I still can't figure out the reasons why content owners allowed Hulu to offer up TV shows in a browser... but then absolutely flipped out when they realized that the very same content can be seen on browsers on other devices as well. In the past, we've noted that Hulu was pressured to block the Boxee browser (which lets you view content on your TV) and the PS3's browser (also for TVs). Now, via hamill8152, we learn that Hulu is also blocking content on Skyfire, a mobile browser for Windows Mobile phones. The reasoning is the same as always (and, at the very least, kudos to Hulu for being upfront about the idiotic pressure it comes under from clueless content owners). Hulu explains the whole "windowing" thought process of the folks in Hollywood, and suggests that these windows will eventually go away. Of course, it's worth pointing out that Hollywood so disagrees with this that the MPAA has been pushing for ways to add more windows. Either way, the whole thing is silly. If you're putting your content on the internet, you're putting it on the internet. Pretending that televisions or mobile phones can't also view content on the internet makes no sense. One day, people in charge will understand this. Until then...

Following the recent post we had about Apple taking down popular games from its App store, the latest buzz in on Apple denying a comic book reader entrance to its iPhone app store because the primary comic book being offered was too violent. This has created quite an uproar -- though, again, Apple has been upfront about the fact that this is a closed system from the beginning. So, it's not entirely clear why people are pissed off at Apple. It hasn't mislead anyone about the fact that it will block and censor content and apps.

Still, it does make you wonder why Apple is bothering? All it seems to do is piss off people. It takes extra work and effort on Apple's part and it's hard to see who benefits. Plenty of other systems out there allow anyone to develop apps and content, and they get by just fine, often using user feedback systems to make sure that "bad" content and apps get weeded out fast, without any complaints from users. Having Apple set itself up as the ultimate gatekeeper isn't "censorship" -- it's just pointless.

Two different themes we've discussed here quite often are (1) that movie theaters need to stop worrying about piracy, and focus more on improving the moviegoing experience and (2) that advertising is content -- and it better be good content if you want the advertising to be effective. That's why it's somewhat encouraging to see that movie theaters are now experimenting with much more entertaining and interactive "pre-show" advertising. They're doing things like using motion sensors to have the audience "play" a game as a group, or having them use their mobile phones to vote on certain questions on the screen and immediately showing the results. That latter example may be doubly surprising considering how theaters these days are so anti-mobile phone. Still, while this is a move in the right direction, it's the wrong thing to be focusing on at this point. Improving the overall experience is much more important than making the pre-show ads better, so hopefully this is only one small part of what theaters are working on these days.

We were just talking about how people don't want to watch broadcast TV on their mobile phones, as the content isn't really designed for people on the go, and all of a sudden Sony thinks that people will want to watch full-length feature films on their mobile phones? Yes, Sony has worked out a deal to offer streaming feature films on AT&T mobile phones starting in May. The films are old films that have already had all the marketing life squeezed to death out of them ("Karate Kid," "Ghostbusters," "Bugsy"). While there won't be a charge to watch them, they will include advertisements (because there's nothing people like better than watching commercials on a tiny mobile screen as they wait to see the ending of "Ghostbusters"). Oh yeah, also, viewers have no control over the timing. It's not "on-demand," it'll just be an ongoing loop. Weren't companies like AT&T just complaining about too much bandwidth being wasted?

On Friday, I expressed skepticism that e-book technology has reached the point where it will overtake the paper book. Now Amazon's PR blitz has begun, and so we're getting more details about the Kindle's features and pricing. I'm not impressed. First, there's the obvious point that the device's DRM will make a lot of customers wary of getting locked into Amazon's proprietary platform. But the even bigger flaw is the pricing model. Apparently, Amazon will charge you $1.99 for public domain books like Bleak House. Kindle also provides you with access to blogs, but only 250 of them (including Techdirt), and you have to pay at least a dollar a month for the privilege of reading what you can see here for free. And you can subscribe to the New York Times, but you have to pay $13.99 per month for that. This really seems like a strange pricing strategy. A lot of consumers will balk at paying for blog content they've always gotten for free online. Likewise, giving away public domain books would be a good way to spur adoption of the device at very low cost to Amazon. And it's weird to charge so much for a digital newspaper at the same time newspapers are dropping their paywalls online. Even the price for new books, $9.99, seems too expensive. Publishers don't have to print, ship, and stock e-books, so their costs are obviously a lot lower. On top of that, the demand for a lot of books is likely to be quite elastic—cut the price in half and you could easily double the number of sales.

The one undeniably innovative thing about the Kindle is the free wireless EVDO access. The limits on access to Internet content may be an attempt to keep the bandwidth consumption down. But in a world where you can get an unlimited data plan for your iPhone for $20 per month, they should at least have an option for a flat rate "all you can eat" data plan, which would allow you to access Internet content and subscribe to an unlimited number of blogs, newspapers, and public domain books. Bezos obviously wants this to be the iPod of the printed word. But one of the crucial factors behind the iPod's success is that it gives you free access to content in open formats. You can rip your CDs and listen to them on an iPod. You can subscribe to an unlimited number of podcasts. With the Kindle, in contrast, Amazon apparently expects customers to buy an unfamiliar proprietary device, and then pay a premium to read content like blogs and public domain books that's available for free on the Internet. Somehow I don't think that very many people are going to go for that.