Google Buzz launched this past week with much fanfare and immediately generated a visceral reaction from both privacy advocates and fans of the the FriendFeed service. Before getting into those issues I'll take a minute to give you my take on Google Buzz and what it means for content creators and web community builders.

There are two main components to Google Buzz, aggregation and publishing. It's an aggregator that pulls information from other sites and adds them to your stream. I'll start by describing some of the publishing features. There are mobile and locational components to Google Buzz as well that are worth exploring. I won't cover them in this post though.

The image below shows the window that tells you what you have connected and what is available to connect to Buzz. The list of potential sites and services is mysteriouly generated based on things you have linked in your Google profile. My profile is here. If you don't have a Google Profile then I don't think Buzz will be of much use to you. The key thing to remember is that besides needing a Google Profile you also need to have personal links added to your profile (Google suggests some good ones) in order to have those sites available to add to Buzz. That means you can't just add any old RSS feed into the mix. It should surprise no one that Google gives high priority to Google owned services such as Picasa, YouTube and Google Chat.

Then there's the issue of the stream created by the sites you add. It's viewable in two places, your Google Profile and in Gmail. The image below shows what my Google Profile looks like with Buzz entries. Notice that people can now comment and like entries right from your profile.

I have quite a few thoughts about Apple's new iPad device that Steve Jobs recently showed off. Some of those thoughts are my personal feelings as a consumer and some are the thoughts of someone who observes (and sometimes participates) in the world of online media. I'll lead with my personal thoughts in this post and follow up with a post that considers the wider implications of the device.

The iPad is quite disappointing and not something I would buy. For all it can do you're still getting a device in the iPad that is very limiting. The max memory you can get is 64GB. That's a lot of memory for an iPhone but for a multimedia device like the iPad it's paltry. My personal music collection is over 20GB at this time so that even rules out the entry level. I'll also want to load the thing up with high res photos (several GB at least) and movies too. My movie library at present takes up over 100GB of space an it grows weekly as I burn DVDs from my collection. The space issue is also a convenience issue. It's a real hassle to deal with managing what I can or cannot have on the device to consume at any given time. I want to be able to access everything I have. That kind of access makes the iPad experience a carefree one.

There are a few of ways that Apple could address the space issue. First they could offer larger storage options. They may be technically limited with respect to the amount of memory supported on a flash chip. Perhaps Apple could add a second chip or work with memory makers to innovate and develop larger chips. Apple also has the option of adding an SD card slot. This seems like a no brainer feature that would allow the user more freedom and take away storage anxiety issues. Apple hasn't given access as of yet to the file system on the iPhone so perhaps that's why no SD card slot. This is a new device though and should (we would hope) be free from some of the more annoying limitations of the iPhone. Another possible remedy with the SD card would have iTunes be able to recognize media on the card and allow you to browse it on the device while the card in plugged in.

The iPad screen concerns me as well. You would think that a device meant to make a visual impact would support HD video content. But the screen only has a resolution of 1024x768 which is a fading standard at best. So how will those 1280x720 (or even 1680x1020) videos that YouTube now supports look on the iPad? Scrunched up I would imagine. Another issue with the screen is the orientation when docked. Since the iPhone is pretty useless when standing up in a dock then vertical orientation is no problem. But the iPad has a special keyboard dock which looks like an awesome accessory. But you're stuck with a vertical orientation. Sure I could live with that my preference is horizontal. Why not have two docking ports?

Then there's the multitasking issue. It's really unbelievable that a person can't run Pandora and view their photos or have a Twitter client open and work on a document. Yes, you can listen to your hearts content via iTunes while doing something else. And I think that's Apple's point. They want you using iTunes as much as possible. Which also explains no flash support for the iPad browser. No flash support in the browser means no Hulu or Netflix streaming which would be perfect for the device but also cut into the use of iTunes as a media player. Which brings me to a point about video.

Apple is very restrictive with respect to the video formats that they allow for playback on their devices. So unless you have an Apple TV or use iTunes as the place where you buy movies then it's unlikely that you'll have a wide array of content that will play on this device.This further locks the user into iTunes which in case you haven't noticed is very expensive to either buy or rent movies. I've thought about how great it would be for Hulu or Netflix to create an app for the iPad but it's not a given that Apple would approve it. The other option for Hulu and Netflix would be to encode videos into the correct (H.264 I believe) format for playback on the iPad. I gather that it would be an expensive endeavor to make that happen. So it's likely that Netflix and Hulu place their energies elsewhere.

Another question I have about the iPad is this. Where's the cloud? Seriously. This is a device that screams, CLOUD! Access to some sort of a media storage and delivery service (iTunes?) in the cloud would solve many of the storage problems and make the device infinitely more attractive. Imagine having access to your movies, music and photos anywhere you have an internet connection? That would be great and it would create a whole new business for Apple. Apple has already dipped their toe into the cloud with their MobileMe service which syncs email contacts and photos across devices. I have no doubt that adding music and movies to that mix would be tricky. The various studios and record companies have previously litigated against companies that let people upload music and movies for streaming, even for personal use. This is Apple we're talking about though. They already have a relationship with the entertainment industry, albeit a tenuous one.

Finally, I think the price of the iPad is too high. I know that $499 seams reasonable for a blown up iPod Touch given all the enhanced possibilities. That only gets you 16GB of storage though. And the accessories like the keyboard dock and the stand will cost you (no pricing on these yet) extra money. It's likely that the stand and keyboard will bump the cost up to $600. Add in the three iWork apps shown in the demo and then you're up to $630 before taxes which in New York would be about $50. So now you're closer to $700. Seems expensive to me given the limitations.

So what do I think the iPad is good for? It looks nicer as an e-book reader to me than the Amazon Kindle. That attractiveness may go away if the cost of the e-books (which is unknown at this time) ends up being more than $9.99. If it's as fast as people say it is then the iPad will be a great gaming device. The drawing features shown in the demo look nice too. I think that the use of touch is the most intuitive way to learn. My kids, both under 5, love my iPod Touch and immediately start interacting with the touch screen. I know that my wife would love to have her hands on this so she could surf the web while relaxing on the couch. E-books, web surfing, listening to music, gaming, fun and learning for the kids.

Those are some big pluses in favor of the iPad. But are they big enough to justify paying $550 (with tax and without accessories) for a device that has limited storage, no multitasking of apps and relies on iTunes for media playback? If I didn't already have two computers in the house, plus a netbook and an iPod Touch I'd say that price is right. Given all that I do have I say it's not a prudent expenditure. In the end discerning the value to me and the thus the right price point depends upon may assessment of where the iPad might fit into the digital lifestyle of my family. That's something I'll be pondering over the next few months.

In my next post I plan to touch on some of the opportunities that the iPad presents for app developers, media publishers and web community builders.

A year and a half ago I weighed in on third party commenting systems. My message? Avoid them. It's time to rethink that position. Here's why. Social technology has changed alot since then. At the time of my original post there were fewer compelling reasons to use outside systems. For the most part the added value of those systems came in the form of additional features (like threaded comments for example) that the native comment systems of WordPress and Drupal didn't have. Since then WordPress and Drupal have both added threaded commenting to their core software as I knew they would. But something else has happened since.

A number of compelling identity systems have emerged. Facebook, Twitter, and Google have launched APIs (application programming interfaces) that allow 3rd party software to connect with their sites, access profile information and post content. As a result of this development website owners have a new authentication option for visitors to their site. Instead of having people verify their identity by setting up a new account, they can login with an existing profile. Beyond that, when visitors make comments they can push notifications about the comments back to the service of their choice. So they can let their network know about your site when they make a comment. These types of features really expand the possibilities for people to discover your website and are also likely to increase engagement since people can quickly make comments without having to create a new account. All good stuff.

While systems like WordPress and Drupal have modules that support these types of plugins the support for them is a bit spotty. For example, I've gotten Google Friend Connect working on my Learn By The Drop site. Unfortunately I've had to implement a workaround to the module because the initial release hasn't been updated. There are other modules that offer connection to Twitter, Facebook and Google for all the major open source systems but there always seems to be a catch. Either you have to rely on yet another service provider (in the case of Gigya Socialize) or you need to install multiple modules (that don't necessarily play nice with each other) in order to to take advantage of all the services. Dropping in a third party commenting system is one way to get around those issues.

Right now there are three major players in the comment space, Disqus, IntenseDebate and Echo (formerly known as JS-Kit). IntenseDebate is owned by Automattic which runs the WordPress.com service. Based on my research it actually looks like Disqus and Echo are the more promising options for dropping in a new comment system on your site. I've seen some negative comments about Intense Debate. My friend Neville Hobson in the UK tried it and lost confidence in the service. It also appears that IntenseDebate does not currently appear to support Google Friend Connect. Meanwhile both Echo and Disqus have had high profile system enhancements that make those services very effective. I've posted a quick screencast below that shows how those two services work.

While there are some nice benefits of outsourcing your comments there are also some drawbacks. First off, since you're embedding a system running on another server then if that server goes down it could take your site down or at the very least take down your comments for the length of the outage. A slow server on their part will slow your site down as well. Both of those things can really kill activity on your site. Of late it seems like the services mentioned here have performed well but you never know. There's also the issue of retaining existing comments and taking comments with you if you leave. I know that Disqus does a good job with retaining all of your comments. Echo will import comments and keep the Echo comments synced with your native commenting system in the background. So both of these services sound like they make it easy to switch back if you don't like them.

Disqus and IntenseDebate are free whereas Echo costs $12 a year and you can go "white label" with Echo for $48 per year. Many people are put off by having to pay for social services such as this but you have to consider that a source of revenue means something. Companies that charge are more likely to continue upgrading their services to satisfy their paying customers. This assumes that the service is a quality one that works well. Both Disqus and Echo meet that criteria. The jury is still out for me on IntenseDebate.

So I was talking with a Verizon rep yesterday about switching my internet from cable to Verizon FiOS and I have to say they were very aggressive with their pricing offers for someone switching over from cable. I'm generally happy with my current cable setup but with all the video I upload I want quicker upload speeds than 1megabyte per second. Unfortunately my current cable provider does not offer any faster upload speeds on residential accounts. FiOS on the other hand offers 15/mb down and 5/mb up on their basic plan. For someone who uploads a lot of content the Verizon option is obviously better. And with prices like $45 per month for both FiOS and phone guaranteed for two years I was in for the change which also includes a $150 gift card after 60 days of service. It's pretty clear that Verizon is currently very serious about acquiring new customers.

At some point in the process the Verizon rep mentioned that things were going to get better in 2010 with respect to FiOS. Now perhaps it was just sales talk but he said that Verizon plans to "change the game" by offering 25/mb down and 25/mb up as their basic plan. So that would mean that everyone at the 15/5 tier would get the upgrade. If true, it could blow cable providers out of the water when it comes to residential internet access. As far as I know there's no cable provider that is currently willing to offer those speeds as a basic service level. I would imagine that the competition would be forced to offer similar deals.

This situation also has implications for content creators and small businesses who really want to leverage the power of rich media on the internet. High definition video, quality audio and boatloads of photos could be uploaded in a few minutes as opposed to an hour or more. And this can be done at a very accessible cost. On the content consumer side we can expect to see a greater appetite for rich media on computers and televisions alike. Services like those offered by Roku and Boxee which are getting more mature will help consumers get that content to televisions.

It usually takes one company to step up in order to change the paradigm in an industry. Verizon just might be the company to do that for the residential/small business internet access industry in 2010. Stay tuned.