Tag Archives: Hulu
Chrome OS Alternatives to Netflix – What’s Available?
Posted on 25. Jul, 2011 by Julian West. 
2 Comments
The slogan for the Chromebook is “Ready When You Are.” The truth of the matter is that’s only partly true because services many find essential are not being offered yet. Ironically, one of these services is one of the biggest sources of web traffic in North America, accounting for 24.71 percent of aggregated traffic is not accessible via Chrome OS. The cloud app I speak of, of course, is Netflix. Netflix is one of those services that validates the cloud because it allows the user access to thousands of movies and television shows (about 12,000 to choose from) via the Internet and can make you wonder whether you need a dvd collection at all.
Yet, Chrome OS — the ultimate cloud operating system — is currently unable stream Netflix movies. It’s taking time for Netflix to migrate to the HTML5 technology. Not a small feat considering the amount of movies they are streaming. The Netflix plug-in is in the Development Channel for Chrome OS, so it is only a matter of time that it will be available. But the fact is that it isn’t working yet.
What is a Chromie supposed to do in the mean time? You may be a bit disillusioned by the change Netflix’s pricing plans as well. Such questions may lead one to ask: what are the alternatives?
Well, the ones that come to my mind are Hulu, Amazon Prime, and YouTube. All of these services can be used quite easily in Chrome OS and that shinny, new Chromebooks.
Hulu is mainly for television shows, though if you get Hulu Prime, you get access to the Criterion Library. Many excellent films are to be had here for the film connoisseur but more mainstream movies are not in Hulu’s offerings. So if you want the latest Adam Sandler film, you are out of luck.
There is also YouTube. YouTube has been working hard to extend its digital offerings and offer commercially produced movies as well as user content that has come synonymous with the brand. It offers 3,000 movies for rent, some of them at no cost. The issue I see in this service is that the movies you are most likely are going to want to watch are rentals. A Netflix streaming subscription is $8 a month. That would be only two rentals on YouTube.
Last, but not least is Amazon Prime. If you are a big Amazon shopper, this may be a no brainer for you because you get free 2-day shipping as a member of Amazon Prime. The “Prime” catalog, while it has many movies and television shows to stream, is not as extensive as Netflix. Amazon has around 5,000 movies for streaming, however 1,668 of them offered for free on-demand streaming for Amazon Prime members. Not a very high number if you ask me.
Why Google TV Makes My Current Television Really Boring
Posted on 21. May, 2010 by Daniel Cawrey. 2 Comments
While I knew for weeks that Google TV was going to be announced at the annual I/O developers conference that was held this week, I did not expect to see such a radical change in the way that people might be watching television soon. Sure, there were a lot of whiz-bang features and we don’t know how they will play out once the actual product reaches stores. But the reality is that my TV is just plain terrible right now compared to what Google TV can offer me.
The ability to use the web and TV at the same time? Check. An input device that I can use to do this? Check. Apps for television? Certainly. Integration with my Android-powered phone? Well, of course.
For the past decade, those of us who grew up with computers have had no choice but to sit on the couch with an uncomfortably hot laptop while watching TV at the same time. It’s really become an annoyance and the conglomerate cable/satellite providers never saw any reason to make a change since they were already getting fat profits from TV and internet service while keeping them separate entities. But along comes the ever-disrupting Google gathering its own band of partners to make the television experience very much different.
It was clear that Google had been working on this for some time (2.5 years), and the ability to add in services to Google TV that we already use on the web makes a ton of sense. Take television subtitles being translated into other languages, powered by Google Translate. This is just one example that shows more Google services will likely trickle down into even more features for Google TV that will make it very difficult for the competition. Not to mention the potential advertising implications that this will have for Google.
So, as it stands, my current television viewing has taken a dive. It’s not interactive; I cannot easily search for the specific shows that I want. I’m still squinting at a fourteen inch display when I watch Hulu or check out videos on YouTube. It’s been a real revelation to me now how bad my video viewing experiences currently are, but for now I’m stuck with them.
Despite Profits from the Static Web, Google Pushes Dynamic
Posted on 18. May, 2010 by Daniel Cawrey. 1 Comments
Today it was announced that Google is acquiring the Norwegian firm Global IP Solutions, which focuses on VoIP and videoconferencing solutions. I have been thinking recently about Google’s foray into the web as a media-rich dynamic platform, and it seems almost as if the company is focusing on a “change or die” mantra when it comes to the static web, a place where for the past decade Google has made immense profits.
The Google I/O conference, which kicks off tomorrow, is a great example of this, coupled with the fact that the Global IP Solutions acquisition is clearly aimed towards collaborative resources that extend way beyond just chat and email. The challenging thing for Google is going to be indexing and advertising these types of features, something that is at the very core of its business model.
As anyone who uses YouTube knows, it isn’t exactly intuitive to find the videos that you are looking for. That problem has been addressed somewhat this year, but I still find the UI a bit cumbersome to navigate. With that being said, though, YouTube has enjoyed a tremendous boost in advertising, which bodes well for the original purpose of Google buying it back in 2006.
But how does Google go about keeping track of videos hosted on other sites like Hulu, Vimeo and Justin.tv? How does it make a profit from its foray into VoIP? Only time will tell, but it will take innovation to make sure that the free model persists in these areas. It’s clear that a continuation away from the simple text that oddly enough Google has turned in a cash machine will proceed as newer platforms like Android and Chrome OS offer a new way to enjoy Google’s low-cost applications and services.
Trying to Profit from Video, Google Purchases Episodic
Posted on 02. Apr, 2010 by Daniel Cawrey. 0 Comments
It has been announced that Google has acquired the online video platform company Episodic. According to their official website, “Episodic truly spans the video value chain and provides everything publishers and marketers need to manage, measure and monetize online video”.
Monetize online video. That’s been somewhat of a challenge for Google. While video sites that provide television content such as Hulu are now profitable, YouTube is not so easy to monetize. That’s because many video clips on the site lack commercial appeal. How do you find ways to advertise to an audience that likes to watch a cat playing the piano? That’s hard to determine.
Enter Episodic. Read Write Web reports they have been working with companies like Showtime’s Sports division to stream live online video for a fee, which is television content experience that YouTube doesn’t really have. This is like Google getting some of the expertise that Hulu already has, which by the way is a joint venture between NBC Universal, Disney and News Corporation. Hulu monetizes their content through a clever method of advertising prior to showing videos, and sometimes even allows users to choose the ads that they will watch.
With the flurry of news about the iPad release this week, this acquisition along with Google’s recent purchase of video codec developers On2 will end up being a good strategic decision if the intention is to compete with Apple on content in a model that is different – offering video to users for free, but at the same time finding a way to make money from advertising.
Google Testing Search for Television
Posted on 09. Mar, 2010 by Daniel Cawrey. 1 Comments
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Google is working with DISH Network in testing a variation of their search algorithm that is customized specifically for TV. Since the WSJ site is for subscribers only, we have analyzed AppScout’s article for this post.
I’m currently a DISH customer, and I must say that the ability to find programs that you want to watch is ridiculously hard. Sure, it’s easy if you know the name of the show you are looking for, but finding one in terms of content or detailed subject matter is just not very easy. This seems to be a common theme for cable/satellite operators, as I’ve been told by someone who is a customer of AT&T’s more advanced UVerse system there is no drilled-down search capabilities in their system either.
The problem with traditional satellite and cable TV search functionality is that there really is no way to do any type of contextual search. Sure, one can look for a show title or a genre, but there isn’t really a way to drill down to actors, studios and specific content of a program. For those of us who are used to using internet search engines to find things easily, this presents a problem to the more traditional environment of television.
That’s why I think Google testing this could potentially be a win for TV. Many people are switching their video tastes to YouTube or Hulu, so these operators need to do something drastic to continue to attract younger customers. Plus, DISH Network is not one of the top tier providers. So, much like T-Mobile starting out early providing Android devices which resulted in them getting the first crack at the Nexus One smartphone, this could benefit DISH as a content provider.
What DISH Network should really do is drop their proprietary set-top box operating system and use a customized version of Chrome OS. Why not? It would probably be a faster experience, and the architecture would provide better user interaction and interoperability with the web. The problem has been that cable and satellite companies have wanted to keep these two realms apart, but expect to see them converge more often then not in the future.
