Throwing Voodoo at Hulu
The networks thought they had Web distribution figured out—until they met Boxee.
That's why on Wednesday Hulu CEO Jason Kilar and Boxee founder Avner Ronen posted on their blogs the news that Kilar had asked Ronen to remove Hulu's offerings from Boxee, and after two weeks of negotiating, Ronen finally agreed.
Kilar wrote that Hulu's content providers, who are also its owners, forced the move, even though, as Ronen noted, Boxee users watched more than 100,000 Hulu streams last week alone. Theoretically, Hulu can only benefit from increased traffic on the site; it means more people will have seen the site's ads, making money for the networks. But the networks don't want to make money from Hulu on a TV set—that undermines their relationship with cable providers and robs them both of advertising revenue on a much more lucrative scale.
Even though users can already watch Hulu on TV through their Web browsers, Boxee's remote-controlled version of the site is what scared the bejesus out of Hulu, the networks, and the cable companies. Indeed, dozens of commenters wrote on the blog posts that they have already canceled their cable service in favor of Boxee (and Hulu).
Cable companies got their first glimpse of Boxee at this year's CES in Las Vegas, where Ronen says he told them, "[W]e should all be friends." A commenter asked, "So what *were* the cable execs' responses? Do they want to be friends?" Ronen replied: "[N]ot sure they know what to think of boxee, yet. but now we're on their radar. for good or bad."
So, imagine you're a cable executive. You own the tubes that bring television, Internet, and, increasingly, telephone service into millions of American homes. Your industry made $86 billion in revenues last year. On your January trip to Sin City, a developer with $4 million in funding shows you a product that is free, sports an interface more powerful than any cable box in existence, undercuts one of your core business lines, has legal content from the same providers to whom you pay billions of dollars, and is about to be launched to the general public. Oh, and it does all of these things over the very cable infrastructure you spent decades and billions to build. Good or bad? (That's a real question. Cable and the networks ignored my requests for comment or directed me to Hulu's flack, who wouldn't expand past Kilar's blog post.)
Phil Leigh, senior analyst for the newsletter Inside Digital Media believes the move against Boxee was too little too late. He predicts 2009 will be the year people discover they can plug their laptops into their TVs and access a whole world of content outside of the cable box. "Next month, Microsoft and CBS are rolling out a new player for the NCAA tournament. It's the perfect opportunity for guys to hook their TVs to their laptops." On the CBS Web site, viewers can control which games they watch, rather than leave it to Greg Gumbel to toss them from Indianapolis to Memphis to Washington like a sports-fan rag doll. "CBS had 165% growth last year, 5 million viewers online," Leigh says. "If they have that this year, that's 13 million."
RSS
Twitter
Comments
Don't let people bundle...
It seems to me if the cable companies really wanted to protect their core products they should offer a top of the line internet connection for say, $100/month with the idea that, yes, this will cannibalize our cable and phone, but then throw in cable and phone for free. Internet is the only service that isn't in dire jeopardy right now. They could still offer cable and phone as stand alone products, but since internet essentially duplicates them they will die. Meanwhile, the cable companies save a little bit of the cable industry and some bandwidth. Sure, lots of people will download shows when they want, but every person who watches a show at it's regular time gets to still feed off that one set of cable signals instead of each show being an individual download. The move could fend off companies like Skype, who rely on you already having an internet connection. The other bundle carriers could try to offer just internet at a cheaper cost, but they would risk eroding their own base. The government, meanwhile, should straighten out the regulation of the industry. The reason you bill is so complicated is all the little charges the government tacks on. Depending on whether you are a phone carrier or a cable company you have to charge different fees for the same services, for instance, the government requires phone carriers to provide 'life line' services to some phone customers, including the disabled and the elderly. It costs a fraction of what regular phone services cost, but cable companies (and cell phone carriers for that matter) don't have to offer a similar service.
Nixing Boxee Won't Save Cable (ha!ha!)
Hi Paul, I had to chuckle while listening to the podcast (On the Media Feb 27). I've been watching TV thru the internet ON my TV screen for over a year now and I'm no tech wiz. I have an old (five year? six?) laptop that sits on the shelf below my TV. The two are connected via a simple S-cable...I simply took the end that was stuck in my DVD player and plugged it into my old laptop...and promptly got rid of the DVD player. (It was redundant given that laptops also play DVDs....). I go to the control panel in my computer, click on monitor/display, and click to use the TV as my "monitor" (or display content on the laptop and TV both). And the TV I now watch is BETTER, thank-you Hulu, Fancast, TV.com, ABC.com, not to mention the far-superior VIP.TV-video.net with a selection that's 10-fold that of the others. (Though not free -for the equivalent of 14 euro's - around $18 - I bought 750 points in July. They deduct 2 pts to access, for the next 24 hrs, each [ad-free] episode.) Now I only watch shows I truly enjoy and I do it on my schedule with no forethought (forget Tvio!). I have all the sites bookmarked - little icons that run across the browser's toolbar (Firefox), which I can open in multiple tabs and switch back-n-forth between. I have a remote control for my laptop, but haven't bothered to program it yet. As far as I'm concerned, one-stop shopping has already arrived!!
Hulu & Boxee
Hi Paul, I listened to your podcast interview on NPR and half way through the interview you have made a very important observation - that Netbooks with prices @ $300 start becoming very attractive to be the "STB". I think this will be a serious threat with potential impact to several people both downsides and upsides. In this cost-cutting season, consumers may choose to double up their netbooks for watching TV. May be having accessories such as Dock Stations that will connect to TVs and with a remote control? Regards Ashu
Hulu
I want to request that from now on when your reporters cover emerging TV access, like Hulu or even TVIO that you ask them if they support captioning of their videos. Neither one does. Tvio has captioning ONLY if you watch off the tvio, if you transfer the recording in any manner, the Tvio strips the captions. Hulu has no feature whatsoever that allows you to view the captions that ALL of this content has when it plays live on tv. As for Boxie, who knows? You left that out of your story.
Closed Captioning on Hulu
Actually, I just went to Hulu and clicked on the support/FAQ link b/c I thought I recalled seeing "cc" options on the site. Hulu does have closed-captioning for some of the shows, which (they state) they're trying to expand, but note that cc-data used for broadcast TV doesn't translate easily to an online format. They also give detailed explanations of how to filter your search to programs with cc only, how to set it as a default preference, how to turn it on in the viewer, and offer a link to Tech Support for further questions/concerns. I'm really less interested in defending Hulu than in defending accuracy. Now that the general public has the opportunity to put into the public medium our ten cents (or $10) worth on virtually any topic, we also have the responsibility - whether we shoulder it or not - to fact-check ourselves (particularly in instances when it is quite easy to do so) before passing on incorrect information.