandwidth connections for SD or alternatively makes HD streaming possible over a typical cable modem internet connection. The series 2s were designed before mpeg-4 hardwas was available and don't have mpeg-4 capable decoders.

TiVo is not picking on us poor S2 owners. If we choose to stay with old outdated hardware that is fine, they will still give us everything they can that will work with it, but we should not expect it to support new features that require new hardware. So we won't get streaming from Hulu, but we do get Amazon Video on demand downloads and the ability to download mpeg-4 content using our computer as an intermediary to convert it to mpeg-2 before sending it on the DVR. Now if only Hulu would allow file downloads instead of streams, we could use TiVo Desktop to get that content onto our S2s. Yah, that ain't gonna happen, but it isn't TiVo's fault.


----------



## FairTax

Yes I've been wanted hulu.com on my tivo since I got the thing. Tivo is great!
One thing Tivo has to FIX ASAP is the menu scrolling on the NetFlix movie Queue.
I have the ROKU and the menu scrolls both directions but on the Tivo the NetFlix menu only scrolls from the beginning to the end and back. This sucks! You should be able to scroll from the first movie to the last movie in your queue by going backwards just like it does on the ROKU. This is a simple software fix and should be done ASAP


----------



## JohnR006x

Put me down for a +1 on hulu and TiVo partnership. 

I just purchased a new Lenovo laptop that has an HDMI output, so access hulu on my HDTVs that way. A Hulu/TiVo partnership would obviously be much less cumbersome.

My guess is that the Amazon On-Demand contract may prohibit access to hulu and even the internet browser option mentioned by a previous poster.

Direct easy access to recent television programing that Amazon sells for about $1.89 an episode would clearly cut into their profits.


----------



## MighTiVo

CuriousMark said:


> The reason is that the S2 units don't have the hardware to do it, while the S3 platform units do. If TiVo could bring it to S2s I am sure they would. Technology marches on, our S2s are getting long in the tooth and simply can't support the newer features.
> 
> Most streaming services use mpeg-4 encodings because it uses far less bandwidth than mpeg-2. That savings allows the streams to work over lower bandwidth connections for SD or alternatively makes HD streaming possible over a typical cable modem internet connection. The series 2s were designed before mpeg-4 hardwas was available and don't have mpeg-4 capable decoders.
> 
> TiVo is not picking on us poor S2 owners. If we choose to stay with old outdated hardware that is fine, they will still give us everything they can that will work with it, but we should not expect it to support new features that require new hardware. So we won't get streaming from Hulu, but we do get Amazon Video on demand downloads and the ability to download mpeg-4 content using our computer as an intermediary to convert it to mpeg-2 before sending it on the DVR. Now if only Hulu would allow file downloads instead of streams, we could use TiVo Desktop to get that content onto our S2s. Yah, that ain't gonna happen, but it isn't TiVo's fault.


If Amazon and their partners trust TiVo DRM enough for new release movies surely Netflix and Hulu could do the same.
The question becomes where does the conversion take place. Perhaps put that work in TiVo desktop. The stream goes to your desktop and it creates a file with 24 hour limited viewing DRM.


----------



## chestnu1

I would love to see hulu on tivo it seems like a given even if we do have to watch commercials. As far as I see it its only a matter of time.


----------



## johnny99

Even the iphone is getting Hulu:
http://www.businessinsider.com/hulu-iphone-app-coming-soon-badass-2009-4

Tivo has to keep up if they want to attract new customers.


----------



## ahipsher

chestnu1 said:


> I would love to see hulu on tivo it seems like a given even if we do have to watch commercials. As far as I see it its only a matter of time.


+1:up:

I agree.... Commercials are ok for "free" internet TV.... Please TIVO add HULU and YouTube shows and movies. It certainly widens our viewing options and increases the Value of our Tivo. It also makes it easier to convince friends to invest in Tivo.


----------



## mpastreich

The Cable Companies have a reason to be afraid.

With Digital OTA TV providing better picture quality than cable (and better than Analog), TiVo providing AmazonVideo (and Netflix for those with a subscription), and a PS3 (or XBox360) to handle Hulu (via PlayOn) (and I suppose the PS3/XBox360 video store), and the Wife and I decided it was time to jettison CableTV.

We're running a trial of DSL right now.
Lower bandwidth, but half the price of CableModem only. Still need a bit more time to see if it will work, but it will slash our Cable/Internet bill to a 1/4 what it was, and we didn't even get premium channels. 

I hope TiVo support Hulu since I'd prefer paying for things I'll only watch once with some of my time instead of buying them through AmazonVideo (or SonyPS3/MSXBox360 store), but so long as both are options, I don't see why people would be against more options available.

The only ones who should be afraid are Cable Monopolies who might see their future revenue streams walking away from them and forcing them into the roll of ISPs.


----------



## randalcormier

I know HULU is great, but lets work on the stuff we can get right now, like full tv shows and movies from YOUTUBE. Tivo already has YOUTUBE software on the box, they just need to adjust to allow tv shows and movies to run. I am willing to hear any comment on which would be quicker to add to TIVO YOUTUBE or HULU? Hello McTivo are out there listening to your loyal customers. Comment or Badoop something on this suggestion!


----------



## johnny99

Moxi (a Tivo competitor) supports Hulu. If Tivo doesn't keep up, they will surely lose market share.
http://i.gizmodo.com/5204825/moxi-s...dy-music-and-playon-for-netflix-hulu-and-more


----------



## CuriousMark

MighTiVo said:


> If Amazon and their partners trust TiVo DRM enough for new release movies surely Netflix and Hulu could do the same.
> The question becomes where does the conversion take place. Perhaps put that work in TiVo desktop. The stream goes to your desktop and it creates a file with 24 hour limited viewing DRM.


Ok, but how do they force you to watch the commercials that way? The Hulu business model is forced commercial viewing and unless they can find a way to shove that down through your proposed pipe, I don't see them buying into it. A pay per view model would work, like we have with Amazon. I suppose the DRM wrapper you propose could disable commercial skipping. I wonder if that would fly.


----------



## johnny99

CuriousMark said:


> Ok, but how do they force you to watch the commercials that way? The Hulu business model is forced commercial viewing and unless they can find a way to shove that down through your proposed pipe, I don't see them buying into it. A pay per view model would work, like we have with Amazon. I suppose the DRM wrapper you propose could disable commercial skipping. I wonder if that would fly.


If Moxi can support Hulu, Tivo should not be any different. I do not know what Moxi does. I suppose one easy way to do this is disable the fast forward button when commercials are playing.


----------



## wmcbrine

I don't know what Moxi does, but I don't see why prevention of commercial skipping is a necessary precondition. We get free TiVoCasts that are ad-supported, but we can still skip the ads there.


----------



## jcaudle

wmcbrine said:


> I don't know what Moxi does, but I don't see why prevention of commercial skipping is a necessary precondition. We get free TiVoCasts that are ad-supported, but we can still skip the ads there.


ads on hulu are far less intrusive than on television...maybe a 30 second ad segment every 10-12 minutes....no big deal...far less than on broadcast television


----------



## JohnDiamant

+1 for Hulu on TiVo, whether or not Hulu ads can be skipped.


----------



## kiwiquest

JohnDiamant said:


> +1 for Hulu on TiVo, whether or not Hulu ads can be skipped.


I agree...it is a partnership that just makes sense


----------



## ciper

I vote for Hulu on TiVo.

I wouldn't mind to watch a single advertisement before each video started.


----------



## jeffw_00

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.


----------



## rock342

so now Disney / ABC are on board with Hulu.

Come on TiVo, or my PS3 will start becoming my main video device...


----------



## f0gax

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.


----------



## herbf

+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.


----------



## orangeboy

This sounds promising: http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/05/04/is-tivo-planning-a-flash-upgrade/


----------



## MakoShark

+1 for Hulu on Tivo


----------



## Gavroche

NYHeel said:


> Am I the only one who thinks that this makes no sense.


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!


----------



## crossbred900

hulu plz


----------



## bkdtv

jeffw_00 said:


> 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.


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._


----------



## FixItPete

I'd consider buying another Tivo if I could get Hulu to work with it.


----------



## classicsat

bkdtv said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## lew

f0gax said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## wmcbrine

bkdtv said:


> From what I understand, Hulu's agreements with content providers expressly forbid that functionality from being integrated into a standalone box.


Citation needed.


----------



## bkdtv

wmcbrine said:


> Citation needed.


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:



> You may not download, install or use the Hulu Software on any device other than a Personal Computer including, without limitation, digital media receiver devices (such as Apple TV), mobile devices (such as a cell phone device, mobile handheld device or a PDA), network devices or CE devices (collectively "Prohibited Devices"). You may not use any hardware, software or service other than the Hulu Software to stream, re-encode, project or transmit Hulu Content. Except as may be required by law, you may not use hardware, software, a device, a service or any other means to cause the Hulu Software: (a) to stream or transmit Hulu Content to any Prohibited Devices;.."


From the Hulu.com terms of service:



> The copying, downloading, stream capturing, reproduction, duplication, archiving, distribution, uploading, publication, modification, translation, broadcast, performance, display, sale, or transmission of the Content is strictly prohibited unless it is expressly permitted by Hulu in writing. The Content covered by this restriction includes any text, graphics, layout, interface, logos, photographs, audio and video materials, and stills. In addition, you are strictly prohibited from creating derivative works or materials that otherwise are derived from or based on in any way the Content, including montages, mash-ups and similar videos, wallpaper, desktop themes, greeting cards, and merchandise, unless it is expressly permitted by Hulu in writing. *You may not incorporate the Content into any hardware or software application.*


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.


----------



## herbf

bkdtv said:


> ... 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.


That is why an open source browser as mentioned in this suggestion, would make much more sense.


----------



## lrhorer

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.



f0gax said:


> 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.


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.



f0gax said:


> 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.


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.



f0gax said:


> 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.


First of all, it is untrue. **** 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.



f0gax said:


> 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.


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.



f0gax said:


> 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.


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?



f0gax said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## lrhorer

herbf said:


> +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.


Oh, really? Let us take a look at the very first post:



willp2 said:


> It would be great if they could strike a deal with hulu.com to allow access to their content much like youtube.com is now.
> 
> hulu would provide a very useful, free...


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.



herbf said:


> If you feel this strongly, then please take your concerns regarding ads and commercials and start your own thread dedicated to that topic.


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?



herbf said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## lrhorer

Gavroche said:


> No. It doens't make a lot of sense to me either.


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.



Gavroche said:


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


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.



Gavroche said:


> 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.


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.



Gavroche said:


> That is just not realistic, I'm afraid!


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?



Gavroche said:


> Us "morons" that live in the real world know that advertising is part of the model.


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.



Gavroche said:


> Best to make it useful.


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.



Gavroche said:


> 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!


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.


----------



## BJezz

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!


----------



## lrhorer

BJezz said:


> 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.


'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.



BJezz said:


> 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.


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.



BJezz said:


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


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.


----------



## MighTiVo

lrhorer said:


> 'Blah blah blah'


quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur


----------



## johnm4

wow... big unrelated discussion...

Anyway... yes, give me hulu or whatever else will let me watch a show that I failed to record.


----------



## lew

Consumers prefer advertiser financed programming over subscriptions priced alternatives. Not just TV. Virtually all subscription based websites have changed to advertiser financed.

A significant amount of your so called "surcharge" can be avoided by purchasing generic or store brand products. Buy No-AD suntan lotion instead of Coppertone. Buy Kirkland brand of laundry detergent instead of Tide. Buy store brand or generic asprin instead of Bayer.

My issue is with ads for prescription drugs. The consumer can't purchase the item without a doctors prescription. Doctors already know about the drugs, they don't need the ads nor do they need patients asking about it. There is virtually no evidence that suggests Nexium is more effective then Prilosec (or the generic version of the drug).

I agree with the PP, your comment has nothing to do with this thread. There is really no difference between watching Burn Notice on USA (with commercials) or watching Burn Notice on hulu.com (with limited commercials)



lrhorer said:


> '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...


----------



## magnus

I think that all of us can agree on that point.



lew said:


> I agree with the PP, your comment has nothing to do with this thread. There is really no difference between watching Burn Notice on USA (with commercials) or watching Burn Notice on hulu.com (with limited commercials)


----------



## BJezz

This discussion has given me a great idea.

If we all write to various companies and let them know that if they advertise their products/services on Hulu, but only after Hulu meets their demands that the service is made available to TiVo owners, we'll happily pay inflated prices. We'll have Hulu in no time then!


----------



## lrhorer

lew said:


> Consumers prefer advertiser financed programming over subscriptions priced alternatives. Not just TV. Virtually all subscription based websites have changed to advertiser financed.


Of course they do! For some bizarre reason, they think they are getting the content for free, as evidenced by the posts in this very thread.



lew said:


> A significant amount of your so called "surcharge" can be avoided by purchasing generic or store brand products.


Some can, yes, but the bulk of expenditures for many middle and upper-middle class consumers do not have generic counterparts. There are no generic automobiles. Others have generic counterparts, but only of inferior quality. What's more, even the generic counterparts still bear a great deal of advertising charges tacked on to them. From the store itself to the trucks which deliver the merchandise to the store, there are advertising costs tucked into every single nook and cranny.



lew said:


> My issue is with ads for prescription drugs. The consumer can't purchase the item without a doctors prescription. Doctors already know about the drugs, they don't need the ads nor do they need patients asking about it.


Yes, indeed.



lew said:


> There is virtually no evidence that suggests Nexium is more effective then Prilosec (or the generic version of the drug).


Quite the opposite. The FDA has very rigid controls on drug production processes, and the formulations of generic drugs must be identical to the brand name version.



lew said:


> I agree with the PP, your comment has nothing to do with this thread.


I disagree.



lew said:


> There is really no difference between watching Burn Notice on USA (with commercials) or watching Burn Notice on hulu.com (with limited commercials)


I don't watch it either place. The difference is this is the very forum where placing Hulu.com on the TiVo could potentially be blocked. Getting rid of Hulu.com and USA altogether requires a different venue.


----------



## willp2

I'm sorry but all this talk of commercials seems silly. Having access to Hulu.com would give us access to a lot of on demand free content that is simply not available and other way on the Tivo. Sure a lot of the programming is stuff that one should be able to record, but a lot of it isn't.

So to say that I don't want access to loads of free content, because I may have to watch some commercials seems ludicrous. If it bothers you so much than don't use it. That's great, we all have our preferences, but to actually argue against having _access _to the content is just pointless.

It's a lot like me arguing that they should take American Idol off the air because I don't Simon Cowell. I solve this problem by simply not watching the show. But I know that if I ever really wanted to, I can sneak a peek at the show and see what everyone is talking about.

To many of us having access to all this otherwise unobtainable content is worth having to put up with some ads. If you don't like it, don't watch.


----------



## lew

lrhorer said:


> Quite the opposite. The FDA has very rigid controls on drug production processes, and the formulations of generic drugs must be identical to the brand name version.
> 
> I don't watch it either place. The difference is this is the very forum where placing Hulu.com on the TiVo could potentially be blocked. Getting rid of Hulu.com and USA altogether requires a different venue.


Sorry I wasn't clearer I was comparing Nexium with a similar drug Prilosec (and Omeprazole the generic version of Prilosec). I understand there is no difference between Prilosec and the generic version Omeprazole. The issue is the newer drug (nexium) offers little (some experts say zero) benefits over the less expensive (OTC) alternative of Omeprazole. In this example advertising is intended to mislead consumers.

Programs on hulu.com have significantly fewer commercials then when the programs aired. Most of us think your point is OT. Your point would be OT even if hulu.com went so far as to air all of the commercials were originally shown with the program.


----------



## Emillion

willp2 said:


> ...
> So to say that I dont want access to loads of free content, because I may have to watch some commercials seems ludicrous. If it bothers you so much than dont use it. Thats great, we all have our preferences, but to actually argue against having _access _to the content is just pointless.
> ...
> To many of us having access to all this otherwise unobtainable content is worth having to put up with some ads. If you dont like it, dont watch.


Still, lrhorer has a point. It is not so much about the incovenience of the commercials but about the practice and products cost as a whole.
If hulu reports the number of Tivo users as increased audience - that could make it more attractive to more advertisers and so encourage the practice.
But if it is based on actual hulu viewers then the "don't like don't watch" policy should be his way of "voting" against indirect advertising.

Even then - splitting the cost of advertisment by covering more users/potential product buyers - should make the products cheaper. I assume here that the advertising budgets already exist and most of the ads are re-used on hulu from tv/dvd/cinema etc.

However - the option to choose should be there, right?


----------



## johnny99

There was a 30 minute interview with the Tivo CEO on one of the TV talk shows this morning. One of the interviewers asked about Hulu. Mr. Tivo said he realizes that there is a big demand for Hulu on Tivo. He sort of said that they are working on it. The issues are all business related. The TV stations are used to collecting big bucks from advertisers for TV broadcasts and they are not going to give their content away to Tivo without a profitable advertising model. Tivo is trying to work something out, but he did not make any commitments.


----------



## jlb

As an alternative to Hulu, couldn't Tivo strike deals with individual networks/channels to create portals to their websites/content?

For instance, if you mess your recording for Lost, just go to abc.com from your TiVo and watch it there.


----------



## RAlfieri

I want my Hulu on Tivo! Is Tivo listening??? There are so many wonderful vintage shows available. C'mon Tivo! Give us our Hulu!

Regards,
Rob


----------



## hillstrubl

johnny99 said:


> Hulu is my #1 feature request for Tivo.


mine is integrated slingcatcher, but i dont see that happening... ever


----------



## djtweed

+1 for Hulu on Tivo!!!


----------



## Airhead315

Though I'm sure it wouldn't happen for at least 10 years. +1 for Hulu on Tivo.


----------



## classicsat

People, this isn't something you should be asking TiVo of, at least yet.

You need to ask the content owners to allow set-top devices such as TiVo to access the Hulu service.


----------



## daveak

classicsat said:


> People, this isn't something you should be asking TiVo of, at least yet.
> 
> You need to ask the content owners to allow set-top devices such as TiVo to access the Hulu service.


:up:

What (s)he said. TiVo may want to, but it is really Hulu that is very, uh, resistant to set top box people. Look at poor Boxee... I would suspect that Hulu is the problem, not TiVo. Even if TiVo managed a software update (spending the time and money) to end-run Hulu, I would bet within 24 hours it would be stopped.

Tell TiVo you want it, but complain to Hulu. They will lose out, sooner or later, to other similar services that will work with devices like TiVo. Holding out to long will hurt them long term (my humble opinion).


----------



## johnny99

The CEO of Tivo has stated that he knows that his customers want Hulu. He seems interested in working out some kind of advertising revenue sharing deal with Hulu. I would not be surprised to see this happen this year.

Boxee is trying to deliver Hulu content for free. No wonder Hulu is trying to shut them down.


----------



## tron1977

lrhorer, you are insane.


----------



## emathias

classicsat said:


> People, this isn't something you should be asking TiVo of, at least yet.
> 
> You need to ask the content owners to allow set-top devices such as TiVo to access the Hulu service.


You're wrong.

Moxi has Hulu.

We have every right to ask Tivo to match Moxi's offerings.


----------



## mikeyts

emathias said:


> You're wrong.
> 
> Moxi has Hulu.
> 
> We have every right to ask Tivo to match Moxi's offerings.


Moxi implements Hulu access via PlayOn--to use it, you have to run PlayOn on a PC on your LAN (paying for a $40 PlayOn license). Then you can use that to access anything that PlayOn offers. When the PC running your PlayOn server goes down, so does your access to PlayOn. I assume that you probably also have to place videos in your Hulu queue

PlayOn also gives you access to YouTube and Netflix streaming, though you can't access the high-definition streams because you currently can't get them from a PC--you _can_ get them from TiVo.

It is true that TiVoToComeback (downloading video files from a PC to play on TiVo), requires that you run a program on your PC, but there's no way around that, since the files reside on your PC, whereas the Hulu content doesn't.

So Moxi has Hulu in the same sense that the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 have Hulu--they all implement DLNA/UPnP clients. Unlike the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3, you apparently can only access the PlayOn server; the consoles can use any video or audio DLNA/UPnP server on your LAN, like the Zune, Windows Media and TVersity servers.

So, is that what you'd have TiVo give you? Something that requires you to run a program on a PC? (A DLNA/UPnP client on TiVo--with access to any server--_would_ be nice, though).


----------



## ZeoTiVo

lew said:


> My issue is with ads for prescription drugs. The consumer can't purchase the item without a doctors prescription. Doctors already know about the drugs, they don't need the ads nor do they need patients asking about it.


look at those ads carefully - you do not see the latest drugs used in a chemotherapy protocol or in an AIDS cocktail, etc..

The ads are for drugs that need people saying, let me go to the doctor for that problem. It is kind of like the Milk or Beef ads. everyone know about Milk and Beef - but they want the consumer in the mindset of getting a good stock of Milk and Beef next time they hit the store.

Advertising does work and does have a positive ROI for the companies. Sure, I agree that this is a hidden surcharge tacked on that consumers pay - but it is how a market economy works.


----------



## ZeoTiVo

johnny99 said:


> The CEO of Tivo has stated that he knows that his customers want Hulu. He seems interested in working out some kind of advertising revenue sharing deal with Hulu. I would not be surprised to see this happen this year.
> 
> Boxee is trying to deliver Hulu content for free. No wonder Hulu is trying to shut them down.


they also shut down Hulu access through the PS3 built in browser. Hulu seems to want to stay off the TV screen but has no easy way to prevent Play-on from redirecting the web stream from the PC.

I am sure TiVo has talked with Hulu, I am just not as optimistic about any results from those talks


----------



## mikeyts

ZeoTiVo said:


> look at those ads carefully - you do not see the latest drugs used in a chemotherapy protocol or in an AIDS cocktail, etc..


Actually, I have seen ads for some kind of drug which helps patients tolerate chemotherapy better. The ad feature a series of people saying "I'm ready", after which the final person says "I'm ready for chemotherapy". I was surprised to see such an ad, and it seemed a bit in poor taste. (The ad was for something called Neulasta).

A few years back, a close friend who's a physician complained, "Since when did it become okay for patients to suggest their own drug therapy?" He wasn't particularly happy about the ads. Doctors are apparently hesitant to use new drugs until they've seen independent clinical evaluations of it in the literature.


----------



## wmcbrine

ZeoTiVo said:


> look at those ads carefully - you do not see the latest drugs used in a chemotherapy protocol or in an AIDS cocktail, etc..


Most of them are for "conditions" I'd regard as unserious, yes -- in fact, most of them, like most of my spam, seem to be penis-related. But just recently, I saw a TV ad for an Alzheimers drug, which was pretty surprising.

Anyway, prescription drugs should not be advertised to the general public. They didn't used to be, and we should go back to that. It's only in the last few years that I've seen these ads, though they're now so ubiquitous that it's almost hard to remember there was a time when they weren't there. I assume there was some change in law or regulations that allowed them.


----------



## sturner2

willp2 said:


> It would be great if they could strike a deal with hulu.com to allow access to their content much like youtube.com is now.
> 
> hulu would provide a very useful, free on demand library of TV and movies that can only be accessed via a computer at the moment.
> 
> Thanks


This is a great idea that will take Tivo to the next level. I am tried of dragging my Laptop to my living room tv to watch hulu program because my TVIO HD can't do it YET.
Please add USA, F/X, ESPN360, and HBO (unless Netflix and HBO get together) next on the list as well. I would like to say GOOD BY to cable and Satellite TV bills.


----------



## AZ_Tivo

A bump for this thread!

We want HuuuuuuuuuuuuLuuuuuuuuuuuu.


----------



## dalesd

lrhorer said:


> 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.


Here's the fatal flaw in your argument. You do not spend money on those shows. You may (or may not) spend your money on the products and services that are advertised on those shows, but that is your voluntary choice. There's no force or coercion going on there.



> I'll happily pay (and I do) whatever premium I must to enjoy the things I want, and everyone else should do the same. [...] 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.


So you'll happily pay "whatever premium I must" to to get the things you want, unless that means paying a little more for your corn flakes? I just buy the store brand.

Nobody is taking any money from you without your consent.

I'm curious now, about the cost of advertising per new car sold. So I did a search and some math.
In 2008, Ford sold about 2 million vehicles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Motor_Company#Sales They spent $550 million on advertising in the first half of 2008. http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS157141+18-Sep-2008+PRN20080918 That works out to about $550 per vehicle sold per year. Not the $7000 per vehicle number you gave earlier. Quick and dirty, back of an envelope calculation, for sure, but it gives one a ballpark idea of the ad spending per vehicle.

I should finish reading this thread sometime. It's entertaining. Not as entertained as I would be if I had Hulu on my TiVo, but entertaining nonetheless. See, we had a season pass conflict last night, and we missed Bones. I'd like to watch it on my TV. Hulu has the episode, but no easy way for me to watch it on my TV. ThePirateBay has it also, and it's easy for me to get that on my TV. The recording on TPB has no ads too. What should I do?


----------



## JasonRossSmith

Jesus, what's the big freaking deal? Sure I prefer to avoid the ads when I can, but sometimes i just have to go catch on Hulu something I missed. Also, between Free OTA and Hulu, lets face it a lot of people can drop cable (and let's be honest, this is what really freaks out the networks... If people drop cable, then cable stops paying the networks...)

I really want the ability to watch Hulu on my Tivo as well. Why? So I don't have to go through the hassle of hooking up a cheap web browsing PC to my TV...

Oh.... Wait.... You'd think that the smart people in the business would realize that this is exactly what people who really want this service will do. Just hook up a PC to their TV, or an X-box, PS3, etc.

It should be very easy for Tivo to simply introduce a simple web browser that allows a user to go to Hulu, and everything then works just like it does on Hulu's website. Ads and all. The only somewhat logical reason I can think of for Tivo not putting this browsing ability on their boxes is the system instability, calls, and complaints that could be generated by units crashing due to Spyware/Virus issues.

Thoughts?


----------



## mikeyts

I don't see TiVo introducing a web browser and even if they did, Hulu would figure out how to detect it and refuse to work with it as they did with PS3 web browser.

Hulu doesn't seem to want to be viewed on televisions. I suspect that they don't want it to become anyone's preferred way of watching the available programs. If too many people started preferring it, it would lower the value of the live broadcast to advertisers.


----------



## dalesd

Hulu has said that they have gotten pressure from their content providers to exclude the PS3 and Boxee. So it's not Hulu (not directly, anyway) that doesn't want to be on televisions.

http://gizmodo.com/5315896/hulu-speaks-on-ps3-blocking-its-the-content-providers


----------



## bigpatky

dalesd said:


> Hulu has said that they have gotten pressure from their content providers to exclude the PS3 and Boxee. So it's not Hulu (not directly, anyway) that doesn't want to be on televisions.
> 
> http://gizmodo.com/5315896/hulu-speaks-on-ps3-blocking-its-the-content-providers


aren't the content providers the same as hulu? i thought it was nbc and a couple other networks that got together and put together hulu as a way to provide their content. when i hear hulu blaming the content providers, it rings a little shallow to me.


----------



## mikeyts

bigpatky said:


> aren't the content providers the same as hulu? i thought it was nbc and a couple other networks that got together and put together hulu as a way to provide their content. when i hear hulu blaming the content providers, it rings a little shallow to me.


I had the same reaction. They're a joint venture of NBC, Fox and ABC (or their holding companies, GE, News Corp and Disney, respectively). It is independently operated, so I guess that the people who operate it can speak of their "content partners" as though they were something apart, although those partners hold the bulk of ownership (there's some equity investment firm in for a big chunk).

Personally, I think that TiVo should just implement a general DLNA/UPnP media client and people who want Hulu could get it by buying TVersity or PlayOn (ala Moxi). I really don't think that there's anything Hulu can do about that.


----------



## daveak

http://www.worldscreen.com/articles/display/22815

"When asked about Hulu, (Tom) Rogers (TiVo CEO) said he was keen to provide access to the streaming service via the TiVo DVR: "We hope to make it part of the TiVo experience."

They are at least talking about it. Keep up your Hulu Hope. Though, with so many other programming options out there, Hulu may continue to lose relevance.


----------



## Airhead315

More news indicating Tivos desire to make Hulu a part of thier service:

http://tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7540740#post7540740


----------



## lrhorer

dalesd said:


> Here's the fatal flaw in your argument.


There is no flaw in the argument, and certainly not a fatal one.



dalesd said:


> You do not spend money on those shows.


This is wholly specious. I do not choose to spend money on them, and I cannot choose upon which shows my money is spent, but it is my money, and it is used without my consent to pay for the advertising.



dalesd said:


> You may (or may not) spend your money on the products and services that are advertised on those shows, but that is your voluntary choice.


No, it isn't. In practical terms it is simply not possible to separate the cost of advertising from the ultimate price of the product in question. There are too many bits and pieces of advertsing attached to almost every aspect of delivering the product to allow one to eliminate a particular show from the sum total of the purchasing chain. There is no product or group of products, for example, which I could eliminate to eliminate my support of Survivor, while leaving support for Law and Order intact.



dalesd said:


> There's no force or coercion going on there.


In the ordinary definition of coercion, one still has the option to make a choice, so in that sense, this isn't coercion. From one perspective, it is far more aggressive than that, since in this case one doesn't even have a choice. There is no question at all that force is being applied, since it is that force, albeit non-violent in nature, which removes the choice.

By your reasoning, the fact I pay my taxes means I approve of how every single penny of federal income tax money is spent. I do not. Do you?



dalesd said:


> So you'll happily pay "whatever premium I must" to to get the things you want, unless that means paying a little more for your corn flakes?


Not "unless". There is no qualifier. Give me the option to obtain the media I want directly from the content provider, and I am willing to pay for obtaining it. That's Capitalism. The flip side of the very same coin is I must be afforded the option to avoid paying one red cent for anything I do not wish to obtain, by not obtaining it. It's not the amount that is most important. It is the fact I must be free not to buy it.



dalesd said:


> I just buy the store brand.


I don't buy Corn Flakes at all, but that store brand carries almost as much in the way of advertising as the "name" brand. I don't know about your neighborhood, but every grocery store within a reasonable distance from my house advertises. The trucking companies who deliver to them advertise. The companies who manufacture their HVAC units, and the trucks used by the trucking companies advertise. Even the produce suppliers who deliver meat and vegetables to them advertise, whether the product is pre-packaged or sold in bulk. It's true one pays more in advertising for "name" brands, but one does not avoid advertising costs by purchasing house brands or generic items.

Not only that, but the producers of the "house brand" and "generic" items are usually the same ones who produce the "name brand" items, and they see to it the contents of the generic items consist mostly of inferior items from the manufacturing line, so often what one obtains is also inferior and thus worth less to the average consumer.



dalesd said:


> Nobody is taking any money from you without your consent.


Maybe you consented, but I sure as Hell never did, and the money came right out of my pocket. There is zero advantage to me to supporting the four national networks and their affiliates. Shut them down completely and it wouldn't deprive me of a single thing I want at all, yet I happily will take back the roughly $20,000 of my money they stuffed into their pockets last year.

You're missing the most important point here, though. If a theatrical producer puts on a thoroughly lousy play called Desperate Housewives, and I decide I do not like the content of the play, then I vote against his production by not buying a ticket, and of course not going to see the play, or at least not more than once. When ABC produces a lousy program called Desperate Housewives, not only am I forced to pay the cost of a ticket for the first performance, I am forced to pay for a ticket for every performance.



dalesd said:


> I'm curious now, about the cost of advertising per new car sold. So I did a search and some math.
> In 2008, Ford sold about 2 million vehicles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Motor_Company#Sales They spent $550 million on advertising in the first half of 2008. http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS157141+18-Sep-2008+PRN20080918 That works out to about $550 per vehicle sold per year.


That sounds about right. It of course varies from manufacturer to manufacturer, and although one model may have a much higer price than another, it can be difficult to apportion the actual ad costs, since many of the ads are for the brand, not the particular model number.



dalesd said:


> Not the $7000 per vehicle number you gave earlier.


Of course not. The manufacturer's ads are just the tip of the iceberg. Everyone from the electronics manufacturer who sells radios to Ford to the freight company who transports the vehicles to the local car dealer who actually collects the money from the buyer all advertise. I suspect in most cases the latter may represent the largest chunk of the pie.



dalesd said:


> Quick and dirty, back of an envelope calculation, for sure, but it gives one a ballpark idea of the ad spending per vehicle.


No, it gives one an idea of the amount of advertising done by the entity who themselves collect only a part of the total price. Of course, the $7000 number I gave is also "quick and dirty". Again, the actual percentage of advertising for a given product varies a great deal, but the overall average is about 30%.

There is no magic involved, here. The national networks alone raked in over $600 billion last year, and every last single cent came from the consumer. If we assume there are 300 Million Americans in the country, then that is $2000 per individual, just to the national networks. It's about $8000 per family. It never ceases to amaze me how people cannot understand how much advertising costs them personally. Exactly who do you think pays for the cost of advertising? The ad fairy?


----------



## lrhorer

JasonRossSmith said:


> Jesus, what's the big freaking deal? Sure I prefer to avoid the ads when I can


Ad avoidance is not the major issue, although I certainly am not thrilled to have to be subjected to them. Avoiding the ad doesn't allow one to avoid paying for it, however.



JasonRossSmith said:


> Also, between Free OTA


OTA is not free. It is far more expensive than any premium CATV offering.



JasonRossSmith said:


> lets face it a lot of people can drop cable (and let's be honest, this is what really freaks out the networks... If people drop cable, then cable stops paying the networks...)


Why should we face something so nonsensical? What makes you think the CATV companies pay the national networks a penny? They don't. The local broadcast affiliate has the option of classifying themselves as must-carry or as a pay service. If they classify themselves as the latter, then the local CATV company is not required to carry them, but the local affiliate is then allowed to ask for money to carry their service. If the CATV company refuses, then the local channel is SOL. Most local affiliates class themselves as must-carry, so they can't charge a cent, but in any case the money would go to the local affiliate, not the national network.

Oh, and BTW, NBC alone hauls in more revenue in a month than all the CATV operators in the country combined do in a year.


----------



## mulscully

> Personally, I think that TiVo should just implement a general DLNA/UPnP media client and people who want Hulu could get it by buying TVersity or PlayOn (ala Moxi). I really don't think that there's anything Hulu can do about that.


+1:up:


----------



## refried

lrhorer said:


> OTA is not free. It is far more expensive than any premium CATV offering.


How do you figure that? I'm 30 miles from the broadcast antennas and I can get DTV signals with my FM antenna. Even if I paid $300 to install a large boom antenna that would be cheaper than three months of premium cable. Granted, I would only get the major networks, but it's still far cheaper than cable in the (not very) long run.

+1 for Hulu on TiVo. Until then, I'll spend a few bucks at Amazon. Even doing that is cheaper than paying for cable.


----------



## orangeboy

refried said:


> lrhorer said:
> 
> 
> 
> OTA is not free. It is far more expensive than any premium CATV offering.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure that? I'm 30 miles from the broadcast antennas and I can get DTV signals with my FM antenna. Even if I paid $300 to install a large boom antenna that would be cheaper than three months of premium cable. Granted, I would only get the major networks, but it's still far cheaper than cable in the (not very) long run.
> 
> +1 for Hulu on TiVo. Until then, I'll spend a few bucks at Amazon. Even doing that is cheaper than paying for cable.
Click to expand...

I think lrhorer's point was that the cost of OTA is passed onto consumer products because of advertisement.


----------



## wperry1

jcaudle said:


> ads on hulu are far less intrusive than on television...maybe a 30 second ad segment every 10-12 minutes....no big deal...far less than on broadcast television


Exactly! If there were as few ads on TV as there are on Hulu I would be far less likely to have purchased a Tivo box. On some of the cable channels I have skipped through 7+ minutes in a single commercial break.

As a community we should come at this from both sides. Go to the Hulu feature requests area (http://www.hulu.com/discussions/7) and search Tivo. You will find a topic labeled Tivo Support. Post your reply requesting the service there. If both sides see a demand we have a much better chance of seeing this happen.


----------



## SAFW

mikeyts said:


> Personally, I think that TiVo should just implement a general DLNA/UPnP media client and people who want Hulu could get it by buying TVersity or PlayOn (ala Moxi). I really don't think that there's anything Hulu can do about that.


:up:+2

TiVo, you listening?


----------



## Quaro

mikeyts said:


> Moxi implements Hulu access via PlayOn--to use it, you have to run PlayOn on a PC on your LAN (paying for a $40 PlayOn license). Then you can use that to access anything that PlayOn offers. When the PC running your PlayOn server goes down, so does your access to PlayOn.
> 
> So Moxi has Hulu in the same sense that the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 have Hulu--they all implement DLNA/UPnP clients. Unlike the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3, you apparently can only access the PlayOn server; the consoles can use any video or audio DLNA/UPnP server on your LAN, like the Zune, Windows Media and TVersity servers.
> 
> So, is that what you'd have TiVo give you? Something that requires you to run a program on a PC? (A DLNA/UPnP client on TiVo--with access to any server--_would_ be nice, though).


DLNA/UPnP would be fantastic! Sure Hulu native would be wonderful but a generic client would cover many sources of video and be a great stepping stone. Tivo is SO SLOW that by the time they implement Hulu or whatever Comcast will have shut them down.


----------



## Stormspace

BY the time TiVo gets around to adding Hulu to the box Hulu will have moved everything behind a paywall and it won't be attractive any more.


----------



## Markell

Why do you think we're paying for ads? Don't the ads subsidize (reduce) the cost of our cable, magazines, etc?


----------



## Stormspace

Markell said:


> Why do you think we're paying for ads? Don't the ads subsidize (reduce) the cost of our cable, magazines, etc?


Hulu has already started talking about putting up a paywall. Add to the that the only reason for Hulu's existence was to prevent Youtube from "airing" television content (it's failing) and you have the people that wanted Hulu to begin with to question if it's really what they want. There is a very good chance Hulu will be put behind a paywall just to kill it off.


----------



## jeduffey

I still want it available. Let me decide if I want to use it or not. The engineers' jobs is to make it more flexible and do more stuff. My job to pick what I want of what is available.


----------



## zuiko

mikeyts said:


> (A DLNA/UPnP client on TiVo--with access to any server--_would_ be nice, though).


That is what I would like to see.


----------



## khurt

willp2 said:


> I don't think anyone is saying that you have to use Hulu if they add it. If the ads bother you to much, then don't watch it. You can always use Amazon or Netflix.
> 
> For me at least (and I assume many others), I would gladly take the commercials as they are a small price to pay for access to a huge and growing library of "free" good content.
> 
> So I really do get why you would not want to use something with commercials. That said, if they add it and you decide not to use it, then nothing has changed for you. Meanwhile for me and many others we have access to a valuable new service.
> 
> Since there are many people who would find this useful, perhaps you could just vote no by not using it once its added?


Let me try and understand this now. You have a TiVo, the main purpose of which is to record/time shift TV programs. You now want the feature to stream those programs via another service? What is the purpose of the TiVo then?


----------



## orangeboy

khurt said:


> Let me try and understand this now. You have a TiVo, the main purpose of which is to record/time shift TV programs. You now want the feature to stream those programs via another service? What is the purpose of the TiVo then?


It serves as a vehicle to place the programs (that you may or may not already receive) onto a television.

It also serves as an alternate backup provider: Perhaps you are a TiVo customer that receives programming OTA only, and the local broadcaster interrupts the series finale of a show that you've watched for the past 6 years with a late-breaking news story about a miraculous dog that saves little Billy that fell down a well. While you are happy and relieved that little Billy is safe, you still don't know what happened to the characters that you've followed for the past 6 years. You could wait until the program is released on DVD to find out what happened (if the program is released to DVD and if you haven't heard the conclusion while standing around the company's water cooler). Or you could find a copy of the show on the internet, and watch it on your 17" laptop or 21" PC monitor instead of your 50" HDTV.


----------



## wperry1

khurt said:


> Let me try and understand this now. You have a TiVo, the main purpose of which is to record/time shift TV programs. You now want the feature to stream those programs via another service? What is the purpose of the TiVo then?


It seems to me that Tivo is has to expand it's capabilities in order to keep up with other services like On Demand. If they don't they will end up like most companies in the recording industry: clinging to past business models while the market moves forward without them.


----------



## scummybear

:up:+1 more for hulu.com

I think it would be a nice installment to TiVo. It would go nicely with my Netflix account!  And, with the TiVo Premiere flash based UI, I think a native app could be possible if they make agreement with hulu.com. I would love to see it happen.


----------

