<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Hulu Closer to Becoming a Household Name</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gigaom.com/2009/09/09/hulu-closer-to-becoming-a-household-name/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/09/09/hulu-closer-to-becoming-a-household-name/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 03:33:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shakir Razak</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/09/09/hulu-closer-to-becoming-a-household-name/#comment-475783</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Shakir Razak]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:46:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newteevee.com/?p=31192#comment-475783</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I share the same view as Jamie.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;There&#039;ll be plural supply, however, we might end up where some have always wanted to go.......&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Replace Netflix with Xbox Live,or PS Network, or for that matter, just imagine MS buying Netflix.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The Web-Video and content industries should be promoting the tv-network model of plural supply and different subjective tastes having different distributors; in short, there should be as many stations on the web as there are broadcast, rather than the ClearChannel/WalMart/Web1.0 model of a single player pwning the entire market - or, yes even online, there might be the same consequences that the cinema industry suffers with consequence to non-mediagloms content.
Not now while the chess pieces in the industry are all up in the air, but once habits are formed and exclusivity placed.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Another part of the problem is the continuous name-checking of youtube by ignorant mainstream media, that gives it almost exclusive share of mind, when so often, it clearly doesn&#039;t uniquely deserve it.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Yours kindly,&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Shakir Razak&lt;/p&gt;
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,</p>
<p>I share the same view as Jamie.</p>
<p>There&#8217;ll be plural supply, however, we might end up where some have always wanted to go&#8230;&#8230;.</p>
<p>Replace Netflix with Xbox Live,or PS Network, or for that matter, just imagine MS buying Netflix.</p>
<p>The Web-Video and content industries should be promoting the tv-network model of plural supply and different subjective tastes having different distributors; in short, there should be as many stations on the web as there are broadcast, rather than the ClearChannel/WalMart/Web1.0 model of a single player pwning the entire market &#8211; or, yes even online, there might be the same consequences that the cinema industry suffers with consequence to non-mediagloms content.<br />
Not now while the chess pieces in the industry are all up in the air, but once habits are formed and exclusivity placed.</p>
<p>Another part of the problem is the continuous name-checking of youtube by ignorant mainstream media, that gives it almost exclusive share of mind, when so often, it clearly doesn&#8217;t uniquely deserve it.</p>
<p>Yours kindly,</p>
<p>Shakir Razak</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jamie</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/09/09/hulu-closer-to-becoming-a-household-name/#comment-475782</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jamie]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 23:55:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newteevee.com/?p=31192#comment-475782</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;I think paid access to volumes of content is the model of the future, as long as it is streamed to the TV. The Netflix model combined with streaming devices like the Roku box is a good example. This model gives the best of both worlds when it comes to streaming content from the internet.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Bottom line, content producers have to get paid for what you are watching in some form or another, either advertising dollars or subscription based, or we will have nothing to watch! The production costs need to paid somewhere, can&#039;t have the cake and eat it too.&lt;/p&gt;
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think paid access to volumes of content is the model of the future, as long as it is streamed to the TV. The Netflix model combined with streaming devices like the Roku box is a good example. This model gives the best of both worlds when it comes to streaming content from the internet.</p>
<p>Bottom line, content producers have to get paid for what you are watching in some form or another, either advertising dollars or subscription based, or we will have nothing to watch! The production costs need to paid somewhere, can&#8217;t have the cake and eat it too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Bartell</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/09/09/hulu-closer-to-becoming-a-household-name/#comment-475781</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John Bartell]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:57:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newteevee.com/?p=31192#comment-475781</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;Quite simply, I believe Hulu and its model are the future of TV.  High bandwidth broadband access, cheap video storage in the home, and digital TVs (that double as computer monitors) make this all but inevitable.  And, in general, forget charging the viewer for Internet video.  Do we really still need separate Cable TV subscriptions?   Or do we just need blazing fast broadband access?&lt;/p&gt;
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Quite simply, I believe Hulu and its model are the future of TV.  High bandwidth broadband access, cheap video storage in the home, and digital TVs (that double as computer monitors) make this all but inevitable.  And, in general, forget charging the viewer for Internet video.  Do we really still need separate Cable TV subscriptions?   Or do we just need blazing fast broadband access?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Canadian</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/09/09/hulu-closer-to-becoming-a-household-name/#comment-475780</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Canadian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 16:34:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newteevee.com/?p=31192#comment-475780</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;US only :-( . You know, there actually is life outside of your borders ....&lt;/p&gt;
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>US only :-( . You know, there actually is life outside of your borders &#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tvlampsn</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/09/09/hulu-closer-to-becoming-a-household-name/#comment-475779</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[tvlampsn]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 16:21:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newteevee.com/?p=31192#comment-475779</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;You&#039;re not going to see that until they can find a way to get people to pay for it so the revenue can be split with the carriers to help defray the cost of the bandwidth.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;People want TV on the go, but don&#039;t want to pay for it.  Until the carriers find a way to make more money with it than they do with plain mobile broadband --- don&#039;t hold your breath.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Even Qualcomm is havnig problems with their MediaFlo product because of the same reason, no one wants to pay for it and it costs too much to try and subsidize.&lt;/p&gt;
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re not going to see that until they can find a way to get people to pay for it so the revenue can be split with the carriers to help defray the cost of the bandwidth.</p>
<p>People want TV on the go, but don&#8217;t want to pay for it.  Until the carriers find a way to make more money with it than they do with plain mobile broadband &#8212; don&#8217;t hold your breath.</p>
<p>Even Qualcomm is havnig problems with their MediaFlo product because of the same reason, no one wants to pay for it and it costs too much to try and subsidize.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/09/09/hulu-closer-to-becoming-a-household-name/#comment-475778</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 16:13:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newteevee.com/?p=31192#comment-475778</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;Where is Hulu for the iPhone?&lt;/p&gt;
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Where is Hulu for the iPhone?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: What to read on the GigaOM network</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/09/09/hulu-closer-to-becoming-a-household-name/#comment-475777</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[What to read on the GigaOM network]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://newteevee.com/?p=31192#comment-475777</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;[...] Edit Staff  &#124; Wednesday, September 9, 2009 &#124; 8:32 AM PT &#124; 0 comments    Hulu closer to becoming a household name (NewTeeVee) Good Karma and the future of plug-in vehicle MPG ratings (Earth2Tech) Who&#8217;s your [...]&lt;/p&gt;
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Edit Staff  | Wednesday, September 9, 2009 | 8:32 AM PT | 0 comments    Hulu closer to becoming a household name (NewTeeVee) Good Karma and the future of plug-in vehicle MPG ratings (Earth2Tech) Who&#8217;s your [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
