Chris Brakebill’s Posterousness

If Apple were to bundle the iBooks store as a built-in app, and it absolutely dominated the iPad e-book market as a result of that, Apple could potentially be accused of a similar abuse of power that Microsoft was accused of in the 1990s, when it got in trouble for bundling Internet Explorer as the default Web browser for Microsoft Windows. (Microsoft eventually settled, and still bundles IE with most copies of Windows, but it was a huge mess.)

By not bundling the iBooks store as a built-in iPad app, it seems likely that Apple would be in better shape. It can say that iPad customers have equal access to rival e-reader apps and e-book stores, such as Amazon's or Barnes and Noble's, and aren't being pushed into Apple's e-book store.

Apple giving competitors a semi fair shake on their device? I'll believe it when I see it....

Jonathan says he "couldn’t find compelling evidence" that AT&T's contract with Apple ends this year. He gives it a 50% chance. Additionally, there's a 25% chance that AT&T would bid for -- and win -- another year of exclusivity. Add them up, you get 75%.

This guy is an analyst? Let's go for a quick review of basic probability. By his guess, there's a 50% chance Apple's contract w/ AT&T is over. And then, given that the contract is over, there's a 25% chance AT&T would win the bid for another year.

Basic conditional probability says P(A and B) equals P(A) * P(B given A). So the chance Apple stays w/ AT&T is 25% * 50% which is 12.5%. Pretty damn different from 75%....

Hulu is looking at charging $5 per month subscription fee to access older TV episodes, the LA Times reports.

One plan being considered would allow users to view the five most recent episodes of TV shows free but would require a subscription of $4.99 a month to watch older episodes. Hulu believes it will need at least 20 TV series -- both current ones and those no longer on the air -- to make such a pay service attractive to users. A firm pricing model could emerge within six months, the sources said.

Hulu has been thinking about a pay model for months now. In September, Chase Carey, COO at News Corp., said Hulu would have to charge for access to some parts of its business.

Following up on his comments, Carey said in November "Hulu will always have its core which is free, but we have to develop a dual revenue stream." Advertising revenue alone isn't going to support the site.

See Also: A Hulu You Have To Pay For Is "Not In The Cards" Says Comcast's COO

This is not a bad idea if they have COMPREHENSIVE archives of TV shows. Meaning every single episode of a lot of shows

you don't urge AT&T to improve its network and terms by attempting to bring it down or violating your contract with the entity. Much the same as you don't put out a fire with a gasoline shower.

A pretty damn good point. Forcing AT&T to deal with a PR nightmare and making them try to keep their network operational won't help. They'll be too busy dealing with this to improve the network

Any story that talks about some new phone being an “iPhone killer” is almost certainly a story you don’t need to read.

So remarkably true. The "iPhone killer" simply does not and will not exist. It's hyperbole that is meant to do nothing but draw readers in; which can be OK, but definitely is not when it has no substance.

Nothing will kill the iPhone. It will be the dominant phone for many years to come. It will never be killed like Windows will never be killed. The only thing that will bring it down is the distant future when Apple moves on to something else.

While a streaming model makes sense for both Apple and consumers -- Apple could sell music through search engines, etc. while customers could eliminate space-hogging libraries from their computers -- such a move would be a radical departure for Apple, which has insisted that customers want to "own" a physical copy of their music.

I absolutely disagree with the idea that Apple wants to completely remove users libraries from their computers, mostly because I can't see consumers being OK with that.

If I buy a song, I want it to be my song, and if I decide to move to an ecosystem besides Apple's I should be able to take it with me.

I can see, however, Apple giving you streaming access to your library anywhere you have internet access. And through that, completely freeing up your iPhone from storing music. If you have a RELIABLE, always on internet connection, then you don't need to waste your valuable mobile space. The iPod/Music app could become a streaming app.

The music industry might not be so willing to comply with Apple on this plan -- at least at favorable pricing. Unlike a few years ago when iTunes was a welcome savior to illegal downloads, many record labels probably think they can build their own streaming services and sell directly to consumers. As evidenced by today's Vevo launch, it wants a more proactive role in its future.

The problem with the music industry building their own streaming solution is that they'd all have to work together to build ONE site to make it effective. Whether Vevo is actually going to work is still up in the air (and keep in mind they have the power and audience of Youtube/Google helping them out on that endeavor).

Apple's control of digital music distribution will be hard for record companies to break. Working WITH Apple might be the best way for them to move into streaming audio and make a profit off of it

What do you say to Kindle users who like to read in the bathtub?
I’ll tell you what I do. I take a one-gallon Ziploc bag, and I put my Kindle in my one-gallon Ziploc bag, and it works beautifully. It’s much better than a physical book, because obviously if you put your physical book in a Ziploc bag you can’t turn the pages. But with Kindle, you can just push the buttons.

Honestly a pretty good idea. It's a little bit of cheap lifehack, but I'd bet it works pretty well. Well played Bezos