Is Hulu Worthless?

reverend1

reverend1

Kick Henry Jackassowski
We have Hulu plus for some reason. The more I use it, which isn't much, the more I realize it is the dumbest thing I have ever paid for.

After seeing the latest Cpt. America movie I thought I'd give Agent's of Shield a shot. I come to find out you can only see the last few episodes not the entire season. Not to mention you still have to watch commercials.

I must be an idiot to pay for this service.
 
I haven't tried it yet. Since we just got a chromecast
We've been exploring netflix for the first time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Mark Wein said:
I haven't tried it yet. Since we just got a chromecast
We've been exploring netflix for the first time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I love Netflix. I guess I expected Hulu to be a similar service just with different content.

There is very little there except for current tv shows, and like I said there are only a few episode available and you have to watch commercial. Yuck.
 
Rev1, after reading your thoughts on HuluPlus, I'm glad I never went there, although I have an antenna for free network HD transmissions, and it seems that the Supreme Court might make a ruling that could end up taking that away. Seems that nothing is perfect right now. o_O
 
Stratguy said:
Rev1, after reading your thoughts on HuluPlus, I'm glad I never went there, although I have an antenna for free network HD transmissions, and it seems that the Supreme Court might make a ruling that could end up taking that away. Seems that nothing is perfect right now. o_O
Click to expand...
Yeah, Hulu plus seems to be a $8 a month DVR with no fast forward feature.
 
I don't really watch TV. If the mrs feels she needs to watch a movie, I walk to a redbox 3 doors down and rent something. I realize this is no help, but the mrs would probably enjoy netflix or something like it. So chromecast is all I need? And will it hook to an older tv?
 
Stratguy said:
Rev1, after reading your thoughts on HuluPlus, I'm glad I never went there, although I have an antenna for free network HD transmissions, and it seems that the Supreme Court might make a ruling that could end up taking that away. Seems that nothing is perfect right now. o_O
Click to expand...

What? Why would they take away over-the-air local transmissions? Wouldn't that pretty much be the death of local TV stations?
 
Between HBO, Netflix, and Amazon Prime I can't imagine paying for another service.
 
Stratguy said:
Rev1, after reading your thoughts on HuluPlus, I'm glad I never went there, although I have an antenna for free network HD transmissions, and it seems that the Supreme Court might make a ruling that could end up taking that away. Seems that nothing is perfect right now. o_O
Click to expand...
That case is against a company that charges a fee to stream those broadcasts to a pc.
I don't think i will affect us who use an antenna.
 
Stratguy said:
Rev1, after reading your thoughts on HuluPlus, I'm glad I never went there, although I have an antenna for free network HD transmissions, and it seems that the Supreme Court might make a ruling that could end up taking that away. Seems that nothing is perfect right now. o_O
Click to expand...
shoeless said:
What? Why would they take away over-the-air local transmissions? Wouldn't that pretty much be the death of local TV stations?
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court case is not about having the digital antenna for broadcast TV; it is about a company that streams it online. Here are some brief details:

The future of television rests in the outcome. If Aereo loses, streaming broadcast TV over the Internet could get a lot harder. If the networks lose, some major players could shut down their over-the-air broadcasts in protest, or even start their own streaming services. Fortunately, you don’t have to be a legal scholar or an engineer to understand the details. Here’s the lowdown of both sides leading up to tomorrow’s battle, and what the decision will ultimately mean for you.

The basics of Aereo
At its core, Aereo is nothing more than a way for users to watch broadcast TV (free to anyone with an HD antenna) through the Internet whenever and wherever they want. For $8 to $12 a month, users rent tiny antennae that are housed in large ‘farms’ where thousands or even tens of thousands of the little gadgets receive over-the-air signals. Through the service, users can watch ABC, CBS, Fox and all the other local stations they could normally watch with a home-based antenna, but from a computer, mobile device, or Roku. The service also allows users to record shows and watch them later, just like with a home DVR.



Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-t...ts-wrinkly-hands-supreme-court/#ixzz2zdRwgAwt
Follow us: @digitaltrends on Twitter | digitaltrendsftw on Facebook
 
I like it. I can watch Parks and Rec and Hell's Kitchen/Kitchen Nightmares or The Daily Show. Even with it and Netflix I'm still paying a lot less than I was for cable, which I rarely ever used.


Sent from none of your fuckin' business!
 
Gary Blanchard said:
The Supreme Court case is not about having the digital antenna for broadcast TV; it is about a company that streams it online.
Click to expand...

True, but I read online, this morning, that networks are threatening to shut down free veairwaves broadcasts if Aereo wins their case. The networks note that they generate significant revenue from selling their signal to cable systems, but if Aereo wins the case, cable companies will surely follow suit, and the networks will lose billions of dollars. And that's not to mention that pro sports make billions of dollars on the network TV deals. It was said that if Aereo wins the suit, pro sports will only be available on cable channels. So much for my antenna.
 
If you have cable and a DVR you don't have much reason for Hulu (other than they have a nice anime selection). If you don't have cable it's an awesome service and you are only watching 2 commercials at a time. I usually watch Hulu and my wife watches Netflix.
 
Stratguy said:
True, but I read online, this morning, that networks are threatening to shut down free veairwaves broadcasts if Aereo wins their case. The networks note that they generate significant revenue from selling their signal to cable systems, but if Aereo wins the case, cable companies will surely follow suit, and the networks will lose billions of dollars. And that's not to mention that pro sports make billions of dollars on the network TV deals. It was said that if Aereo wins the suit, pro sports will only be available on cable channels. So much for my antenna.
Click to expand...

I see that as a warning shot at the Supremes; I don't see them actually doing that. Although, broadcast TV's days are probably numbered as technology advances.
 
Gary Blanchard said:
I see that as a warning shot at the Supremes; I don't see them actually doing that. Although, broadcast TV's days are probably numbered as technology advances.
Click to expand...

I agree that it was probably a warning shot at Diana Ross . . . I mean the Supremes :wink:. It wouldn't surprise me if the networks did something punitive if thins went against them. I do agree that their days are numbered, but I imagine that they'll go down swinging.
 
But what about the poor that can't afford cable?It's discrimination I tell you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top