The story of how NewsGator attempted to corner the market on consumer RSS has taken another strange turn. In an interview with Steven Hodson published on Hodson's Shooting at Bubbles site, Bradbury admits that he is no longer employed by NewsGator, but has retained the full rights to his popular FeedDemon RSS reader. NewsGator continues to offer FeedDemon, and the application is still NewsGator-branded, but the clear implication here is that NewsGator no longer owns the rights to the most popular native Windows RSS feed reader.

It's no secret that NewsGator almost single-minded focus on capturing the lucrative enterprise market allowed its efforts in the consumer space to falter, ultimately leading to NewsGator shutting down their once-popular NewsGator Online feed reader, having conceded the online feed reader battle to Google's upstart Google Reader, which has iterated faster, and performing better than NewsGator's online reader for a few years.

It's unfortunate that NewsGator has given up on this market. While it's certainly true that Google has a powerful and successful product on its hands, there is certainly room in the RSS space for more than one dedicated company. What this means for FeedDemon's Mac equivalent, NetNewsWire remains to be seen, but since NewsGator's current push for more enterprise business relies on the talents of Brent Simmons, NetNewsWire will likely remain a NewsGator property for the foreseeable future.

Whether that is good news or not is anyone's guess.

UPDATE: The previous headline of this post turned out to be incorrect, as Nick Bradbury points out in the comments. The relationship between FeedDemon, NewsGator and Bradbury is a bit confusing, but what he said in the interview was this: "I'm no longer employed by NewsGator. FeedDemon remains a NewsGator-branded product, but I'm 100% in charge of it now, and I'm once again an indie developer. FeedDemon is my sole focus – and my sole source of income." So, NewsGator owns FeedDemon, Bradbury works on FeedDemon, but Bradbury does not work FOR NewsGator any longer.

Bradbury also pointed us to a post by NewsGator's Greg Reinacker, explaining more about where things stand.

URL shorteners, while convenient, are bad for the web. They hide the true destination that they are pointing to, giving bad guys yet another tool in their arsenal, while conditioning web users to blindly trust the links they are clicking on. Further, as the debacle with tr.im showed us, URL shortening services aren't necessarily permanent.

It's no coincidence that the rise in popularity of URL shorteners closely mirrors the rise in popularity of Twitter; Twitter's 140 character limit is the special ingredient that makes Twitter so compelling, but it's also what made short URLs valuable. Some of you will say that short URLs are useful for other reasons - for example, in print. True, but Twitter is by far the place they are used most.

So, with a 140 character limit, how could Twitter eliminate URL shorteners? Well, first, let's look at the reason for the 140 character limit in the first place. It was chosen because Twitter expected SMS messages to be the primary way that users would interact with the service. While there are many users using it that way, their numbers are far eclipsed by the number of users using Twitter on its native web site, or using one of the plentiful Twitter client apps that are available for both desktop computers and mobile phones.

What do you get when you take a gaggle of enthusiastic, early-adopting online marketers and introduce them to one of the world's largest directories of job-seeking college students? We're about to find out, now that Facebook is acquiring FriendFeed. The move should mean improved versions of the real-time status and conversation features that Facebook was already moving toward, but that's not all Facebook bought. It's also getting most of FriendFeed's users.

It's not as if social media, um, d-bags, didn't know Facebook existed. Au contraire, they've been all over it for at least a year, begging people to become fans of their clients. College students, however, are about to find out that social media jobs exist, and are one of the best rackets going. Wait, you mean I can bother people online, using networks I was already signed up to anyway, and get paid for it? When do I start?

Social media isn't going away any time soon, and it has a lot of upside, but it also has a lot of our attention. It's one of the few places marketers can still get eyeballs, and members of the first generation that really grew up with it are about to enter the workforce and start selling things to one another. Maybe it was inevitable -- and maybe it will burn out after a while, to make room for new models based on new technology -- but I'm willing to bet we'll look back and point to the time FriendFeed met Facebook as the moment it really started to accelerate.

Twitter, when used correctly, is the ultimate meritocracy. You can freely follow anyone you want, and just as freely unfollow them. For most users this means following people whose tweets they perceive they are gaining value from, and not following people who waste their time. There are, of course, exceptions to this rule, particularly when it comes to so many of the self-professed "Social Media Consultants" that seem to pollute my inbox when they meaninglessly follow me. But for the most part, the average Twitter user wants to get value out of what they read using the service, and provide value to their followers.

I'm puzzled then when services like Pay Me Tweets pop up, wanting you to trade your hard-earned credibility with your followers for a few measly (or should I call them weasly?) bucks. Basically, you're trading your followers' attention for money, something they will likely not appreciate. And what do users do on Twitter when they are not getting value any longer? They unfollow, of course!

While I think that users who choose to sell their credibility to Pay Me Tweets are making a big mistake, the people that choose to buy tweets through this service are making an even bigger one.

Something feels a little wrong about having to rely on a company that defines itself as a social media analyst to discover fully 15% of the Twitter users that follow more than 2,000 accounts on the social network identify themselves as "social media marketers." that of the people who identify themselves as marketers, 15% follow more than 2,000 people compared to 0.3% of total Twitter users following more than 2,000 people. Yet this is one in a set of ten interesting statistics to come out of a report by social media analysis company Sysomos on Twitter usage.

A summary of the 10 most interesting points from Sysomos' report was done by the Rohit Bhargava, and includes info-nuggets like the fact that over half of all Twitter accounts are inactive (have not posted an update in over a week), and that the top 5% of accounts by volume of updates are responsible for 75% of the updates published on the site. Unfortunately, some of the statistics given are tenuous at best. For example, the report contains a claim that 65% of Twitter users are under the age of 25, but as Bhargava points out, less than 1% of Twitter users actually disclose their age.

Putting together meaningful statistics on Twitter is an admirable, but near impossible task. There are simply too many variables, and not enough data to go on; Twitter's minimalist approach doesn't give analysts much to go on. Further, as David Pogue recently pointed out, users can easily change their usernames, significantly muddying the water.

So, what do you think - can we trust the numbers that are put out by social media analysis companies? Is this information useful, or is it akin to reading tea leaves?

I keep seeing a sensational story from Mashable flash across my radars today: "Bing Now Bigger Than Digg, Twitter and CNN." Golly, I guess millions in TV advertising really can make you win in this crazy marketplace, huh? Not so fast, bucko. Google isn't going anywhere, and digg, Twitter and CNN folks are likely not sweating this any more than I am. Why?

First of all, let's consider the source. Compete.com is the "unwashed masses" product from Compete, Inc. Competitors of these guys include heavyweights like comScore, Nielsen/NetRatinga and Alexa. Granted, Compete was bought by research firm Taylor Nelson Sofres back in 2008, but their 2007 revenues weren't terrific. I'm not saying Compete's data is wrong, but I am saying that there's a little potential for self-serving headline grabbing here. I wonder what Compete's stats for today have been, eh? Well, according to their own site, Compete does better traffic than Alexa, and it looks like they get more than double Alexa's traffic. So maybe they're not so small, and maybe this is great. But Compete is just another 3rd party player here, so we can't be 100% on these metrics to begin with. Oh, and the kicker: these are US visitors only.

Now on to the data. How could Bing grab so many new users in so little time? Hmmm. Well, none of us bloggers have been able to shut up about it, but to be honest, not that many people listen to us. But it might be two other factors (call this a hunch):

Open-source software is everywhere, and developers use it to speed up their development on a regular basis. This is as it should be, for the most part, assuming the developers follow the licensing for whatever open-source software (OSS) they use. Along with licensing, the open-source community is, probably rightly so, very focused on attributing credit correctly. Considering that most OSS developers do not make any money for their contributions, credit and reputation are really the only compensation they can expect.

Imagine the horror in the OSS community then, when a mini-TEDTalk was released today that had presenter Chris Hughes showing off augmented-reality software that is built on very powerful open-source toolkits, but fails to attribute any credit to them, or even mention their existence.

Ralph Hauwert certainly took issue, and wrote a scathing blog post describing the offense. To TED's credit, they have updated the page for today's video, acknowledging the furor and offering an explanation. According to the update, Chris hadn't been intending on presenting at TED, but after privately showing his project to a number of people, he was invited to do a short 2 minute presentation. Due to the extremely short format, there was apparently no time for attribution of credit for the software frameworks his software was based on.

This is a cautionary tale. Clearly someone made a mistake, and Hughes' reputation may end up bearing the brunt of the error. It's important to remember that in the software business there are always two currencies at play: the typical financial currency that we usually think of (you know, money), and credit for the work that was done. Although there is a lot of open-source software that is licensed to be free to use, that fact amplifies the focus on correctly attributing credit for the work that went into the software.

My guess is this is a lesson Chris Hughes isn't likely to forget again.

The latest version of Amazon's ebook reader, the Kindle 2, has been attracting plenty of positive attention for its slimline form, style and functionality but has also drawn criticism from an unexpected quarter - from Authors Guild President and humorist, Roy Blount Jr, who isn't amused about the Kindle's new text to speech functionality.

The Kindle 2 has a function that allows published works that are downloaded onto the device to be converted into speech and played back through the small speakers in the device in either a male or female voice, functionality that will no doubt be attractive to the visually impaired, drivers on long trips or for people who are simply too damn lazy to read the book themselves.

The Authors Guild is in a tizzy because it feels that the Kindle 2 is going to undermine the billion dollar a year audiobook market. Blount apparently wasn't joking when he wrote in a New York Times editorial this week that 'authors have a right to a fair share of the value that audio adds to Kindle 2's version of books'.

If you're not familiar with it, the HeliOS project is an effort to get computers into the hands of kids who might not otherwise be able to afford them. To date this year, they've distributed over 300 machines. Apparently that's not enough to keep them from making an enemy.

A middle school teacher named Karen observed one of her students demonstrating the abilities of his Linux-powered laptop to his classmates. What a great thing, a student exposing his peers to technology they probably weren't familiar with before....Right?

Wrong. Karen sprang into action, confiscated the CDs the student had brought to share, and unleashed the Spanish Inquisition.

Who is the charlatan who convinced this poor, misguided student that "free software" is something that actually exists?

Who could be so evil as to distribute non-Microsoft software to children? How can that person expect our children to survive in an MS-powered world? Once she had her answer, she sent Ken an email.

In her own words:

At this point, I am not sure what you are doing is legal. No software is free and spreading that misconception is harmful. These children look up to adults for guidance and discipline.

I just can't take it any more. I don't understand how people actually use their computers like this, but they do. Just take a look at Kaspersky's figures for August 2008. I look after a lot of computers for friends and family, and a dozen machines at work - and none are infected. Then again, all of them are well-protected and used responsibly.

Now, it's not my intent that anyone actually follow this horrible, horrible advice. It's just that so many people seem to think this type of behavior is perfectly normal computer use.

So here it is: my 5-point method for turning your computer into a quivering pile of malware-infested, hacker-friendly trash.

1. Don't bother updating your software. Things like Java, Flash, and your web browser are constantly updating. How annoying is that? If your Flash games play, and the little Java thing is always near your system clock, it's probably working just fine. Security holes in your outdated internet apps let the information move through faster.

2. Believe everything you see. If a pop up window tells you that Windows has found spyware on your computer or that you have 324 errors in your registry, you'd better click on it. That's not the kind of thing you want to take a chance on. I mean, the registry is where stuff...registers. And spyware removal software that advertises Shamwow style must be trustworthy, right?

I've decided once and for all that I'm going to make a serious effort to make Linux my primary operating system. Am I dissatisfied with Windows? No. In fact, I'm quite happy with it. It's just time for a change, that's all.

This isn't my first attempt to switch. I've made several others before with various distros: Ubuntu, Mint, PCLinuxOS, Mandriva, Fedora, Slax...There's always been something early on that made me bail out and head back to my trusty old Windows XP install.

Now, I'm not blaming Linux. It's more to do with my comfort level with the programs I have installed. Certain apps that I've been using for ages in Windows aren't available in Linux, and that's held me back. For me, it's always been Photoshop (CS2 in Wine has never worked very well for me).

Recently, however, I've been testing out so many other similar apps that I don't think I'll notice it missing this time. I'm getting comfortable with GIMP's UI, and I can always use Drpic.com for really quick edits.

Which brings me to the larger point: how much does your OS really matter any more? I use Firefox and a handful of addons and a number of web apps now, so switching ought to be relatively painless. So far, the only thing I've missed is being able to install a Windows app to review it for DownloadSquad, and VirtualBox will take care of that soon enough.

What about you? Could you switch to Linux and not miss a beat, or are there still some apps you just can't live without on your desktop?

Considering the Google brand in the popular vernacular and the launch of Chrome, I went to web marketing poster boy Seth Godin to get his perspective. Seth wasn't particularly loquacious (no doubt he's a bit busy) but here's the conversation:

Me: Would you be willing to take about 10 minutes to talk to us about your take on Google Chrome? While the tech is neat and pretty and awesome, I think you'll agree this is all about the brand. Where Firefox failed (sort of), Google has an honest shot. Once Chrome is out of beta (in 10 or less years) they are one Superbowl ad away from a true IE-killer. That's what I'm thinking, anyway.

Seth: 1. firefox is hardly a failure. 2. chrome is about web as operating system. not controlling ff is a huge risk for them going forward.

Later I explained what I meant by calling FF a "failure"

Me: I guess by "failure" I meant "failure to capture the average user's attention." There's no doubting they have gained market share against the IE juggernaut, but for the majority of users the Internet = Internet Explorer. Was wondering if you think Chrome has a shot at changing that perception, since people now think Internet Search = Google.

Seth: yep!

Like most of the rest of the Internet, I jumped on the Google Chrome download as soon as it went live. So far, I'm not really blown away.

Maybe I need to use it for more than a couple of hours. Maybe the blogosphere hype machine pushed my expectations to the point of being unrealistic. Sure, Chrome looks nice. It does render some pages a hair faster than Firefox - for example, Google Docs, reader, and GMail. I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

Still, I've already got a great web browser (Firefox) with some great addons that I use heavily. Some of the sites I use every day (including Blogsmith, our blogging platform) I'm not about to switch to Chrome just because it's shiny and new (no pun intended).

Maybe the point to all this is that Chrome isn't supposed to be for people that like Firefox. I can see average Internet Explorer user liking it just fine: the interface is clean and straightforward, and it's great at what it does do. Google's got massive brand power, and that may be enough to finally make some inroads with the people using IE "because it's there."

Me, I'm sticking with Firefox for now. We'll see what the competitors can muster for their final releases.

What do you think of Chrome so far? Is it good enough to make you switch? Let's see some comments.

OK, I'll admit I own an iPhone. Thing is, I refuse to pay AT&T's completely ridiculous rates. Why are iPhone data packets at a premium, exactly? Anyway, I use the thing as more of a PDA, and I like the mic, speakers and camera. Sure, my Palm has two of those, but that camera is great for sending shots while on the go (and within a wifi hotspot). If I had the dough I'd get a Nokia N95, however.

So after using this 1st-gen iPhone for a few weeks, here are five things that Apple got completely wrong:

5. Codecs? We don't need no steenking codecs!
Just like Apple TV, the Cupertino Ivory Tower refuses to acknowledge the existence of codecs outside their shiny white walled garden. That's a shame, as Divx and a couple of others are really superb codecs, providing efficient and gorgeous playback. On everything but iPhones and Apple TV's, that is. I'm not sure if they are afraid of competition, licensing fees or just snobs. Hm, one of those rhymes with Jobs...

4. Sandboxes are for kids, not a multitasking OS.
Oh copy and paste, where art thou? I'll keep banging this drum, because the beat goes on. The Macintosh pioneered the ease of a clipboard. Microsoft did one better in Office by providing multiple copy/paste repositories. And you're telling me copy/paste was an afterthought? I call malarkey on that! Every proper mobile OS can copy/paste. It's stuff like this that gives you a very solid feeling Apple rushed the entire iPhone experience out the door.

3. App Store? How about Crash Store?
Last night I saw the "App Store" ad. I laughed out loud. If only my iPhone could install apps so easily. The first time I tried using third-party apps, all downloaded via the iPhone, they locked up, started crashing and wouldn't come back. Guess what? A 5-hour journey to "Erase and Restore Land" made things mostly better. Yeah, I had to grab pen and paper to keep track of what I lost. And yeah, I had to re-enter all my settings. Even today installing an app is major fail. It never finishes the "installing" progress bar. I have to reboot a couple of times for it to appear. Google apps on my BlackBerry may hang up, but they install properly, at least. Don't get me started on the wonky "updates" system, either. Seriously.

2. The maze of settings a Minotaur could be proud of, with customization tossed to the wayside.
Wouldn't it be cool to have profiles so you don't have to tweak a dozen settings depending on whether you are at home (with wifi) or in the boonies (EDGE)? Too bad usability and simplicity were lost when the iPhone was born. Or how about the fact that you can't really customize the organization on the screen? Sure, you can try -- but either restoring or re-installing apps will shuffle things around. There's no category-based system, as you find on the Palm. There are no folders. Just a massive, sliding list of stuff with no rhyme or reason. This makes it very frustrating when you need certain apps to always appear front-and-center (like Camera, Evernote and ShoZu). I spend about 1/3 of my time shuffling apps knowing that all that hard work is one crappy install away from being shot to hell. Decades of UI and brain research gone with the flick of a finger.

1. Backups, only 3 hours to go!
Actually, I wish it was 3. Shoot, I wish it was at least predictable. Most iPhone users are now trained to plug the thing in at night. I guess that makes sense, but you know what also makes sense? Iterative backups. You know, like a little thing known as Time Machine? Once again, this smacks of sloppy, rushed coding. iPods do a fast sync and BOOM, you're ready to rock. The iPhone makes you wait hours for a backup, and even then you might wind up with a corrupted backup... Which isn't really a backup at all, is it?

I think the bottom line is that Apple rushed the App Store, rushed the OS 2.0 release and is currently playing the averages. The average iPhone user appears happy. They are wowed by the glitz and glamour of such an advanced machine. But like at Vegas, by the time the cocaine and hooch wears off, they are gonna wind up sore and bruised, wishing they could take it all back. I sincerely hope Apple takes the necessary time to fix this stuff instead of adding more bells and whistles to an already precarious platform.

While you're busy flicking and pinching and shaking your iPhone, watching apps crash and getting a white screen of death, I've been busy editing Office docs and playing Insaniquarium. What, you can't do that on your precious touch-screen of joy? Pity. And yes, Palm OS 5.whatever, aka "Garnet" is pretty old. So what? Let's change the name to "Helen Mirren." See? Infinitely sexier.

I wrote about my love of the Palm T|X a year ago today. The fact is, I never owned a Newton. I went Palm OS and never looked back. Chalk it up to the fact that my pockets wouldn't accommodate a MessagePad 2000. Since I bought my first Palm Pilot Pro many moons ago, I've owned a delectable Handspring Visor (the expansion port was too cool, but modules were also too expensive), a Palm V and a WristPDA. I'd still use the WristPDA except for the fact that it won't hold a charge.

OK, we're still waiting for the next version of Palm OS. Where are the multimedia features the Be acquisition would add? What about this Linux-based rewrite? Who cares? The fact is, Palm got it right when it came to synchronizing data: make it simple, fast and reliable. Nowadays true, ubiquitous data sync is like a unicorn with herpes -- you wish you could find it, but there's always this glaring flaw: datatypes don't match up, making mush of your info. I chalk that up to Palm losing the battle they started long ago and never opening up their tech to become a real standard. But when it worked, man it worked well. There's a lot to be said for simplicity, and using Palm OS is like sitting in a classic car. You aren't worried about all the buttons -- you just drive.

So yeah, the iPhone has advantages, like a pretty decent browser, multi-touch and video playback that isn't a battery-draining and soul-sucking experience. But I'll keep my soul and the Palm -- because nothing says love like an SD card full of memories, games and work documents. There are still lots of little touches in Palm OS worth keeping it around (how about keeping your icons organized?). As Riley and Huey's Granddad would say, "there's no school like the old school." Word. Did I mention I can edit Word docs?

In the gallery I list a few apps notably missing on the iPhone but readily available for Palm OS.