So since the phone won't be released worldwide, and in only a few languages. I'm curious to know. The other ones will be "limited"
So, the question is...does that mean that some phones won't have Zune or Marketplace?
I just picked up an Android phone for the wifey and found out it didn't have Android Market (which is complete bull****). If WP7 is the same, that will suck ass.
Anyone have any ideas how that's gonna look like? I'm able to buy XBox Live points here at game stores (it says to do that online), but what about the WP7. Is it going to use XBL points or something else?
BTW. I'm in the Middle East now working. That's why I'm curious to know.
WP7 will use real money, not XBL points, and in some cases operator billing will be used to purchase applications. Same with Zune.
Android market only works in 13 countries and Google doesn't seem to care much about expanding it. It's hard to say how Microsoft will do here. WM marketplace is available in some 30 countries as far as I know, so it's reasonable to expect that at least current WM markets will be covered as long as language support expands.
As to when this will happen, maybe not soon. Somebody here in Russia talked to CEO of local Microsoft who said that the "second wave" of international rollout will happen at the end of next summer in the most optimistic scenario. More realistically it will be next fall.
Partial support (Google style marketplace, no local character support) will be available in some countries, but not all. That will depend on their tolerance for using non-localized products, I guess.
Oh, and availability of content in Zune is a whole different saga that doesn't even depend on Microsoft directly. This is more in the hands of copyright owners, of which there are hundreds, if not thousands, and you have to reach an agreement with each and every one for every country where you want to sell their precious stuff.
Damn, that's some serious bad news.
Right now I can access the Marketplace on WM 6.5 and that isn't a problem. (I think everyone can)
But who knows how the new one will work out. I'm wondering, do you think if I buy the phone back home (Canada) I'll be able to use it over here in Saudi. Or will it be IP blocked. Damn this scenario...I want some answers.
I certainly don't know about accessing services like Zune from Saudi Arabia. It could be problematic. For Marketplace there should certainly be no blocking as long as you have a valid billing address on your account. But that's my guess - I don't know what kind of filtering they can use in SA.
xbox hub will use points, zune will use real world $$
Hi,
I live in Canada and use a Zune HD with Zune Pass by fooling the system and buying pass cards at Bestbuy in the USA.
However, see this link:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/24/windows-phone-7s-short-term-future-includes-phone-to-console-ga/
Basically, it looks like the guy says Zune Pass (and marketplace probably) will not be available in Canada at launch...this is a constant FAIL by MS Canada...they have been saying ``next year`` for years now with Zune and finally gave up last year when they pulled out completely...
Our copyright laws are probably a lot of the reason but they are able to do it with XBOX360 and Apple can do it so it just takes some negotiating...
Pretty sucky all around however...
LIP
So, Google Wallet doesn't work and the hacked APK from Modaco won't either. There also doesn't seem to be any replacement app in the Play Store.
Any of you fab people got any solutions? I'd rather like to get all Hogwarts with my small payments.
Sent from my GT-N7100 using xda premium
I'm the same. I really want to start using nfc to make payments in stores. Not many of my friends can afford an nfc capable handset at the moment and therefore I can only really use nfc tags and set up an access point to us my nexus 7 using nfc. Come on google!!
Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 2
As of the end of this week we (people outside the USA) would have almost no way to add credit to Google Wallet anyway. Google are removing the pre-paid cards.
There are virtually zero stores in the UK that use contactless payments anyway... We're still a few years away from it becoming mainstream really.
Oyster probably works, but there's no way in hell I'd get nu N2 out anywhere in London's public transport system!
FloatingFatMan said:
There are virtually zero stores in the UK that use contactless payments anyway... We're still a few years away from it becoming mainstream really.
Oyster probably works, but there's no way in hell I'd get nu N2 out anywhere in London's public transport system!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your joking right? I live in Essex and regularly travel to London and loads of shops both locally and in London accept it these days!
Every Mcdonald's, Greggs and Boots in the country should accept them now
90%+ of Post Offices accept them
Many Costa, Starbucks, Pret etc accept them
Many other restaurants (e.g. Nandos at the O2 Arena) accept them.
You might be right to say that the UK as a whole is not completely ready but London definitely is, and there are certainly enough options to make it useful outside of London too.
Lennyuk said:
Your joking right? I live in Essex and regularly travel to London and loads of shops both locally and in London accept it these days!
Every Mcdonald's, Greggs and Boots in the country should accept them now
90%+ of Post Offices accept them
Many Costa, Starbucks, Pret etc accept them
Many other restaurants (e.g. Nandos at the O2 Arena) accept them.
You might be right to say that the UK as a whole is not completely ready but London definitely is, and there are certainly enough options to make it useful outside of London too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Think you're right. I'm seeing more all the time. I don't understand why Google is being so slow to get this started, out if the US at least.
Sent from my GT-N7100 using xda premium
Not everyone lives on McDonalds, coffee, dodgy sandwiches and cough syrup.
Until is in all stores everywhere, it's of limited use.
Lennyuk said:
Your joking right? I live in Essex and regularly travel to London and loads of shops both locally and in London accept it these days!
Every Mcdonald's, Greggs and Boots in the country should accept them now
90%+ of Post Offices accept them
Many Costa, Starbucks, Pret etc accept them
Many other restaurants (e.g. Nandos at the O2 Arena) accept them.
You might be right to say that the UK as a whole is not completely ready but London definitely is, and there are certainly enough options to make it useful outside of London too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed, even my dad's off licence accepts contactless payments, and that's a pretty small business.
Well, perhaps that's the case in London or other cities, but it sure isn't where I live, and I'm only 35 miles from London.
I have done futher searching. It has not gone well. The best I can manage at rbe moment is to photograph a tenner and exchange it with my daughter's S3.
Sent from my GT-N7100 using xda premium
Hi,
Has anyone compared the difference betweent sling tv and netflix? why is the sling so expensive?
blackantt said:
Hi,
Has anyone compared the difference betweent sling tv and netflix? why is the sling so expensive?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ultimately, the amount it costs each company to obtain its content is what determines the price. Sling TV is so expensive because cable networks demand that much. If Sling TV could give you the same number of channels for $10/mo and stay profitable, they probably would. I imagine they're not making much on the service and mostly testing the waters at this stage.
Also, the way I see it, it's about each service's competition. The two services are different and aren't really direct competitors. They compliment each other with little overlap in content. Netflix focuses on content that is consumed on-demand, like movies and TV series. Their competition is $0.99 rentals, so it's priced accordingly. Sling TV, on the other hand, focuses on content that is consumed as-it-airs, like CNN, ESPN, Food Network, and HGTV. Their competition is $40+ cable subscriptions, so it's priced accordingly.
blackantt said:
Hi,
Has anyone compared the difference betweent sling tv and netflix? why is the sling so expensive?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think sling is overpriced but i havent paid for TV in so long, i didnt renew my hulu or my netflix subscriptions either. We are not the norm though, and if you compare Sling to other subscriptions that offer ESPN (Legally) like USTVNOW that offers a 25 CHannels for $20 for the first two months and $30 a month after. I'd say its really competitive and maybe if starts facing more competition it will decrease in price OR maybe we might get more channels (Like AMC) for the same price.
P.S. i do recommend that you take advantage of the Sling promo for Fire TV/Fire TV Stick or the Roku deal which for me it brought down the cost (if i subtract the $50 discount from my newly purchased firetv) Sling for $10 to the first 3 months.
It is the price it is for the same reason cable and satalite service are the price they are. Cable channels do no get as high in the ratings as network TV, NBC, CBS, ABC and FOX, so they can not charge as much for comercial time, instead they charge cable and satalite companies to distribute their content. NBC, ABC, CBS and FOX are the major networks and everything else has to be paid for. All of these major networks own cable networks too, CBS own Showtime, ABC owns ESPN, NBC own USA Network, SYFY, And FOX own FX, just to name a few, but their cable networks do not and cannot make the money they make off ads so they charge you to watch their cable networks. My guess is most of the cost of the service is coming from the partnership between Disney and Dish network. Disney, ABC and ESPN are all the same company, and they are not gonna let you watch their content legally for pennies. If you take away all the networks that are not under the ABC Disney brand, the cost woulld probably still be over ten dollars, cause disney has a lot of content and people would still pay. Disney gives you sports with ESPN, Network TV with ABC and something for the kids with the Disney Channel. Disney/ABC could make their own app and include all their networks and people would still probably buy it for $20. Your cable and satalite bills are basically the cost of content, the cost of equipment and labor, and taxes. It cost a to keep equipment running and even if you are not effected by outages or equipment failure, you still have to pay for it. Its like if a big main water line bust in your town and it does not effect you at all, a few months later everyones bill goes up to pay for the work that was done to fix it. Its the same thing the content pushers do. So not only are you paying for the content, you are also chipping in to help pay to make sure the equipment they are using to push it to you stay up and running and is fixed when it has a problem. Its like the WWE sayin they needed a million subscribers to break even, which iis probably true. They probably do need around a million people to break even, cause it takes a lot of money to run their nework, and someone has to pay for and its not gonna be them, it will be the people that buy their content. The good part is if you are a fan of the WWE or any other content provider, the more people that pay to see it means the more profit they will make, and hopefully in return will mean the content will get better. The WWE is basically telling all these networks to follow them and sell their content online, and the WWE just reportedly made 57 million in profits from the WWE Network that was supposed to fail. They took a Pay Per View business that they basically created and everyone followed their lead, now they have basically killed Pay Per View by creating their own network, which you can already see that others are following. Five years from now most all networks will be broadcast over the internet on subscription, and when you get to the facts of it they will all be modeled after the WWE Network. I am not a fan of the WWE, but their subscription based network is gonna change the way all the networks give us their content. You do not need to have cable or satalite service to watch the WWE Network like you do with the other networks that have apps, you simply pay WWE your $9.99 and go on about your day. There is no middle man, and I honestly think all networks will copy this platform shortly in the future.
porkenhimer said:
but their cable networks do not and cannot make the money they make off ads so they charge you to watch their cable networks. .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I dont agree with this, they are just double dipping in my eyes. The Main stations like ABC, NBC, FOX, etc... have always been profitable when people were using Over the Air Antennas. originall cable was sold for those poor soles that were too far from the major cities to get a good enough signal.
porkenhimer said:
following. Five years from now most all networks will be broadcast over the internet on subscription, and when you get to the facts of it they will all be modeled after the WWE Network.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The only other PPV events are boxing and UFC and i see neither transitioning into the free PPV WWE model
Speaking of PPV, its a bit insane that other countries like Mexico and many places in europe Televise what we call PPV events for free (through espn) in their counties yet here in the states we need to pay $50 an event. USa and Canada are the only two countries i know that charge for PPV Events
mejdam said:
I dont agree with this, they are just double dipping in my eyes. The Main stations like ABC, NBC, FOX, etc... have always been profitable when people were using Over the Air Antennas. originall cable was sold for those poor soles that were too far from the major cities to get a good enough signal.
The only other PPV events are boxing and UFC and i see neither transitioning into the free PPV WWE model
Speaking of PPV, its a bit insane that other countries like Mexico and many places in europe Televise what we call PPV events for free (through espn) in their counties yet here in the states we need to pay $50 an event. USa and Canada are the only two countries i know that charge for PPV Events
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You do not have to agree, but it is a fact that no cable channel gets anywhere near the revenue for commercial time as do the four major networks. NBC, ABC, FOX and CBS all air shows that get the best ratings and no shows, except Monday Night Football, on cable can compete. Why do you think the ratings system is divided between the four major networks and the cable networks? It is because the cable networks would have to cancel every show they have based on low ratings if they had to compete with the four major networks. The only show on cable pulling down major network type numbers is Monday Night Football. You can have a show on cable that gets a couple million viewers in primetime and they call it a success, but if you have a show in primetime on one of the major networks and you can't pull down 10 million viewers then its a failure. Cable networks charge a fraction for commercial time of what the four major networks charge. Shows like American Idol, the Super Bowl, NCIS can get a million plus for 30 seconds of commercial time, and that will never happen on a cable network, period. The UK has PPV. As a matter of fact the reason thw WWE Network took so long to come to the UK was because of a PPV deal they had in place. WWE PPVs were $15 in the UK. Also WWE is not giving PPV for free now. When they sell PPV the price is set by the providers, not the WWE, UFC etc. The WWE would get a few dollars from each PPV buy, but now they can just sell their PPVs on the network and add some original programming in between and still come out making more than they were making on PPV buys. Did you really think that the $50+ goes to the WWE UFC etc? They get the smallest cut of everyone involved, and thats why they cut out the middle man. It is gonna force everyone to do the same, cause nobody is gonna wanna pay $50+ for an event when they can get it for $10 a month. Wait and see, within a year or two the UFC will be doing the same. The only reason they have not done it yet is because Dana White predicted the WWE Network would never get a million subscribers, and would fail, but now he can see that it worked, and he will have to follow eventually, cause nothing last forever and PPV is on its last leg. Its not that other countries are giving free PPV events, those networks in other contries have deals in place and they pay the WWE, UFC etc about the same as they would get from a PPV buy here in America. Like I said, the UFC and WWE get a few dollars per buy. The PPV business was basically a scam by entertainment companies. It was called closed circuit TV and whenever you wanted to see Ali fight or something special like that you would pay money and go to a theater to watch it live, but Vince got the same idea, but instead of going to the theater you would not have to leave your house. So the cable companies seen it as an opportunity to get money. So they charge people whatever people will pay, give the WWE a few dollars per buy and everyones happy. It worked for about thirty years, but the providers are charging so much that it was becoming a real headache for anyone to make money except the cable providers, and thats not good for the WWE so they created their own network. The PPV business will die soon, and thats a fact. You must not know business, but the entertainment business is the shadiest business of all. Its like when you buy a CD at the store, the store gets the biggest cut, and whats left goes to the record comany and gets filtered down through everyone that worked on the music. Every successful music person will tell you that selling albums does not make you rich, its doing shows that makes you rich. its called a point system, and each CD sold the artist gets a certain amount of points, which is usually pennies on the dollar, and the PPV business is basically the same way. A UFC or WWE PPV gets a million sales, but they get pennies from those sales. Google the record point system and maybe you will understand why PPV is dead, cause its basically the same thing, and then you will understand why record stores, book stores, video rental stores are all going out of business in droves. The internet gives entertainment companies all the controll, and entertainment providers are hanging on by a thread, cause they know that everyone is going digital and when they do a lot of those companies will die out. I know it seems hard to believe that a company everyone knows would go out of business, but a goood example is blockbuster, digital movie sales put them in the dirt. Five years ago nobody would have guessed that, but its happening to all the companies that provide entertainment. Everything is dying out. Players to play your content on are even becoming a thing of the past, cause everyone has smart TVs, tablets and carry laptops. The internet is killing everything from an entertainment standpoint, and if these entertainment companies do not conform they will be left behind. Just ask Borders, Walden Books and Blockbuster.
blackantt said:
Hi,
Has anyone compared the difference betweent sling tv and netflix? why is the sling so expensive?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ESPN
mejdam said:
I dont agree with this, they are just double dipping in my eyes. The Main stations like ABC, NBC, FOX, etc... have always been profitable when people were using Over the Air Antennas. originall cable was sold for those poor soles that were too far from the major cities to get a good enough signal.
The only other PPV events are boxing and UFC and i see neither transitioning into the free PPV WWE model
Speaking of PPV, its a bit insane that other countries like Mexico and many places in europe Televise what we call PPV events for free (through espn) in their counties yet here in the states we need to pay $50 an event. USa and Canada are the only two countries i know that charge for PPV Events
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I googled this to get the right numbers so that you could look it up for yourself. In the last full year every cable network combined to make $10.2 billion dollars from ad sales, and ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC combined to make $9.15 billion from ad sales. So basically the four major networks are mking around the same amount aff of comercial time as 400 or so cable networks combined. Also the top five cable networks that made the most from ad sales were number 1.ESPN, number 2.USA Network, number 3.TNT, number 4.TBS and number 5.FOX News. Now maybe this will tell you why no cable network can compete one on one with any of the four major broadcast networks. Thats why the price of the app is $20.
porkenhimer said:
You do not have to agree, but it is a fact that no cable channel gets anywhere near the revenue for commercial time as do the four major networks. NBC, ABC, FOX and CBS all air shows that get the best ratings and no shows, except Monday Night Football, on cable can compete.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, except for The Walking Dead which consistently makes it into the top 5 despite being on AMC which is available in far fewer households than the major 4 networks. You points are still spot on though.
I am happy to see the shift from traditional transmission to digital streaming. My biggest fear is that we may end up back where we started, high cost for streaming TV plus increased Internet costs "needed to cover" increased streaming usage. My second biggest fear is if it becomes completely splintered, I don't want 10 different subscriptions through 10 different networks to see each of their content through their own service. I suppose my third fear is the move to a streaming model stalls out or even backslides for the next 10 years.
I have no interest in SlingTV, NFL is literally the only thing I watch live (via OTA, I have a commitment to be away from home Monday nights). Everything else is on demand, and generally binge watched after a number of episodes are queued up and ready. As I understand it SlingTV may have a very limited on-demand functionality, but certainly not at the Hulu/Netflix level. However, I hope SlingTV does well and is a profitable proof of concept. HBO-Go is coming to an Internet device near you, and again I hope it does well and shows they can profit from the purely streaming side. My guess is a lot of people in the TV industry will be watching to see how SlingTV and HBO-Go do, and if they are popular successes we could see a flood of similar services. If they flop, well, that could be a major setback for the cord cutters.
blackantt said:
Hi,
Has anyone compared the difference betweent sling tv and netflix? why is the sling so expensive?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Apples and oranges.
Netflix streaming provides original and licensed programming on a on-demand only basis.
SlingTV provides licensed TV and Sports live and a limited on-demand basis for some channels. If you desire the channels offered and want them live then SlingTV is a good deal. If you don't want that then it is not.
Based on the what I have read on various cord cutter forums, it is a love hate offering. Some cord cutters refuse to pay for any programming and are very critical of SlingTV while others think it is an excellent alternative to cable and satellite.
I fall in the second group. I have a HD OTA Antenna with a "Tablo" OTA DVR, Neflix, Amazon Prime, and use PLEX extensively. I signed up for a SlingTV invite the day it was announced and have had it for about 3 weeks and think it is great and my monthly cost went from $16.86 to $38.42. Still a significant savings over the $98 I was paying for the programming I wanted with DirecTV. I dont include the cost of internet because I had the same internet service I had before I cut the cord. I watch everything on ROKU 3's and I am currently testing a Amazon Fire TV.
Just my $0.02 worth.
skeptic_always said:
Well, except for The Walking Dead which consistently makes it into the top 5 despite being on AMC which is available in far fewer households than the major 4 networks. You points are still spot on though.
I am happy to see the shift from traditional transmission to digital streaming. My biggest fear is that we may end up back where we started, high cost for streaming TV plus increased Internet costs "needed to cover" increased streaming usage. My second biggest fear is if it becomes completely splintered, I don't want 10 different subscriptions through 10 different networks to see each of their content through their own service. I suppose my third fear is the move to a streaming model stalls out or even backslides for the next 10 years.
I have no interest in SlingTV, NFL is literally the only thing I watch live (via OTA, I have a commitment to be away from home Monday nights). Everything else is on demand, and generally binge watched after a number of episodes are queued up and ready. As I understand it SlingTV may have a very limited on-demand functionality, but certainly not at the Hulu/Netflix level. However, I hope SlingTV does well and is a profitable proof of concept. HBO-Go is coming to an Internet device near you, and again I hope it does well and shows they can profit from the purely streaming side. My guess is a lot of people in the TV industry will be watching to see how SlingTV and HBO-Go do, and if they are popular successes we could see a flood of similar services. If they flop, well, that could be a major setback for the cord cutters.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I believe that when networks follow and do something similar to what the WWE did, it will actually be cheaper than your cable and satalite bill is now. Look at it this way, a lot of big networks own smaller networks, so I am guessing if they release apps for certain networks, all of their affiliated networks will be included. Can you imaging if a network like Discovery*gave us a subscription based service like the WWE? Discovery has over ten networks in the US. I can think of five different networks that combined own over 50 other networks, and if we could get the networks straight from the source for a small monthly fee, we could pick and choose what networks we want and only pay for those networks. I believe thats the way most people will be paying for TV in the next few years. I predict that in five years from now that the focus of major cable and satalite companies will be on internet service and not TV subscriptions, but I would not be suprised at all if a few of the major companies are out of business. The world changes way too fast these days and whats hot this week is dead next week. Look at how popular Blackberry was and now they are having to sell their security services just to stay afloat. Look at what has happened to several major news paper companies, the internet run them right out of business. Cable and satalites days are coming to an end, its just a matter of time before they are gone. The best example of how technology is changing the world is that song called "Heres a quarter call someone who cares". That song came out in the 90s, but it makes absolutly no sense for people who were born after 1995, cause cell phones killed the payphone business. There are way too many companies focusing on smart TV and focusing on releasing their products in the form of an app, for cable to survive. Cable is like a guy that pissed off several mafia families and they all put hits on him and its just a matter of time before somebody gets a kill shot. The end is coming.
I agree, I think traditional cable/sat service is on the way out (kicking and screaming and suing and lobbying for protective laws), it's just a question of time. I just hope we don't get stuck needing to run a dozen different apps and paying a dozen different subscription fees no matter how cheap it is. Let me subscribe to SlingTV but let me pick and choose which channels I want from all channels Dish has and give me DVR access to anything on those channels that has played in the last year. Expand Hulu, perhaps offer "Hulu Plus Plus" for a slightly higher fee that includes more shows. Decriminalize rebroadcasting of free public OTA programming. These are the types of things I'd like to see.
Hulu is owned by Fox, Disney and NBC - they already have something place they can expand on.
skeptic_always said:
I agree, I think traditional cable/sat service is on the way out (kicking and screaming and suing and lobbying for protective laws), it's just a question of time. I just hope we don't get stuck needing to run a dozen different apps and paying a dozen different subscription fees no matter how cheap it is. Let me subscribe to SlingTV but let me pick and choose which channels I want from all channels Dish has and give me DVR access to anything on those channels that has played in the last year. Expand Hulu, perhaps offer "Hulu Plus Plus" for a slightly higher fee that includes more shows. Decriminalize rebroadcasting of free public OTA programming. These are the types of things I'd like to see.
Hulu is owned by Fox, Disney and NBC - they already have something place they can expand on.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hulu is a sinking ship too, but can be turned around if done right. They need to be more consistant with how they put stuff on their site, cause it has turned a lot of their customers off. Also they need to start doing a lot of original programming. Not already doing a few original series tells me the company has no real plan. Also saying netflix is not their competition then saying they are should tell everyone that the company has no leadership and cannot even agree on who they are competing against. If they would invest in some originl content, put everything on at the same time and not make it seem like the good stuff needs more time before they release it to hulu, add more content and stop blocking people that paid from watching it in other contries, then they may be able to turn it around, but Hulu is just dead in the water right now and its gonna go under too if something is not done. The worst idea they ever had was making it seem like you have to wait to get the good stuff. Who makes people pay for something then basically tells them if they want the new content they gotta wait? Very very bad idea,especially when there is plenty of other places to watch it sooner. If they wanna succeed they gotta get the content out faster. When a free service like Crackle with a fraction of the content has more viewers than you, you are in trouble. Jerry Seinfeld single handedly put the beatdown on Hulu with a 20 minute show of him driving, eating, talking and drinking coffee. Trust me, Hulu is in trouble. If Jerry Seinfeld can get over 100 million watches off a show like that than Hulu should take that as a sign that they need some good original content. They should have just sold Hulu and let someone else deal with it, cause it looks like its going nowhere. Like I said though, it can be turrned around if they wanna really do something with it, but a lot has to change. To me it seems like they look at Hulu as a hobby and nobody is really incharge. While Crackle, Netflix, and Amazon Prime are making original content, getting new viewers, adding more and more content, Hulu is doing nothing. The craziest part in all this is that Crackle is able to compete with any of these companies, but somehow they have and are even winning in some areas.
The number of Hulu Plus subscribers is growing steady. http://www.statista.com/statistics/258014/number-of-hulus-paying-subscribers/ They also have a number of Original and exclusive shows, and are growing that as well. I just counted 32 original series and more on the way. I don't know how many exclusive titles they have, but quite a few and growing. http://blog.hulu.com/2015/02/19/hulu-acquires-exclusive-svod-rights-to-csi/ http://blog.hulu.com/2014/12/16/hul...to-resurrection-devious-maids-and-mistresses/ http://blog.hulu.com/2014/12/19/hulu-mgm-fargo/ http://blog.hulu.com/2014/12/18/hulu-signs-landmark-agreement-with-fx-productions/ and the list goes on and on. Just start here and look: http://blog.hulu.com/
There are some things I don't like, some shows are available the day after they air but others are delayed. Some shows I can watch every episode ever aired, others expire a month or two after being made available. This isn't a Hulu decision as much as a licensing agreement. I'm sure they could have agreed to pay more for a next day airing, but a one month delay doesn't really matter to me. Same for other countries, it's a licensing agreement thing and that's just the way it is now. Same holds true for Netflix and even Bluray/DVD movies... The worst thing is the handful of "web only" shows. Shows you can watch on a PC but not on a mobile device or something like a Roku or FireTV. Fortunately I can just cast it from my laptop to my Chromecast, but it's still more hassle than just watching it on FireTV.
I have Hulu+ and Netflix. There is a fair amount of overlap, but they really are different products that offer different things. However, lots of people compare the two and lots of customers will only pay for one or the other. I suppose you could say they are not competitors but at the same time they are.
Too expensive for us too. We haven't had cable or satellite since last summer. We use Netflix, Amazon and an OTA DVR for our needs. During the trial of Sling we just didnt use it. It felt like going backwards. Turning on the TV to see what they wanted us to watch along with the commercials just made us not watch it. Then there was no 5.1 audio either.