Hulu always had ads, and now they offer an ad-free version[1]. So they've moved in the opposite direction of what you're describing.

[1]It's not completely ad-free, there is a small list of shows that they couldn't get the rights to play ad-free and those shows have an ad at the beginning.

> ad-free version[1]

> [1]It's not completely ad-free

So it's like an unlimited data plan, then.

I keep trying to remind myself that there really has never been a time when organizations were not abusing language in order to make bad ideas more palatable, but from a consumer's point of view, it's infuriating.

It's ad-free except for 7 shows. It's not even like it's the 7 most popular shows, it's just the ones they couldn't get the rights to play ad free.

I'm fine with a company saying unlimited data with a note that says except for Thursdays from 4-7pm. The problem is when they say unlimited data, but it's not really unlimited at all for anyone. That would be more like hulu saying it was ad-free and then showing commercials after you watch more than 100 minutes.

Yeah I mean you can look at it that way of you really want to but be realistic. Hulu wants to get all the content they possibly can.

When they transitioned from everyone seeing ads (free and paid users) to having an ad-free option they had to make a choice: keep the hold-outs and just play ads on their content, or strong-arm them (and lose some content).

YouTube is now strong-arming everyone with YouTube Red, "Sign our new deal or we're hiding all of your content from paying subscribers."

This seems pretty unlikely. I don't think they expect to convert more than 10% of their users into paid users, at least short-term. And if it's ads vs ads, there won't be any reason to use it.

Hulu's decisions are driven by their investors who are direct competitors for recreation time (cable companies who can't realistically cut ads). Youtube doesn't have that -- if they can make equal or more revenue per person via paid subs vs ads, why not?

Because they could potentially make more net revenue by doing subs + ads.

People are getting pretty pissed off at the gradual ad creep on something they pay for (subscription or otherwise...). Companies in their duties to their shareholders will have to make decisions on whether the potential loss from pissed customers who leave is offset by the increased revenue from the people who just whine about the ad creep but continue paying with their subscriptions and eyeballs.

Also, it is not always up to the streaming company. Hulu has shows that are excluded from the "No Commercials" bit because of their licensing agreements. So if you want to watch those, you still get ads.[1]

[1]http://www.slashgear.com/hang-on-hulu-ad-free-still-has-ads-...

That's true, but it is only 7 shows, and they've removed ads from during the show. You get an ad before and after.

For now. Perhaps sometime soon when they need to increase ad revenue they will have two ads before the show and after. Or something else. It is a slippery slope indeed.

Then I cancel. Same as if Netflix moves to ads. I'll buy Hulu when they offer ad free stuff.

Will gladly pay for ad free.

If I pay the subscription fee on my desktop do I have to pay extra because I use iOS? That's not an in app purchase.

Hulu does offer an ad free option now: http://www.hulu.com/nocommercials

Nice! I'll look into that and probably sign up. Assuming it's not crippled or anything.

edit: and now the question becomes do I want to add showtime. hmm

My TV is getting expensive against

Netflix 8 HBO 15 Hulu 12 Showtime 9 AIV 99/year

52 dollars a month. Covers most of the shows I like though. Unlike Cable this (pretty much) ad free and on demand. I think it's worth it.

Hulu did just recently add an ad free version: http://www.hulu.com/nocommercials. It's $12/month, whereas the ad version is still $8/month.

No, I think you only pay $12.99 if you subscribe via iOS. If you subscribe on Desktop then access it via your iOS device on the same account, you already have a subscription.

I thought it was against App Store guidelines to charge a different price in the app than one could get on the same feature outside of the app.

I don't know if this is current, but as of 2011, they changed course on In-App Purchases to:

> Content providers may offer In-App subscriptions at whatever price they wish and they are not required to offer an in-app subscription simply because they sell a subscription outside the App Store as well.

At the time, there was a big hullaballoo over providers like Amazon and Comixology who have presumably placed their "best price" on an item, and simply could not afford to take a 30% loss to Apple's IAP. Apple, preferring to have services like Kindle and Comixology vs. not, capitulated.

2011 is (in internet time) a LONG time ago, so it's very possible that this has reversed course again, or even multiple times since then.

You are not alone

http://exstreamist.com/poll-79-of-netflix-subscribers-would-...

Not if Google wants to experiment with moving into Netflix's territory. Experimenting with alternatives to advertising are going to drive a lot of development in the coming quarters.

Hulu was never ad-free, it always had ads until the recent higher paid tier that is finally ad-free.

Hulu is now ad free. I don't use Hulu much, but I pay $12/month to not get any ads. I want to reward the major networks, the owners of Hulu, for offering their material to be viewed whenever I want to watch it.

I don't watch YouTube much, but $10/month for no ads, with prime music sounds good, and I will probably sign up.

> Hulu is now ad free.

Yeah? I'll have to take another look at Hulu, ads were a major reason for me dropping my subscription.

When did this change?

Starting about a month ago they started offering add free for $12/month. Much better now...

I don't think the online content providers will be able to get away with this kind of thing. There's way too many competitors out there. Try to cheat on the ad-free part much, and your paid customers will go to your actually ad-free competitors. It kinda worked like that with Cable, IIRC, when there wasn't much in the way of competition, and switching was expensive.