The end user isn't the only term in the equation is that is the internet.
I would agree that HTML5 isn't ready for mass consumption just yet - client-side uptake is not there, and current implementations are first-generation and very, very slow. We need to go through some more cycles before this thing is in shape for a large-scale deployment like Hulu.
I personally disagree. None of those why's are all that important except for the buffering because the end user is in fact the only term in the equation that matters.
Advertiser reporting tools are not crucial. They will advertise if they know the eyeballs are there.
Neither is DRM. If given a choice to monetize without DRM or not have a site at all and maintaining rights, the choice is obvious (if the business is interested in profits).
These are things that advertisers and studios "want", not necessarily need.
The only valid complaints are technical things like video quality and buffering. Everything else is secondary and only crucial to Hulu because their business thrives on giving a perceived illusion of ownership to distributors. But when push comes to shove, as it's been stated already in regards to DRM, your content is getting onto DVRs and can easily be redistributed illegally by other means, so what's the point?
I never said they were unimportant reasons. I just pointed out that no-one's actually arguing that HTML5 is ready to drop into HULU's business and replace their Flash client today.
The story's hook is the rationale, not the conclusion. You miss the point in discussing whether the conclusion is accurate or not.
The end user isn't the only term in the equation is that is the internet.
I would agree that HTML5 isn't ready for mass consumption just yet - client-side uptake is not there, and current implementations are first-generation and very, very slow. We need to go through some more cycles before this thing is in shape for a large-scale deployment like Hulu.