Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Yahoo submits bid for Hulu

allthingsd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 173 posts

Re: Yahoo submits bid for Hulu

#91

Post by drgath »

seanlinehan wrote: post #53
just2n wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds to me like she's trying to build another Google. It's really (almost impossibly) hard to dethrone innovators without actually doing any innovation. It's equally difficult keeping talent when the corporate culture isn't hacker-centric. While buying your way into the party is a nice first step, what do you do when you don't have the talent pool to continue to innovate and can't even grow it? Especially when y…

In order to change the company's product trajectory, culture, and perception there are many stages that they must go through to get to the ultimate goal. At this point in time, Yahoo does not have the public perception that they are a cool company to work for, especially for engineers. This makes it a near impossible task to attract the talent necessary for internal innovation. However, if they buy cool companies, sh…

> At this point in time, Yahoo does not have the public perception that they are a cool company to work for, especially for engineers.

That's the thing, it's all public perception and not based in reality. I've worked at Y! for ~4 years (software engineer) and love it. As Marissa has publicly stated, Y! is the world's largest startup, so there's a ridiculous amount of opportunity to work on fun and challenging problems.

Re: Yahoo submits bid for Hulu

#92

Post by steveklabnik »

pvnick wrote: post #79
FuzzyDunlop wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were probably right on the money considering Yahoo's reputation.

I would say we're already screwed if we're allowing governments to get in situations where they "consider Yahoo's reputation." That's none of their damn business.

Given that they own a bunch of stock in Orange, yes, it literally is their business.

Re: Yahoo submits bid for Hulu

#93

Post by JoshGlazebrook »

samstave wrote: post #81
Retric wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's all about licencing. "In 2011, Hulu’s owners put the company up for sale and were looking for a bid of at least $2 billion; in exchange, they would offer content licenses that would run for two to three years." "Last month, former News Corp. COO Peter Chernin submitted a starting bid of $500 million, with the understanding that he would be willing to pay more for extended licenses." Basically, a huge chunk of Hu…

I have had a Hulu account for the last two years. I recently canceled it. Their content is actually not that good, and on top of it, you're forced to watch commercials as well. The service was terrible.

That never really made sense to me either. If you're going to pay for hulu, you would expect to not have to sit through the commercials.

Re: Yahoo submits bid for Hulu

#95

Post by drgath »

jfb wrote: post #19
jcampbell1 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The content deals they currently have in place are so one-sided that there little to be gained by owning Hulu. Their contracts are basically, you get a license to the content, but 95% of any revenues you generate must be given to the content partners. The whole point of Hulu was to stop piracy and return any cash generated to the content providers, not to be a profitable ongoing business. I don't even know what it me…

Yeah. Hulu is 100% a creature of the content owners. It's not a business. What would anybody be buying? The brand?

> What would anybody be buying? The brand?

And a viable competitor to YouTube's new paid subscription service. UGC was the big thing in video since YouTube launched, but the real revenue generator could be paid subscriptions, and that market is wide-open. Hulu doesn't -have- to be big studios.

Re: Yahoo submits bid for Hulu

#96

Post by meepmorp »

JoshGlazebrook wrote: post #93
samstave wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have had a Hulu account for the last two years. I recently canceled it. Their content is actually not that good, and on top of it, you're forced to watch commercials as well. The service was terrible.

That never really made sense to me either. If you're going to pay for hulu, you would expect to not have to sit through the commercials.

> That never really made sense to me either.

It makes perfect sense. Money from subscriptions is good; extra money from ads is better. And as much as you or I dislike it, we're probably in a minority position here - if it was really cutting into earnings, they'd have cut it out by now.

Re: Yahoo submits bid for Hulu

#97

Post by espadagroup »

glhaynes wrote: post #31
criley wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hulu, Netflix and Amazon all produce original content and are perfectly positioned to disrupt them as their distribution volume increases. Uhh, as a Hulu subscriber, I'll just let you know: If I only had "Hulu" content to pick from, I'd cancel my subscription immediately. It's not great stuff, barely worth paying for and CERTAINLY not worth both paying for and sitting through the same 4 advertisements over-and-over…

sitting through the same 4 advertisements over-and-over-and-over again for What is it I don't understand about the online video business that causes this to happen? They can't get enough advertisements from their partners to allow them to be less repetitive? Advertisers don't want to provide variety? (Maybe advertisers specifically want the monotony? Surely not, else they'd follow the same scheme on network TV.) The…

Hulu's CPM's are incredibly high, on par with prime time TV. Not that many companies advertise on TV at those rates; even fewer do so online.

Re: Yahoo submits bid for Hulu

#98

Post by Cushman »

JoshGlazebrook wrote: post #93
samstave wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have had a Hulu account for the last two years. I recently canceled it. Their content is actually not that good, and on top of it, you're forced to watch commercials as well. The service was terrible.

That never really made sense to me either. If you're going to pay for hulu, you would expect to not have to sit through the commercials.

While I agree the idea of it is ludicrous-- paid cable subscriptions come with commercials. Is this really so shocking?

Re: Yahoo submits bid for Hulu

#99

Post by Steko »

JoshGlazebrook wrote: post #93
samstave wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have had a Hulu account for the last two years. I recently canceled it. Their content is actually not that good, and on top of it, you're forced to watch commercials as well. The service was terrible.

That never really made sense to me either. If you're going to pay for hulu, you would expect to not have to sit through the commercials.

Well most people pay for basic cable and most of those channels have ads.

Granted HBO and Netflix don't have commercials but I think they also both use product placement (edit: see granddaughter comment for more info) in their original content so it's not like there's some philosophical commitment they've made to not show subscribers ads to pad the bottom line.

Re: Yahoo submits bid for Hulu

#100

Post by w1ntermute »

Steko wrote: post #99
JoshGlazebrook wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That never really made sense to me either. If you're going to pay for hulu, you would expect to not have to sit through the commercials.

Well most people pay for basic cable and most of those channels have ads. Granted HBO and Netflix don't have commercials but I think they also both use product placement ( edit: see granddaughter comment for more info ) in their original content so it's not like there's some philosophical commitment they've made to not show subscribers ads to pad the bottom line.

I'd rather have (tastefully done) product placement than ads. And I could never notice any product placement in House of Cards or Game of Thrones.
Post reply on HN