Online
Hulu Review: What It Is and What It Should Be (Good, and Better)
Posted by Matt Buchanan at 9:00 AM on November 3, 2007
We've been playing around with News Corp. and NBC's answer to internet video, Hulu, for a couple of days, letting the low-traffic, buttery smooth launch day stretch out more into real time and real traffic conditions before we let loose with our judgment. Let's get this out of the way: YouTube killer it ain't. Same genus, different species.
As Ars called it, Hulu is a "corporate sandbox" loaded with content from NBC, News Corp., Sony, MGM, as well as their various subsidiary channels like FX, Sci-Fi Channel and so forth, offering anything from full episodes of Battlestar Galactica and Buffy to SNL Digital Shorts and an entire Russell Crowe flick, Master & Commander. It's Flash-based, it streams, just like YouTube, and it's ad-supported, with bumpers and "commercial breaks," just like the TV it's trying to ape.
Despite the potential of being a corporate bomb, Hulu actually succeeds in a lot of ways. For one, the interface is pretty slick, the site itself not overwrought and easy enough to navigate, which is something of a miracle given how FUBAR productions of this sort typically turn out. The animations are smooth, with lots of scrollover popups and transparency, and buttons for all of the few things you can do with a video. Grays and blacks surround the video in a widescreen format, making it easier on your eyes.
Video and sound are clean, the 520x295 resolution for widescreen format clips definitely tolerable for the 42 minutes required to watch House or the like. More importantly, the streams have been exceptionally smooth. Bouncing around within vids is snappy, on few occasions taking longer than a second, and more often than not instantaneous. However, and it might be my imagination, video isn't quite as nice as it was on launch day a few days ago—a touch more pixellated—and seeking takes a bit longer. Still impressively small, more noticeable now.
The potential deal killer here, the ads. (Also the best reason to wait for a review: I saw nary a frame of ads on launch night.) Their timing seems to be totally random. The initial three-second bumper is painless, promising "limited commercial interruption" thanks to X sponsor. But the in-show ad—so far in my experience no more than one 30-second clip per episode—could come at any time: within seconds of the bumper, halfway through, the first time you click ahead or so on. In that sense, it's maddening.
So why put up with ads? The content—and that's where Hulu's value and potential lies, but also its biggest shortcoming. Ars' problem with Hulu was the fact that it was a sandbox. I don't think that's necessarily bad, depending on what's in the sandbox and the playground rules—and what you expect to get out of it. I actually don't care to pull content out of Hulu's garden, beyond embedding clips on Gizmodo—I just want to be able to catch the Heroes ep I missed or peek a show I've heard about with a couple of clicks and no waiting.
Shortfall #1: It doesn't put shows up quickly enough after they air. It's still faster to grab a torrent right after Heroes airs on the East Coast than to wait for it to drop on Hulu (not that I've done that, lovely denizens of NBC's legal department). Solution? Air it on both simultaneously. It'll also help solve the tricky dilemma of measuring new vs. old, medium-shifting viewers.
Shortfall #2: It's an incomplete archive, with new episodes pushing off older ones. This is a balancing act because they don't want to cannibalize TV-on-DVD sales, but personally, if I haven't already bought a series on DVD I'm not going to. For instance, Buffy Season One is available in its entirety, but nothing beyond that, even though I wanna watch the musical episode. Heroes now only stretches back to the second ep of the current season.
The truly bold step to take in this little experiment is to throw open the content doors: Put up everything, and watch what happens. My guess is that it wouldn't adversely affect DVD sales—maybe iTunes, but according to NBC, they weren't making any money there anyway. Hell, throw in two thirty-second spots per clip, but bump the resolution. In other words: Make it more like TV.

Comments (AU Comments · US Comments)
Kendal
Posted November 3, 2007 7:52 PM
Vid not available for viewing in Australia. That's OK, we have our own crappy companies here already.
Cam
Posted November 5, 2007 11:39 AM
I would love a service like this in AUS. But looks like it's for the US only. Oh well, guess i'll just download them via channel BT.
mor10
Posted 7:50 PM 2/11/07
"Unfortunately this video is not currently available in your country or region. We apologize for the inconvenience."
i.e. Hulu hates Canada. Nuff said.
mor10
s5
Posted 7:36 PM 2/11/07
For me, the main reason why I will never use hulu: I can't download the files, which means I can't watch it on the device of my choice, whether it's an iPod, an iPhone, any other PMP, or a set top box like a media center PC or an Apple TV.
Sorry but most people don't want to watch TV on their computers. They want to watch TV in the living room.
s5
vicsells
Posted 7:32 PM 2/11/07
that is so cool! how can I get in? I signed up for an invitation several days ago, but still no mail from hulu
vicsells
EQC
Posted 5:13 PM 2/11/07
I also have a problem with ABC's service since it doesn't really "buffer" at all the way YouTube does -- it forces you to stream, I think. I'm on a campus ethernet, so my connection is generally fast. But with ABC's online TV episodes, apparently there's some glitch in my connection once in a while and rather than just being absorbed by the buffer, it causes the show to stall out for 30 seconds while it reconnects the stream or something. It gets particularly annoying when this connection failure (or whatever it is) happens repeatedly, with only brief segments of the video between stalls.
EQC
EQC
Posted 5:09 PM 2/11/07
I wish they wouldn't use flash. Or at least do something so my computer/video card officially recognizes it as video.
I use the "full-screen video mirroring" on a dual monitor setup (where the second monitor is actually the TV in the living room). It would be nice if that worked with this stuff.
EQC
ghmlco
Posted 7:55 PM 2/11/07
Unfortunately, the number of people that are going to want to stream shows they can only watch on a computer is limited.
With Heroes on iTunes, OTOH, I could watch in on my iMac... or on my MacBook Pro on a plane... or on my iPhone on the subway... or on my big screen TV in the living room thanks to my Apple TV. And I could watch it today, tomorrow, or next month.
Thanks, NBC, for offering customers willing to PAY for your content less choice, less flexibility, and more hassle.
ghmlco
archipod
Posted 9:30 PM 2/11/07
@VICSELLS
I did the same thing hoping to catch up on my House, but I think as it's a "private beta," us unimportant types aren't welcome? :(
archipod
x23
Posted 10:48 PM 2/11/07
in addition. OTA stations would NEVER go for simultaneous. they rely on *local* advertising to make money. and if there is some big premiere coming up... and everyone knows you can see it 4 hours early just by watching it online they would lose a lot of viewers.
right now ... torrents aren't mainstream *enough* to cause this in any great numbers. but a network-backed and promoted site that doesn't require anything more than a browser? that's a bit different.
x23
x23
Posted 10:45 PM 2/11/07
in what timezone? no matter which you choose that will be incredibly inconvenient for a good many people.
x23
calebc
Posted 11:58 PM 2/11/07
@s5: Exactly. If I can't at least watch it on my TV I'm not interested. Being able to Download and take it mobile is a bonus. Maybe if they work out a deal like YouTube did with Apple for the Apple TV, but given their history I doubt it.
calebc
chillywilly
Posted 8:25 AM 3/11/07
As others have said, until it's in a downloaded format that I can watch on multiple devices, then streaming is not for me. The 22 or 45 mins I would take to watch a streaming TV show could be better spent with other tasks.
chillywilly
WolfDV
Posted 3:10 PM 3/11/07
Hulu . . .not canada friendly :(
WolfDV
sonofmagicfact
Posted 4:13 PM 3/11/07
Hmmmm. I never received notice after I signed up for the beta. Hmmm.
sonofmagicfact
timerider42
Posted 5:04 PM 3/11/07
Does it work with dialup? Certain flash-based players never load on 56k. Thats why I like Youtube, the player actually works. Not like NBC's craptacular site.
timerider42
Ednonymous
Posted 10:34 PM 3/11/07
Flash streaming? That's no different than watching these shows as originally broadcast FOR FREE.
No thanks.
If they want my money for any of this stuff they need to allow me to download a file that I can watch on my television set, not on my computer
Flash sucks... give me video in mpeg format.
Ednonymous
willyboy
Posted 1:02 AM 4/11/07
I want these bitches on my IPoT!
willyboy
pgh
Posted 7:54 AM 4/11/07
Sigh. This is just the beginning of the end of decent video over IP. As another poster said, "Thanks NBC for screwing the people who were willing to pay for episodes". I couldn't agree more.
In my opinion, the best thing one can do is hang as much external disk space as possible off the DVR and grab everything from your cable or satellite provider and then rip what you want to whatever format you want.
pgh