Google's mystery bid undoubtedly has to do with the content rights and the length of time associated with those rights.
Of the proposed suitors, Dish is the only one with any power to realistically do any sort of negotiation on the content rights since they can bundle Hulu into their carriage agreements they make with their content partners.
Google's smart enough to realize that they would need to get something like a 5-10 year window on the rights to content for this to make sense. They need the demand for IPTV streaming to really catch up, where if Hulu shuts down the networks would feel some consumer pain. Right now if Hulu closed its doors Fox/ABC et al, would barely notice.
But if Google is successful, you might be extremely close to Google being able to complete a full IP delivered ala carte "cable system" and that would change the game completely. Their biggest issue here is that they'll be doing it over their competitors pipes since cable is the primary broadband mechanism. The real final piece to the puzzle would be rolling out some sort of Google broadband via wifi/fibre etc all the way to the home.
I can think of a couple other things Google would want in addition to longer license terms.
1) A license to stream for free to any device. No more differentiating between a computer, a set top box, and a mobile device. No more Hulu Plus to use the Android app to watch what you could see from a PC for free. Just like how Time Warner was blocked from streaming TV content to an iPad app, Hulu has restrictions around streaming content to anything but a computer.
2) Licenses in international markets. Hulu is primarily in the United States only. Google wants to take all its properties international so it probably wants something in writing up front this will be an option.
If Google is asking for anything close to the above it's understandable why it's separated out from the other bidders and why Google felt it needed to throw down serious money to get everyone's attention. Media companies just don't sell broad rights to one buyer because that eliminates most of the bidders and puts the seller at a disadvantage. These kinds of requests go against the very nature of modern content licensing. Everything is supposed to be divided up as much as possible and sold piecemeal to the highest bidder.
I suspect there is a problem where different bidders appeal to different owners of the Hulu venture. Some will appeal to the Starz argument and prefer Dish. Some will prefer Amazon, who will probably bid the most under Hulu's terms and already has close ties to Hulu's executive team. Some might entertain Google's bid, although it would have to be ridiculously lucrative. Like Skype, what were they thinking lucrative. Usually Google walks away when someone asks for "too much." Whoever prefers Yahoo is a loony. I'd guess Yahoo is only kept in the bidding to keep Amazon and Dish honest.
Of the proposed suitors, Dish is the only one with any power to realistically do any sort of negotiation on the content rights since they can bundle Hulu into their carriage agreements they make with their content partners.
Google's smart enough to realize that they would need to get something like a 5-10 year window on the rights to content for this to make sense. They need the demand for IPTV streaming to really catch up, where if Hulu shuts down the networks would feel some consumer pain. Right now if Hulu closed its doors Fox/ABC et al, would barely notice.
But if Google is successful, you might be extremely close to Google being able to complete a full IP delivered ala carte "cable system" and that would change the game completely. Their biggest issue here is that they'll be doing it over their competitors pipes since cable is the primary broadband mechanism. The real final piece to the puzzle would be rolling out some sort of Google broadband via wifi/fibre etc all the way to the home.