What's the distinction though? Hulu was created and is owned by the content owners.
Sure the folks building Hulu may feel that way but this is a business that's still figuring out how to do this in a way that works for everyone involved and right now TV ads are the cash cow for the networks.
From Hulu's perspective really the best thing to do right now is deploy their content in the most restrictive way possible because they don't want to identify a model that works and then be in a position of having to limit functionality or access to existing users in order to make it happen. Its always better to be able to add access then to take it away.
I think the distinction is that Hulu has an outward appearance of a proper hacker-run site. From very early on, it had an excellent feature set and a strong feeling of quality and pride. It seems that it isn't run by dinosaurs; just owned by them.
Well, it is run by Jason Kilar, a former Amazon SVP, who appears not to be of the same mind as the content owners. I remember reading an article which described how he disagreed with them quite vigorously about a few things around launch...unfortunately, I can't find it now, don't remember enough details.
Sure the folks building Hulu may feel that way but this is a business that's still figuring out how to do this in a way that works for everyone involved and right now TV ads are the cash cow for the networks.
From Hulu's perspective really the best thing to do right now is deploy their content in the most restrictive way possible because they don't want to identify a model that works and then be in a position of having to limit functionality or access to existing users in order to make it happen. Its always better to be able to add access then to take it away.