????可是,，好一陣以來,，吉拉爾和這些媒體老板之間的緊張關(guān)系一直在加劇。有關(guān)Hulu發(fā)展方向的失策之舉和內(nèi)部爭論在公司內(nèi)部不斷升級,。有時候,，這些內(nèi)斗甚至?xí)诠_媒體上曝光。

????2011年2月,，吉拉爾在自己的博客上發(fā)表了一篇長達兩千字的批評文章,，迎來了自己的《甜心先生》時刻（Jerry Maguire moment，以同名電影得名,，指突發(fā)奇想認(rèn)為找到了拯救公司之道旋即又意識到想法荒唐——譯注）,。該文主要是宣稱，傳統(tǒng)電視已經(jīng)壽終正寢了——這種宣言當(dāng)然讓像新聞集團的?？怂构荆‵ox）和迪斯尼公司的美國廣播公司

????（ABC）這些媒體老板們很不舒服,。而此前一年，他對老板們要給月訂閱計劃增加9.99美元的計劃表示反對,，他的建議是,，只合理增加4.99美元以保持競爭力。最后,，老板們做出了妥協(xié),，這就是后來標(biāo)價7.99美元的Hulu Plus應(yīng)用。此外,，每次得知有些媒體老板和網(wǎng)飛公司（Netflix）這類對手達成內(nèi)容交易后,，他也非常激動地表示反對，因為在他看來，這些行動會削弱Hulu的產(chǎn)品,。

????隨后就是2010年Hulu計劃上市而未果,，2011年試圖出售卻沒有下文。據(jù)知情人士透露,，曾有公司執(zhí)意要高價收購Hulu,。此人還表示,，媒體老板們不愿意賣,，因為他們想保持對自己內(nèi)容的定價和授權(quán)的控制權(quán)，這樣才能確保Hulu不會蠶食傳統(tǒng)電視廣告的收入,。結(jié)果,，這直接導(dǎo)致視頻領(lǐng)域競爭的白熱化，網(wǎng)飛,、亞馬遜尊享計劃（Amazon Prime）,，谷歌公司（Google），衛(wèi)星電視（DISH Network）的“電視無處不在”計劃（TV Everywhere）,，康卡斯特公司的Xfinity計劃,，NimbleTV和其他方案紛紛開始加入混戰(zhàn)。

????這種混亂局面讓吉拉爾和Hulu的第四大老板,、私募基金巨頭普羅維登斯資本（Providence Equity Partners）非常惱火,。2007年，普羅維登斯曾用1億美元買下Hulu公司10%的股份,。但這是帶賣出期權(quán)的,，該期權(quán)2012年秋季生效，即可以2億美元由Hulu贖回,。

????去年10月,，普羅維登斯賣掉了這筆期權(quán)，讓業(yè)內(nèi)大跌眼鏡,，同時也讓大家紛紛猜測,，Hulu將往何處去。畢竟普羅維登斯唯一的興趣是看到自己對Hulu的這類投資能實現(xiàn)收益增長并獲利,。這么看來,，如果它依然深信Hulu仍將大幅增長，為什么要賣掉這些股份呢,？由于普羅維登斯的利益與吉拉爾一致,，因此傳言日益甚囂塵上：吉拉爾留在Hulu的時日無多了。信息技術(shù)分析公司佛雷斯特研究公司（Forrester Research）的媒體分析師詹姆斯?麥奎維稱：“那些想看到Hulu的營收和觀眾人數(shù)雙雙增長的人再也興奮不起來了,。不過吉拉爾還能待這么長時間讓我頗為驚訝,。”

???

????However, tension between Kilar and the media owners had been escalating for some time. Missteps and internal bickering over Hulu's direction had been rising behind the scenes. In some cases, it spilled out into the public domain.

????In February 2011, Kilar had a Jerry Maguire moment when he issued a 2,000 word diatribe on his blog, basically claiming old TV was dead -- a manifesto that didn't set well with media owners like News Corp's Fox and Disney's ABC. The previous year, he opposed the owners' plans to add a $9.99 a month subscription plan, suggesting instead a more reasonable $4.99 fee to stay competitive. In the end, Hulu's owners compromised with a $7.99 rate for what became Hulu Plus. Kilar also made frantic calls to owners when he learned some were making content deals with rivals, such as Netflix (NFLX), a move he felt undermined Hulu's product.

????Then there was Hulu's proposed IPO that never happened in 2010, and the failed effort to sell itself in 2011. There was a firm -- and high -- offer to buy Hulu on the table, according to one person familiar with the situation. But the owners were reluctant to sell the venture because they wanted to maintain control over the pricing and licensing of their content thereby ensuring Hulu didn't cannibalize conventional TV ad revenue, the person said. This came as competition was heating up in the sector from Netflix, Amazon Prime, Google (GOOG), DISH Network's (DISH) TV Everywhere, Comcast's Xfinity, NimbleTV and others.

????All of this turmoil vexed both Kilar and the company's fourth owner, private equity giant Providence Equity Partners. Providence had acquired a 10% stake in Hulu for $100 million in 2007, but had a put option, which became exercisable last Fall, to sell the stake back to the company for $200 million.

????In October, Providence exercised that option, raising eyebrows and opening up a Pandora's box of speculation about Hulu's future. Afterall, Providence's sole interest is in seeing its investments, like Hulu, grow and profit. So, why would it sell its stake in Hulu if it believed there was still considerable growth ahead? Since Providence's interests were aligned with Kilar's, rumors went into overdrive that Kilar's days at the company were likely numbered. "Someone who wanted to see financial growth, audience growth, wasn't so thrilled anymore" says James McQuivey, a media analyst at Forrester (FORR) Research. "I was surprised Kilar stayed as long as he did," McQuivey adds.