Hulu is opening to the public tomorrow, March 12th. Reuters and Time both have posts about it today. A major bit of info the two of them added is that there will be Warner Brothers TV content (yay for "Buffy" reruns) and movies from Lionsgate.
Something that caught my eye about it is that people are stunned that someone would try and compete with YouTube. Am I the only one who thinks that the two can coexist and would actually share viewers as opposed to compete for them? Let's take a (very simplified) look at what the two sites do.
Hulu provides a legal venue to watch television shows and movies on your home computer. The thing about it that struck me (as per my original post) is that I can see things that I missed because of scheduling or a lack of signal. But content-wise, these are re-distributions of "traditional" video entertainment.
YouTube is generally homemade content. The bulk of the "professional" content are music videos. The rest of the pro stock is generally a much shorter format or are from indie sources - not major studios or TV networks.
The point I'm getting at is that there are all these people saying "Ooooooh, YouTube is gonna win" while I don't see it as a competition. That's another reason why Hulu is such a smart idea. They aren't trying to compete with YouTube. They're offering something that YouTube can't.
On an additional note, Hulu should officially be ready at midnight, Eastern time. I'll totally be heading over to hulu.com at 9pm Pacific and see if I can't get in.
Article at Reuters
Article at Time
Leave a comment