Holy tablets Batman! CES 2011 was flooded with companies promoting their soon-to-come tablet computers including Toshiba, Vizio, Acer, Samsung, Motorola, Blackberry and more. Most will run some version of Android but a couple will have other operating systems like Blackberry or Windows 7. Two major players who didn't announce anything tablet related, but probably will in the coming weeks are Apple and HP. HP has scheduled a WebOS event for February 9th. Odds are they will announce a tablet computer. Then there's Apple which will almost certainly reveal their second generation iPad soon.

Here's my quick take on the situation. It's a train wreck. I think that there's only room for a few major players in the tablet space because a) they're still pretty expensive so the market is relatively small, and b) if people are spending good money they want something that works really well and integrates with their other computing devices. Also, the many flavors of Android will confuse consumers and perhaps push them to the next gen iPad which will probably add features that answer most people's grievances with the device. I have talked to several people since Christmas who bought iPads and love them because they complement their iPhones and Apple TVs. That's exactly what I was predicting in my post on the new Apple TV as part of an ecosystem.

Oh, and there's one more player lurking that can really shake things up. Amazon.com is building an Android app store. I think that they have their own version of an Android tablet in the works. It will be very successful. Amazon has proven with the Kindle that they can design a quality device and get it to the market. 

Check out some tablet videos from CES 2011 after the break.

I have been watching the discussion about the Google Chrome OS with great interest. Since there hadn't been much news on the OS in the past year I thought maybe that Google had decided to focus more on Android and continue to develop Chrome as only a web browser. But then Google launched their Chrome OS beta by sending out about 60,000 laptops loaded up with Chrome to lucky people around the globe. The hardware that is being sent out is certainly nothing to write home about. The specs are a little better than those of a netbook with an Intel Atom processor and 2GB of RAM and a 12 inch LCD display. Google is not calling it a netbook though. They prefer the term notebook.

From afar it looks to me like there are many interesting contradictions that the Chrome notebook experience has to offer. The battery life of the machine is stupendous, offering 8 hours (or more) on a full charge. There's also a ridiculously fast 10 second booting time. And it's light, weighing under 4 pounds. These attributes remind me of the 13 inch Macbook Air. There's also a 16GB solid state drive for storage but no real access to a local file system, an app store for new applications, and 3G data access for connectivity when Wifi is not available. This reminds me of an iPad. Finally, I've read stories about poor performance while running Adobe Flash. That reminds me of my old Dell Mini 10 netbook. So what do you get when you cross the efficiency of the Macbook Air with the iPad file system and netbook-level performance? Nothing too exciting, except for the software. Then again this is "reference" hardware and real machines are expected to be for sale early in 2011. I assume that the hardware manufacturers and Google will be listening intently to the opinions of their beta testers. 

One thing I have been asking myself is could (or would) I use such a device? What purpose would it serve? How would I have to change the way I work in order to enjoy the experience? First of all there would have to be a working SD card drive on the device. One of the biggest gripes about the iPad had been the need for a camera connection kit that costs extra. Whatever the hit to the weight of the case (it shouldn't be much)  they need to have that present. Access to the file system is also going to be a must have as well. It doesn't have to be anything fancy, and the space can be limited, but something is needed to allow a person to save and/or upload some files from time-to-time. Offline access to Google Docs and Gmail are critical as well. I've heard that this is coming in early 2011. Even with these additions you're still getting a pretty bare-bones system so I would expect the price to match. I think that the forthcoming hardware must price under $500 (which still may be too high) in order for consumers to consider adopting the machine. I'm basing this expectation on the fact that the Chrome notebook will be competing against the 2nd generation iPad and many first generation Android tablets. 

For the moment Google is positioning the hardware as a business machine which means that the SD card option won't be as important. But I think that the other improvements I mentioned will be important either way. Especially because the iPad is now gaining traction as a business device as well. In spite of the notoriety of the CR-48 all signs point to a very tough road for the Chrome OS notebook. They have significant competitors including feature rich and reasonably priced Windows 7 notebooks (like the Samsung QX410), and Apple and Android (oh the irony) tablets. Google may end up trying to get themselves an edge by pitching Chrome notebooks to enterprise users while also selling them on Google Apps.

The Chrome software is another story. From what I've read the browser is the software so if you've used Google Chrome lately you're very familiar with the experience. I've been using Chrome as my primary browser for several months and you really can't beat the speed of the browser. There are also many more extensions available for Chrome than there were in early 2010 and that has made the transition from Firefox much easier. So I think that as a software platform alone Chrome is a big winner so far. The browser has been taking market share from the other major browsers and developers are creating extensions, which I guess will now be called apps since Chrome has launched their app store. Unfortunately many of the apps appear to be just websites that you could access and use with another browser. if that trend continues it will be good for all web users and not very good for Google since it will remove the necessity to download Chrome. it also wouldn't be good for Apple which is counting on lots of revenue from paid apps that are proprietary to iOS. 

So in short I think that Google has great browser possibilities and questionable operating system possibilities with Chrome. Part of the problem is due to the success of Android, which will show up on many a tablet next year. The timing of the Chrome OS launch makes me wonder if the release of the hardware is meant to cause Apple and Microsoft to change direction. Or perhaps it's a ploy to encourage developers to build web apps instead of proprietary apps for iOS devices. We'll know in a few months when the Chrome OS hardware launches. Until then I recommend making Google Chrome your default browser if you want to get the Chrome OS experience. 

When big companies such as Yahoo acquire small companies like Delicious or Flickr they usually do so with the best of intentions but almost always seem to end up messing it all up. The world of Web 2.0 has seen more than their fair share of these situations. Think News Corp's acquisition of MySpace. Or how about Google's acquisition of Dodgeball. There's AOL's purchase of Bebo. And of course Yahoo with their purchases of Flickr, Delicious and others. Some really cool web properties with passionate users and bright futures end up either shut down or marginalized. What gives?

Having worked for both really large (tens of thousands of employees) and really small (started with less than thirty employees) technology companies I feel that I can offer some insights. At a very basic level it usually comes down to the right hand at the big acquiring company not knowing what the left hand is doing. A group of people sit in an office and talk about all the reasons that a deal to purchase company XYZ is a good one. They come to the conclusion that it should happen, and they have the power and the resources to close the deal. The problem is that there are usually other very similar groups of people in the other areas of the company that have different ideas and strategies in mind. The two groups don't really start talking til the deal is done and the whole company knows about it. 

All of the promises (beyond money) of the approach to the acquisition that were made to the acquired firm go straight out the window as the internal forces of the big company struggle to figure out how to fit the new acquisition into the overall strategy, which wasn't properly considered prior to the acquisition. While the acquired company is trying to adjust a battle rages at the levels above them in the organization, and that means a few things will also happen.

1. Immediate plans following the acquisition are put on hold;
2. The morale of the acquired team founders;
3. The performance of the acquired team is degraded;
4. The associated service gradually moves from industry leader to laggard;
5. The deal starts to look like a bust so the acquired firm is then shut down, integrated into other areas of the business or sold.

What fun!

I'm not sure that there's any way to prevent such things from happening again, and frequently, in the future. The reason is that most of the companies that end up in these situations are funded by venture capital. So the decision to sell is typically in the hands of a board dominated by investors keen on exiting quick with a nice return on their investments. I can't say I blame them. On the other side of the equation you have companies whose arteries of innovation are pumping sludge. So the only way they feel like they can innovate is by purchasing innovators and mixing them with the sludge to loosen things up. It usually doesn't work.

There are a lot more losers than winners in these scenarios. The venture investors and company founders are typically net winners in these situations. The VCs get their ROI so they're happy. The company founders lose control of their companies completely but they usually also gain enough money and prestige from the acquisition that they get to go and do whatever they want. The acquiring companies are typically losers because they sink millions of dollars into non-performing assets. The rank-and-file employees of the acquired firms are losers to. They may get something as a result of the acquisition (a stay-on bonus and/or compensation for stock options) but it's nowhere near what the VCs or founders get. So they need to soldier on as employees with new, uninspiring bosses. Finally the customers of the acquired firms suffer.

I've experienced some of the acquisitions mentioned in this post from the perspective of the customer. You think, "Great, the service will improve since Large Co. has lots of resources to put into the business." Unfortunately I haven't seen that happen in most cases. Changes to Delicious were few and far between after the acquisition by Yahoo. Likewise, Flickr (which has survived most of Yahoo's cuts) has moved slowly to update their platform. Consider that their answer to the overwhelming desire of their members to store and share video lead to an option that limits video lengths of ninety seconds. Gee thanks. It's pretty obvious that Yahoo just didn't want to put the effort into doing better for their loyal (and many paying) customers. In some cases companies (like Facebook with their recent acquisition of Drop.io) just shut the service down. Which leads me to the bottom line.

If you're an individual or a business user of web based services you just can't completely count on them. You need to have a backup plan, and perhaps even a backup service that you use so if one gets purchased you have the option to move to a new platform quickly if necessary. That's all you can do really. If you're running one of these small, hot internet companies you should think about this too. If you grow on your own you face great risks. Those risks continue even after you've taken venture money. Will you feel good if you cash out but your customers and employees end up out of luck? I wouldn't blame you if you did because you probably risked a lot and did without to get to that point. Still, there is a longer view to be considered. And it seems to be very difficult to find a second winning idea in this environment. If you're an employee remember that you're just a cog in a machine that will change significantly once acquired. All the promises are just promises destined to be broken. Perhaps you might want to be the naysayer when your company founder asks you what you think of a proposed acquisition.

There are major changes afoot in the world of computer operating systems. Since the original iPhone was released in 2007 many people and companies have altered their expectations about their mobile device experiences. For many years cell phone operating systems were expected to be just utilitarian enough to easily manage a few basic tasks such as making calls, sending text messages, snapping a quick photo, or listening to an MP3 file. The added features of the the smartphone were usually centered around a bigger screen, a better keyboard, and improved contact and appointment management. The non-cell phone mobile devices in play were MP3 players which also offered the basic functionality required to play music. As we all know the iPhone forever redefined expectations and changed the mobile industry.

We now expect that our mobile experiences will be much more robust with access to the full web (less Flash in some cases), video chat, high quality cameras, media sharing, games, both local and internet streamed video content and more. Performance of these devices (which include smartphones and tablets) has greatly improved too. The user interfaces have improved to the point where full touch screens are not only acceptable, but preferred by many people. These capabilities are now available via a range of platforms in addition to the iPhone including Android, HP Web OS and the newer Blackberry OS. In a few days Microsoft will officially get into the game with their Windows 7 Phone platform.

Is it too little too late for Microsoft? Can they catch up to the formidable competition in this space? I have been pondering these questions because I'm also pondering future computing purchases. For years my house has been a Windows house but Apple products have slowly been creeping into our lives. It all started with the 1st Gen iPod Touch, and now I'm the owner of both an iPhone 4 and an iPad. We have two year-old HP desktops in the house that run Windows 7. My wife and I are very happy with our Windows 7 desktops. The experience is much better than it was with Windows XP. I credit Microsoft with really coming through on Windows 7 but having spent six months with an iPad, and having seen the coming upgrades to Mac OS X, I'm starting to think differently. Pun intended! 

At the moment the only computer that my kids interact with is the iPad. They absolutely love it. The touch interface is very simple for them to navigate. Closing a program with the press of a button and opening another by tapping a graphical icon have been simple tasks for them to master. They also love double tapping photos to zoom in, and have fun flicking through photos with a light touch of their finger. My children are 5+ and 2+ and until the iPad came along I thought it would be a few more years before they would be able to interact with a real computer on their own. The combination of the mouse and the QWERTY keyboard, while definitely useful for adults, presents a real barrier to kids with small hands who can’t read too well yet. The touch interface of the iPad has removed those barriers though. So when it comes time for a more advanced computer experience you can bet that they will expect a comparable experience. The upgrades to Mac OS X, combined with some new hardware like the new MacBook Air appear to provide that experience.

At the present time the new MacBook Air supports multi-touch via Apple's trackpad technology. Once OS X Lion is released next summer users will be able to swipe the pad left and right to move from screen to screen of applications as part of a new feature called Launchpad. An app store like the iOS app store but for Macs is coming in a few months. The changes are not merely software related though. With their newest hardware Apple has shown that you can have a computer that is thin and light but also performs like a full size laptop. Beyond performing like a laptop you can have a computer that also acts like a tablet if you use solid state storage which they have in the MacBook Air. That means you can boot the computer in seconds and wake the computer from sleep mode in an instant. These are all features that people love right now and will continue to expect in the future. These are also the kind of features that I believe will entice people to switch from Microsoft powered laptops and desktops to Macs.

Since Microsoft is different from Apple I don't expect them to make a 180-degree turn and start producing their own hardware. But I do hope that Microsoft starts producing software that can support the right hardware for the next generation of computing devices. Consideration of touch interfaces, solid state storage and downloadable apps should be at the forefront of the next generation Windows design. The processor and memory are a large part of the equation when it comes to performance. So I think that Microsoft will have to work even more closely with both the hardware manufacturers and the chip makers to bring products to market that can compete with Apple, Samsung, RIM and the other companies that are likely to expand on their tablet offerings. 

Based on what I've seen recently it is going to be a serious uphill climb for Microsoft. Windows 7 appears to be way behind iOS and Android in terms of features and applications. And there are indications that Windows 8 (which I assume would contain the necessary upgrades) could be two years away. That's a long time in the world of technology. Perhaps too long for Microsoft to be able to hold onto their commanding lead in computer OS market share. Just like Firefox and Chrome have helped to chip away at Microsoft's commanding lead in web browser market share, Apple's future operating systems, Android, and perhaps others will chip away at Microsoft's OS market share. Given Steve Ballmer's recent comments and Microsoft's progress on Windows Phone 7 I think that's likely to occur.

You may have heard that Apple announced a new Apple TV box this past week. Apple TV has been around for a few years but the previous model didn't do so well in terms of sales so many people predicted that this new model would eventually appear. The main differences between the old and the new one comes down to size and general approach to the experience. The old box was big whereas this one is very small. The old box had a hard drive whereas the new Apple TV does not. There have been a lot of questions about what this new approach means for content and the possibilities for cutting the cord with cable. Of course I have my own opinions.

First of all I think that the move towards a box without a hard drive recognizes the challenges related to local storage on these boxes. A local hard drive basically means that the box is a mini-computer with all of the power and processor needs of a mini-computer. The previous Apple TV was considered to be under-powered and thus it did not perform well. By removing the hard drive and adding a new processing chip Apple is leaving the heavy lifting to their servers or your home computer. It's an approach that makes sense because it allows you to get more out of your existing technology while also saving you money. You see the new Apple TV box only costs $99. The old Apple TV with all the bells and whistles cost $250. I think that Apple is right to think that if you're going to add this type of box to your television you probably have the computing power on other boxes to stream content to the new Apple TV.

Unlike the old box the new box is connected to Netflix which means that you have access to the Netflix streaming video library. This is Apple taking a pragmatic approach to this product. The fact is that if you want to sell a TV connected box it better have Netflix as an option. Without Netflix you're done. So this is another win for Netflix, but it also doesn't hurt Apple other video streaming option which is iTunes. Why not? The Netflix streaming catalog is severely limited and while there is a lot of good content on there you won't find a lot of new content. On the other hand iTunes has first run videos to rent or buy even before Netflix has the DVDs available. So Netflix and iTunes are complimentary, not competing with each other. Apple knows that content access is key and with the Netflix/iTunes combo they have a strong proposition. They have made the proposition even stronger by offering ninety-nine cent "HD" video rentals from ABC and Fox. Here's where the real future potential exists. If they can convince other TV networks to join this rental scheme then it could change the economics of TV in a way that the cable companies will not like. That's a big "if" though because the cable companies have their own plans.

The final aspect of this new Apple TV that really means something involves what Apple is now calling AirPlay. This creates real synergy with the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad. It allows you to beam content from those devices to your television via Apple TV at the tap of a button. That is a big deal and it is meant to make this box a must have for people who have one or more of those other iOS devices. It makes the new Apple TV the cherry on top if you will. And a lot of people have iOS devices now. So once that functionality goes live (sometime in November 2010)  the whole package makes a lot more sense.

So I think that this box is not about trying to create a knockout standalone device. The new Apple TV is about closing the loop on an ecosystem that places Apple devices in every aspect of your life and every room of your house. It's more important for Apple to find a place in your living room via this low cost, low profile device than to sell you a complicated box that does it all. Apple has that advantage over the other internet connected set top box makers. 

While I think that Apple is making yet another smart move with this new Apple TV I do think that there are worthy competitors out there. I'm the owner of a WD TV Live Plus HD box and I have to say that I am very happy with it. It does just about everything the Apple TV box does except integrate with iOS devices or offer iTunes access. Apple TV does have built in wi-fi which the WD TV box doesn't but that can be added to the WD TV box with a $30 USB wi-fi adapter. I'm surprised that other websites have ignored a comparison between the WD TV product and the Apple TV. Instead they have focused on comparisons with the Roku and Boxee boxes. Unlike the Roku or Apple TV the WD TV box allows local storage to be connected via a USB port. Unlike the Boxee box, the WD TV box is actually for sale! Oh and Google has their own play in this space via the forthcoming Logitech Revue which is powered by Google TV software.

As you can see this is a very competitive space right now. I haven't even discussed the fact that Samsung and Sony among others are building applications right into HD television sets. As competitive as it is Apple is the only company that will soon have real synergy across the many devices that people all ready have. That's why I think their strategy will probably be the one that wins out in the end.

For years the people who utilized web-based systems to build websites have been spoiled by no-cost options such as Blogger, WordPress and Ning. As interest in these types of services has grown and the systems have become more complex the costs to run the services have risen as well. These factors have lead to more premium options where you are asked to pay a few dollars for additional storage, extra features or no ads on your site. Some services have chosen the freemium model offering a completely free tier of service with certain limits that can be removed or extra features available for a fee. Others have chosen to go 100% premium perhaps offering a short free trial period and then requiring a monthly payment to continue using the service. Completely free options are few and far between these days but that is a good thing in my opinion.

Blogger (which is owned by Google) is still 100% free but its features are limited when compared to many newer, premium services. Blogger is still great for creating blogs but if you want to move beyond the blog to create a web system then you'll need to look elsewhere. WordPress.com runs a freemium model. You get your blog for free and can pay to remove ads or add features such as video uploading or custom CSS. WordPress.com is still very much a blogging platform although the number of features (mostly premium ones) has increased over the last couple of years. Ning used to run on a freemium model but on July 20th they go 100% premium with plans starting at an affordable $2.95 per month.

Ning won't find themselves alone in the premium web system market. Most new services are launching with fee-based services. Squarespace has been around for a few years and they're business model is a premium one. They've met the competition by offering point-and-click design tools, a very detailed and feature-rich web based interface, strong native analytics and an iPhone application. Squarespace has also been aggressively advertising on some top tech shows such as Leo Laporte's This Week in Tech. Their hard work has attracted a recent round of funding that will help Squarespace take on their other well funded competitors.

While Squarespace and Ning are built on proprietary platforms WordPress.com is built on the WordPress open source package. It might seem a bit strange to charge for something that is available to download for free but it is now very clear that there is a lot of value in having someone handle the infrastructure, upgrades and other advanced services for a fee. Many hobbyists might not care about things like that but businesses and even individuals who are serious about web publishing and building communities do care and are willing to pay to reduce their hassles and increase functionality. So it's no surprise that the Drupal platform has spawned a pair of pretty high profile web-based services with Drupal Gardens and Buzzr. Both allow customers to build out sites using web based tools. Both allow new users to try out their service while at the same time being focused on converting site builders to paying customers.

Buzzr has enterprise pricing that covers up to 49 websites. Drupal Gardens does offer a free level (with ads and 1GB of storage) and premium tiers (ad free while offering more storage and bandwidth) for $20 and $40 per month. Based on the pricing differences it's obvious that Buzzr is more of a business-to-business offering targeting web development shops while Drupal Gardens is more oriented towards individual web developers as well as those who are very new to Drupal. Both expand on the very basic Drupal interface to add tools and options that make building sites faster and easier.

So the trend that I'm seeing is that new services are launching with paid tiers from day one while existing services are expanding their features and charging for the new functionality. These are good trends. Maintaining a quality web system costs money. There are wonderful economies of scale with web technology but those economies don't matter if no one is paying the bills. There are a number of competing services and that gives customers a choice. If service A is going to charge a monthly fee than they had better deliver something more than either the (quickly dwindling) free options and the other premium options in the marketplace. The revenue gained from charging a fee makes it easier for all of these services to grow without having to worry about how to pay the bills and keep investors happy. Having to pay would stink if there was no competition and the feature sets remained stagnant. That's not happening though. Rich media support is improving. Bandwidth and storage allocations are improving. Over time I think that customers will get more for less as the economies improve and the user base of these services grows.

Here's the bottom line. Do not lament the fact that you will probably have to pay to have an ad-free website or blog. If you value your content and the people who consume it or if you hope to build a web-based community or web-based business then $5, $10 or $25 per month is a small price to pay for a site whose technology is managed for you. That means you can focus on distributing your content, expanding your community and building your business.

Recently the hosted social networking service called Ning decided to ditch the concept of free accounts in favor of focusing on paid services. Evidently the $100 million or so invested in Ning has not been returning enough to satisfy investors. The move is understandable for a variety of reasons. Paid sites will generally have better quality content, less spam, and more time invested by their owners. With all of the great services offered by Ning, like video hosting, user blogs, widgets, open social and more, you'd think that they would be able to grow the site and build revenue with both paid and free accounts. Unfortunately for Ning there's this little site called Facebook.

Facebook offers the option to create pages and those pages offer many of the same features that Ning's networks offer including blog posts, videos, photo galleries, and single sign on. Sign on to Facebook once and you can interact with thousands of pages created by everyone from Mom's concerned about lactose in milk to the local indie rock band. So given the choice between creating a presence on Facebook and creating a presence on Ning, many more people choose Facebook. In fact companies of all sizes are entrusting more of their online strategy to pages on Facebook simply because that's where the masses are. So Facebook pages are a BIG thing and that means changes to how the pages work should be a big deal to the people who rely on those pages.

This past week Facebook announced a major change to the concept of interacting with pages. You see, Facebook offers a free widget to page owners that they can place on other sites. Before this week that widget prompted visitors to "follow" the page promoted in the widget. This past week the folks at Facebook changed all existing widgets so that the prompt is now to "like" rather than follow. I think that there's a big difference between the concepts of follow and like. The concept of follow is more beneficial to the page creator whereas the concept of like is more beneficial to Facebook.

Think about it for a second. Following implies engagement. Liking is a more shallow concept. Following implies an ongoing connection. Liking implies a one time acknowledgement of a preference. That's one reason my the whole like vs. follow situation is bad news for people maintaining Facebook pages. The other piece of bad news involves how Facebook will use the "like" data. Of course there will be copious sharing with other applications and websites. Yes, you can opt out. But millions of people have automatically been opted in without even really understanding how their click data is being used. If you run a Facebook page (I have a couple) should you warn your followers (or likers) about this? To be honest I'm not even sure exactly how the data is shared. What I do know is that Facebook needs more clicks because more clicks means more data for marketers. And marketing data is the chief asset of Facebook right now. You, on the other hand need more engagement. What's a promoter of things on the web to do?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Don't put so much effort into Facebook that you neglect to build a strong presence on your own domain. Think of your Facebook page as an outpost. Put resources into it. Give it some attention. But focus the majority of your resources into a domain and experience that you control. If content is really important, post it on your own site first and cross post it to your Facebook page. The smarter investment is the investment into your own domain.

A significant new service has launched into beta since I posted my Hosted Web System Comparison a few months ago. The service is called Drupal Gardens. Drupal Gardens is a product of Acquia which specializes in commercial support of the open source Drupal content management platform.

As the name implies Drupal Gardens is a hosted version of Drupal, or Drupal in the cloud. This gives you access to the functionality of Drupal without having to create a hosting account, upload files and manage databases. In that sense it's a service that is very similar to WordPress.com. If you're not familiar with Drupal I suggest that you see my Beginners Guide To Drupal which provides an overview of the capabilities of the platform.

Drupal Gardens is built on top of Drupal 7 which is currently in alpha and available for download. Drupal Gardens is not just a recreation of Drupal 7. It includes a new point and click theming tool (pictured below) that allows non-designer types (count me as part of that group) the ability to switch and customize many elements of their theme very easily. This functionality is similar to what is offered by Squarespace. There's also a WYSIWYG editor (using CKEditor) which is something not included in Drupal 7 core.

Drupal Gardens Theme Interface

Because Drupal Gardens allows you to build sites that range from basic blogs to full communities it is more of an alternative to services like Squarespace and Ning than Wordpress.com or Typepad. I have added Drupal Gardens to my Hosted Web System Comparison so you can see how it measures up to all of these services. Since it's early in the beta period you can expect that features will expand as Acquia processes feedback from the community.

Drupal Gardens is employing a freemium business model which allows you to create a site for free that has traffic limits and advertisements. For either $19.95 or $39.95 per month, per site you can remove the ads and expand traffic limits. This may seem pricey to those who are used to paying $9.95 per month for shared hosting that allows for multiple sites. You have to consider that when you pay for a service like this you're paying for the simplicity, convenience and performance that you won't be getting in a shared hosting environment.

There's a unique element to the Drupal Gardens service that I haven't yet found with other hosted web systems. If you get to the point where you want to move to your own hosting you can export your entire site and migrate it to Drupal on the host of your choice. I know with WordPress.com you can export the posts and the comments but I don't think you can take the files with you as well. So that's definitely something to consider. 

At the present time rich media support within Drupal Gardens is limited. You can upload and automatically resize images for inclusion within posts. There's also a media library that allows you to access your previously uploaded images. In my limited testing so far I have not found a way to easily create image galleries. Uploading and handling of audio and video are still a question mark? I haven't seen any indications of how these will be handled and what limits for file sizes and total storage allocated will be in effect. So if you're site is going to be a media heavy effort you'll probably want to keep an eye on the Drupal Gardens blog to see what they announce.

There's no doubt that Drupal Gardens is going to be a contender in the hosted web system space. The service is still in the early phases of development so it may not be ready for your new production website yet. The good news for those who want to give it a try is that the platform is free at all levels til the end of 2010 so you can assess the readiness and your level of comfort without any risk. Right now you'll have to do with a yoursite.drupalgardens.com web address but they should have custom domains up and running in the near future.

Current Drupal site builders should consider having a look at Drupal Gardens as a way to preview some of the features available in Drupal 7. Drupal Gardens may also end up being a good option for serving clients who need community sites built and deployed quickly. For those who are new to Drupal this is probably the best way to get acclimated to the interface and features of the Drupal platform without having to install databases and get into all that technical stuff.

In my previous post I offered up some personal thoughts on the iPad as a technology buyer. Although I opined that there's a lot not to like about the iPad that doesn't mean there aren't new opportunities to be exploited or at least considered. Most of the issues I've been thinking about relate to the increased screen size and beefed up processor contained in the device.

Some iPhone apps will now be obsolete. There are quite a few iPhone apps that exist merely because the screen is too small for efficient navigation and content creation. The larger screen on the iPad means that apps like those for systems such as WordPress and Squarespace won't be necessary since people should be able to create content with few limitations in the Safari browser. It remains to be seen whether or not the browser will be able to access the file system on the device so people can upload photos so that may be a limitation. Another limitation will be the lack of Adobe Flash in the Safari browser. You may be able to embed a video in a blog post but you won't be able to preview how it looks unless it's from YouTube. Also, all of the apps meant to offer up the content of blogs and news websites should be obsolete as well. Once again these are apps that exist merely due to the iPhone screen size limitations. That doesn't mean that news organizations won't build custom (and probably paid) apps to take advantage of the touch features of the device.

YouTube will be more important than ever. The larger screen and faster processor will help to create a much better video experience on the iPad. YouTube is the video site that is best integrated with the device. Both embeds and links to videos should work as they do on the iPhone. The limited storage on the device is also likely to spur users to seek more entertainment in the cloud. So if serious media creators want to be present on the iPad without the hassle of having to figure out the right video codec necessary to support it then they will likely have an outpost on YouTube. Video creators will also want to think about size. Some are optimizing the video size for the iPhone dimensions of 480x320. That size will need to be adjusted up in order to look good on the iPad.

Education apps will become more prominent. Don't underestimate the value of the iPad as an educational device. I can easily imagine kids having this in their backpack instead of multi-subject notebooks. Apple is already on top of this with their mobile iWork suite. That doesn't mean that there won't be a demand for unique and useful apps created by independent developers. The iPad can also be a blockbuster kids learning device as well. A parent who already likes the idea of the iPad could be convinced to buy if they think it can also be used as an education tool for their children. Based on my kids love of my iPod touch I'd say the iPad will be used by many small children.

Interactive books will become a much more attractive class of content. I'm not just talking abut the e-books that Apple will sell in their iBook store. I'm talking about web based books that have links to other sites and embedded videos or audio. The size of the device lends itself to a more involved content experience. I could imagine someone sitting in a chair and getting really absorbed in something. The touch also allows more scrolling which isn't a good option on the iPhone.

The cloud will become infinitely more important. Many of the limitations of the iPad are no longer limitations when paired with robust cloud services and 3G connectivity. Take the issue of document creation. You could pay $30 for the mobile iWork suite or you could use Google Docs via the browser for free. Using the cloud rather than a local app solves the issue of multi-tasking as well. Pandora need not worry about folks not using their service on the iPad due to multi-tasking issues. If they figure out how to allow streaming via the Safari browser then the problem is solved. In my previous post I complained about the dearth of storage and the lock in to iTunes for media playback. But with media stored in the cloud you can have access to an infinite amount of entertainment.

Apps should take advantage of touch and motion capabilities. With the iPad, an app as an alternate visual representation of a website won't do. I think developers will need to consider innovative ways to take advantage of the touch and motion capabilities of the iPad if they want to capture the imagination of users and stand out from the crowd of hundreds of thousands of apps. I think that Apple is counting on develpers to make this happen. It's probably the reason why the iPad is so much like the iPod Touch, just bigger. A larger interface with touch and motion capabilities really opens open the possibilities. And since apps are what really set the iPhone apart then why shouldn't apps set the iPad apart from the competition that will surely come.

This may not sound like the post of someone who doesn't find the iPad highly desirable in its current form. I may not be the target market after all. This is a device that on first glance I think many non-techy, non-Mac loving people will find attractive and appealing. They won't stress about things like card slots and video formats. They'll just think, "That's the most amazing thing I've seen." After all, you don't need perfect functionality for a device to appeal to a mass market. You need to generate a feeling in the mind of the customer. Apple has been very good over the last few years at creating devices that people want without knowing exactly why they want it. They just want them. That's a powerful force. So I think that many people will buy this product. That's why I also think that web developers and media creators should figure out ways to make things that appeal to the many people who will be using the iPad just a few short months from now.

I'm pretty sure that many businesses will be taking the leap onto Twitter and Facebook in 2010 as part of a new push to be more social. More often than not when people describe their business relationship with a social network they like to say they're "on" it. "Hey' we're on Twitter!. Follow us." Here's a good question for those businesses. Why should I follow you on any website? What's going on over on Twitter or Facebook that I can't get from your main website? Because if something special is going on over there we'd all like to know about it. If you haven't thought about this then perhaps you really don't have a strategy. If that's the case then I recommend reading my previous post about the importance of a primary business website. In brief, before you give your main web presence over to Twitter and Facebook you should consider the implications surrounding that choice.

What are your goals on Twitter and Facebook? Gaining followers perhaps? Then what? For a company like Dell that sells a physical product its pretty obvious what their goals are on their Dell Outlet Twitter account. They're promoting items from the Dell Outlet store. So they can measure the success of their strategy in terms of the revenue generated from the promotions (tracked via the coupon codes I assume) that they post on Twitter. But what's the real cost of employing such a strategy? After all, while the Twitter followers get their hands on juicy coupon codes, the other Dell customers (the ones who go directly to the Dell outlet websites) are on the outs. It's almost like Dell is saying, "Sorry folks, you're not tech or social network savvy enough to get the good discounts." That's some way to treat your customers. Heck, if you go to the Dell Factory Outlet web page they don't even have a link to their Twitter account. Is this a smart strategy? The Dell Outlet is obviously "on" Twitter, and well known their with 1.5 million followers, but why are the discounts invisible to the people who arrive directly on the site? And why no link back to the Twitter site? It's either part of a grande plan or a serious disconnect.

In any case the Dell story illustrates an important point. Presence on social networks can exist in a vacuum. I don't think they should though. The social network presence should be tightly integrated with the strategy that you are executing on your primary point of presence which should be a website on your own domain. After all you're offerings on Twitter and Facebook will be limited to the features they offer you. You can't post images on Twitter. You can't post video on Twitter. Sure people can click through by why make them jump through hoops to get to what's important? Facebook does offer both images and video so you have more options there. But Facebook still has many limits and pitfalls that you're primary presence doesn't need to have.

The main point is this. Think it through. Don't just be "on" Facebook. Know why you're there. Know how your presence there connects to your larger strategy. Don't be there merely to collect followers. Make a call to action and base your success on the level of action created by your calls on the social network. Even if you're goal is to merely disseminate knowledge in order to build awareness I think you should create a trackable metric that indicates you're building not just general awareness but true interest in your products and services. That's the part that takes work. Because even as your follower count grows the number of people who friend then forget is increasing as well.

Storytlr was a service that allowed people to create a stream of posts from a variety of services also known as a lifestream. Storytlr was different from a service like FriendFeed because the focus was on creating a website from the content instead of just a profile on a social network. In that sense Storytlr was a hybrid content aggregator and lightweight CMS. Unfortunately for users, including myself, the Storytlr announced they were shutting the service down effective 12/31. At the same time they decided to take the platform open source, allowing people to run their own version of the service. That was back on October 10th. 

Today the Storytlr team announced the open source version of the project. This is good news for people who want to create their own site based on the service. I downloaded the code and tried it out on my hosting account to see what they've done. For a first release it works pretty well. There are some key issues to be addressed. While I was able to add accounts from Delicious, Twitter and YouTube I had problems with Google Reader, Flickr and RSS Feeds. So while I think it's worthwhile to download and test it's definitely not ready for a production site now. That's okay because this is open source and I would bet that the issues get addressed.

There are a lot of other compelling features offered by Storytlr like multiple themes, embeddable widgets, Google Friend Connect and Disqus comment integration. I haven't tried them all on the new open source platform yet but a quick spin through shows that the key pieces are in place. The best part about it is that you're in control, can host it on your own domain, and keep it going as long as you want to.

You can see my test install over at http://live.awakenedvoice.com.