Oooh, inline Instagram.

It now features auto-publicize stuff, which is totally cool.

With any luck, this will actually work and my shitty grid server won’t crash under the load of 20 people online at once.

Not really sure what this is supposed to do. It’s not showing up for Stephanie.

This has been a busy week for Hulu bids. Ten days after Bob Iger confirmed that the current Hulu owners (which include Disney, NBC Universal, Fox and a private equity group), Bloomberg reported that Hulu was looking to entice bidders by promising 5 years of content rights to programming from its current owners and a two-year exclusivity deal (with the exception being the networks own websites). In that same article, Bloomberg discussed the number of companies currently in talks to buy Hulu, mentioning Microsoft, Google and Yahoo by name.

Today, the Wall Street Journal adds Apple’s name to the mix. Frankly, of the four, I think Microsoft would actually make the most sense — go with me here, it’s not about Microsoft as a Windows company, it’s Microsoft who owns Xbox 360 and has already discussed its ability to turn that into the set-top box of the future.

Still, I think a Yahoo deal is untennable, I don’t think that Yahoo has the capital to make a good bid. Google, well, Google has a fundamental misunderstanding of content and content ownership. Look at the failures of creating a real Google Music store. Look at how YouTube has flailed with enticing commercial partners, despite having such a large distribution platform. I know we’re all in love with the big G on Google+, but Google fails so hard at the entertainment and set-top box space (Google TV is maybe one of the most shitty products I’ve ever had the displeasure of using, sorry Google, it’s true. It sucks.), it would kill Hulu dead in the water. Not as much as Yahoo would, but still.

But Apple, Apple is interesting. If Apple were to buy Hulu, obviously they would have yet another distribution platform. The thing is, Hulu, and TV Everywhere and subscription streaming as an idea, fundamentally goes against Apple’s approach to content. Apple sells content a la carte, not because it makes money that way (it really doesn’t), but because that content sells devices like the iPhone, iPad and iPod.

In the subscription streaming place, indeed, in the TV Everywhere space, the iPad is the number one most coveted target. Full stop. That’s why Hulu was on the iPad and iPhone first. Same with Netflix. Same with most cable company apps, same with second screen apps. The iPad is having a huge impact on the way consumers watch TV. It’s insane. Moreover, the engagement with the iPad, even with the same services available elsewhere, is higher and better, which makes advertisers love it.

Why then, would Apple need Hulu? They already have a Hulu app in their App Store. Other than as a defensive move, I don’t see why Apple would buy the company. Plus, something tells me that a deal would include a provision that the new owner has to continue to support the growing number of Hulu Plus devices. That’s something Apple doesn’t like doing.

Still, I’d rather see Apple own it than Google, because Apple at least knows how to work with content companies.

What I don’t understand is why we haven’t heard anything from Netflix. Netflix would be the perfect owner. It would increase the library size and get access to previous-day content. Netflix’s biggest hurdle is in fresh content. Hulu’s biggest strength is fresh content. Win/Win.

I just fear that whoever does buy Hulu won’t know how to keep it running well. Hulu has singlehandedly forced the major media conglomerates into the 21st century and to lose it would be a huge step backward.

Edited to Add: Amazon actually is the buyer that makes the most sense and is the buyer I would most like to see. Amazon gets content, Amazon gets making deals, Amazon gets how VOD works. It would be a great way to expand the Amazon Video on Demand model and offer additional incentives for subscribers or Amazon Prime members.

and

So it’s been a while since I’ve written in this blog, eh? In my defense, the day job at Mashable keeps me pretty busy. I write day and night and don’t have much time to do my own personal writing. Having said that a MAJOR redesign effort is in progress as well as a better fusion between my various social media profiles.

It’s funny how life works. Four years ago, I was in school, contributing a column to USA Today and trying to figure out what I was going to do with my life. Today, I’m sitting in my office in Atlanta for what will be one of the last times, penning this entry, about to embark on a brand new adventure.

Grant and I are headed to New York! I will be working out of Mashable’s offices in New York City as of April 18, 2011. Grant has a great new job at the Daily Dot where he will be kicking ass and taking names and we’re both ready for a brand new adventure!

The move has been in the works for some time, basically since January, but we were thinking about it even before then. I’m so grateful and fortunate to have a partner like Grant. Not only is he moving with me, he’s handled most of the difficult aspects of the move itself. Seriously, Grant is my rock, my savior and my best friend.

With beginnings inevitably come endings and in addition to saying goodbye to Atlanta, my parents and Dunwoody Place (my home for like 9 years), the web is also being forced to say goodbye to Download Squad. In the wake of the Huffington Post acquisition, it just didn’t make sense to keep Download Squad (or as it was recently rebranded, Switched Download Squad) around. At least that’s what we think. Only the bean counters no for sure.

Download Squad may not have ever been the biggest or loudest site on the block, but it will always hold a place in my heart because it, along with TUAW, was where I started really writing about technology and software for the web. Moreover, it was where I met Grant. Grant and I met in October, 2007 and soon started doing a weekly video series together, the Squadcast. The show didn’t really take off but the chemistry between Grant and I did. It was also some of the earliest training I had for my work on Briefly Awesome (new name is forthcoming) with Dan Benjamin.

The web loses something with the shuttering of Download Squad, but I can’t help but find the timing almost fitting. Grant and I are headed for the big city to take on a new adventure. I can’t wait and I look forward to the future, getting married, living in Brooklyn and working in-person with all of my wonderful colleagues.

As always, these are my opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of my colleagues or employers.

So the article in question is from Giga Om — a site I like and respect. I truly don’t mean to pick on the author, Colin Gibbs (which of course just means that’s exactly what I’m going to do — sorry Colin — it genuinely isn’t anything personal) — but the entire premise behind the article, titled “Why Apple should Consider a Seven-inch iPad” is just so severely flawed.

The size of the iPad has been a topic of discussion recently because it looks like all of the viable would-be iPad competitors (and by that, I mean products by companies that have actually shipped something before and aren’t embarrassments like the JooJoo or vapor like the Notion Ink Adam, or as I like to call it JooJoo2) are targeting a form factor of seven inches rather than the 9.6 inches of the iPad.

The Samsung Galaxy Tab, the BlackBerry PlayBook and the thing from ViewSonic — not to mention a number of other would-be tablets (including Barnes & Noble’s tablet/e-reader hybrid).

Now this factor in and of itself might not be worthy of reflecting upon in context of the iPad if Steve Jobs hadn’t called-out the seven inch form factor during Apple’s last earnings call and had he not basically eviscerated the choice of going below 10 inches (we’ll let it slide that Steve consistently referred to 9.6 inches as 10-inch). Because Apple has a history of denouncing a product or denying the need for a product — only to show up with said product later — it isn’t shocking that some would question Apple’s secret plans of a seven inch sibling to the iPad.

I think that these people are wrong. As Dan noted on a previous episode of Briefly Awesome — this didn’t sound like Steve bullshit — this sounded like he genuinely hates the idea of a seven inch tablet. He also had data to back up his choice.

But let’s just assume that Apple hadn’t decided to forego the smaller form factor, moving to a smaller size for the iPad — especially at this early stage, would be utterly asinine. Here’s why:

• One of the reasons that all the other manufacturers have to go to the seven inch form factor isn’t one of choice; it’s because Apple has all the 9.6-inch panels (well, IPS panels anyway) locked up.
• The so-called price savings for going for a smaller screen doesn’t matter when the iPad is still kicking its would-be competitors assess price wise. The Galaxy Tab is the same price as an iPad ($30 difference equals same price) unless you buy it with a contract. None of the tablets that have managed to ship are coming in any lower than the iPad, except for the upcoming NOOKcolor which is really more an e-reader with tablet-like features.
• Steve Jobs nailed the problem with the seven inch form factor when he called them “tweeners.” They are too big to be truly portable and too small to be a good tablet.
• The 9.6 inch size really is perfect for reading, for zooming in on objects and for watching video. Go smaller and you end up losing a lot of the pizazz, especially when it comes to magazine apps, games and watching video.
• Seven inches works well for an e-reader, it really doesn’t seem to work well for a tablet.

On that last point, I want to use my mother as an example. I got my mom an iPad 3G for her birthday this August. She loves it. It has only taken me my whole life, but mom finally has a gadget that she loves.

My mom is representative of why the iPad is so revolutionary and why it has shaken up the entire industry. By that I mean, she’s not an early adopter (unless it was as a by-product of having me as a daughter). My mom’s only other Apple product is an unused iPod nano that I got her for Mother’s Day like 3 years ago. She’s not who people thought the target market would be. She rarely gets all that impressed or excited about technology or gadgets.

When my mom saw the iPad, she lit up like a child. Just playing with mine, she very clearly fell in love. I relented and didn’t get her one for Mother’s Day but refused to listen to her protests and got her one for her birthday. She’s constantly talking about how much she loves it. It’s more or less replaced her computer for 80% of what she does.

It turns out, an awful lot of people like my mom got iPad fever. That number is only going to increase now that people can get the iPad for Christmas.

A huge part of the iPad’s appeal IS its size. The critics can claim it’s too big for one handed use or that it can’t go in a jacket pocket. First, that’s so sexist. I fucking hate any argument about a gadget that ends up being all about how men can carry things. The iPhone 4, one of the slimmest smartphones on the market, can fit in my back pocket but really doesn’t work in 95% of my pants. The idea that I could somehow even consider pocketing a DROID X is just laughable.

Likewise, it’s sure cool that guys who where jackets with inside pockets can carry a 7 inch tablet. Guess what — most women can’t. And even if I could — I wouldn’t because there is nothing lamer than a Scott Vest. Nothing.

So let’s just forget this whole “pocketable” concept now — you’re going to need to carry it in a case, pop it in a purse (and incidentally, my iPad does fit in my mid-size handbag just fine) or carry it in some sort of sleeve — seven or 10 inches.

Next, let’s talk about how your fingers work on a device. I have small fingers — so does my mom for that matter. I’d feel cramped on a seven inch tablet. I know my mom would.

Beyond that though, the iPad is also a device that you can use, like a notepad, to show off to other people. The 10 inch form factor works perfectly for that for meetings, for showing an outline, etc. When you go smaller, you lose a lot of that. You turn a multi-user object into something single user. That inherently impacts usability, as well as utility.

Again, I’ll agree that for reading text — seven inches is a good size. I think the Kindle is an excellent size device and I think it is very good for what it does. But even Kindle had to go bigger for the DX to encourage reading newspaper or magazine content.

Reading a magazine on the iPad just feels right. Trying to cram that stuff smaller just means you’d have to pinch zoom on columns and images and lose the flow of what makes the A4 style of the iPad so great.

For composing content too — it’s weird, I can be very effective typing on my iPhone 4. However, I think I’d be less effective on a seven inch device. That’s because you either need to have something that is small enough to be thumbable — like a BlackBerry or iPhone or whatever — or you need to be able to have near full-size keys. This is that tweener aspect in play. You can’t go halfway, go big or go small — your fingers don’t like the middle ground.

So this is all the logical stuff of why from a consumer perspective, the device doesn’t make sense at 7 inches. However, what really made me go “what the fuck are you smoking” was the argument that because of increasing competition, Apple needs to offer a wider range of product and more “variety.”

Dude. Just. Dude. I mean, seriously? Seriously?

First — another screen size would mean yet another target for app developers — something that I doubt many would really appreciate. Juggling iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4 and iPad is one thing — add a second iPad size and yeah, that’s must asking for shitty apps to get made.

Second, this actually assumes that people are going to view 7 inches as an advantage over 10 when it comes to picking a device. As of now, you don’t get a cheaper price for a smaller screen — so what exactly is the point of a trade off? I hardly see a “road warrior” begging and pleading for a seven inch iPad because that 10 inch model is just too big. Again, you can’t stick the seven inch in your pocket so what’s the point?

This also ignores the very real business advantage Apple has over its competitors: Apple has the bigger screen. Why in the hell would they do a smaller screen unit just so they can have one less differentiating feature? It boggles the mind.

Look — maybe someday there will be an actual use case for a non-e-reader seven inch touch device. That day is not today.

I didn’t buy an iPhone in 2007 for two reasons: AT&T and lack of apps. The power of the apps and my love of the second gen iPod touch forced me to capitulate and move to the iPhone 3GS. My love of the 3GS (plus work, admittedly) is what pushed me to the iPad.

I’m typing this on the on-screen keyboard in the serviceable (but not perfect) WordPress iPad app. Despite the imperfections that come along with touch typing on a touchscreen, I’m doing OK. Also, while I got a 32GB iPad at launch, it’ll be going to Grant as soon as my 64GB 3G iPad ships. Hey, I wanted to go big or go home. Plus, I can already see myself loading this thing with content.

I think that all of the pundits bitching about this or that aspect of the iPad are off-base. If I never did anything else but surf the web in bed or on my couch, read eBooks or watch Netflix, I’d feel I had my monies worth. Simply put, it’s just so nice to have such a low profile and usable media pad. This is something I’ve wanted for years and years. As nice as laptops are, they aren’t great for curling up in bed and they don’t have the battery life to go days without charging.

My mom is getting an iPad for Mother’s Day and for her, it will likely be her primary computer. No more slow bootups, crashes and battery issues. She can take it and the Bluetooth keyboard and case and just go crazy. I can’t wait to see her use it.

Doing links in this app is annoying so I’ll have to update later, but here are a few of my favorite apps so far:

* GoodReader — loved the iPhone app, equally love the iPad version. It can do so much and I can’t wait to see it get better (like open files from Mail). The way it connects to Google Docs is just awesome.

* Things — Cultured Code did a stellar job. If you have Things for Mac, it’s well worth getting for the iPad.

* Netflix/ABC — both apps are awesome for video.

* Evernote — I haven’t been an Evernote fan but the iPad app and its easy multi-device sync convinced me to do the premium upgrade.

Too many games to mention. I just want apps like WriteRoom, TextExpander and Pastebot to get iPad versions so that I can get a really solid productivity flow.

So this is just my iPad update. I’m off to continue to enjoy a rare day off!

Out!

However, at long last, I think I’ve managed to put all my thoughts about the iPad and the emerging device class of tablets and media pads into one 900 word post. You can read it in its entirety at Mashable.com. However, I’ll provide an excerpt to try to entice you to care:

What’s different about this new wave of tablet devices is that the intended use cases for the device have evolved into something completely different. These new tablets are not being presented as a replacement for the existing computer but for an ancillary type of platform. The new tablets are also not being primarily targeted at business users, but at home users instead. The usage cases are more tightly defined as well. The new tablet devices are about accessing and consuming web content.

If that sounds eerily familiar, that’s because I totally ripped-off my own writings from this blog back in November, when I both reviewed the 27″ i7 iMac and discussed Google’s Chrome OS. I articulated far more verbosely in that personal blog post the problem I see with netbooks (in terms of being a target for an alternative operating system like Google Chrome) and why I was convinced then, just as I am convinced now, that a new class of device is needed for the original purpose of netbooks to actually take hold.

This is what I wrote a little over two months ago, again, in relation to Chrome OS, but also applicable to the idea of the new wave of tablet computing and media pads as we will know them:

Here’s where netbooks end up causing their owners problems. The netbook has better hardware than the iPhone, but because it has a bigger screen a bigger keyboard (and the screens and keyboards are getting bigger and bigger all the time), people expect it to be faster than it is. Thus, you get people wanting more from the device than it can offer. That’s why netbooks, at least Atom-based netbooks are probably going to disappear sooner rather than later. On the low-end you’ll have ARM and on the higher-end, you’ll just have low-priced, lightweight actual laptops…

Anyway, I think the push for ARM in netbook style computers is going to be met with utter disappointment from consumers — especially if Flash isn’t hardware accelerated when they launch. Since this is Chrome’s target, I think that traditional laptop styled devices are not going to work.

This is what I see: Something like a tablet but with a more defined purpose: like call it a media pad. Something you could use as a remote control, for instance — an eBook reader (that isn’t as good as eInk) and a visual TV guide. Yeah, you can watch online content and surf the web, but it’s designed to sit on your sofa and be like what we use phones for now — but bigger and with the understanding that you need to be online at all times.

In any event, as Chrome OS stands now, it really isn’t useable in any test form, other than for shits and giggles, but the fact that it exists is pretty cool.

I will write one original thing here for my own blog, and that’s about Flash.

The Flash Problem is Overblown

I’m not going to totally get into the whole Flash debate — I think I made a very good case in the first episode of Dan Benjamin’s new show, The Conversation (subscribe now!) and Dan made his own solid case in episode 2.

But just to put it in a tiny bit of perspective, let me give my opinion, mostly as an observer and web-user of what has happened with Flash over the last decade and why what’s happening now shouldn’t surprise anyone, least of all Adobe.

OK, so Macromedia introduces Flash in 1996, according to the Wikipedia, buying it from some guy who wrote the Flash precursor in college for the PenPoint OS and then ported it to Windows and Mac and then sold it to Macromedia, who renamed it Flash. It was used primarily for web animations and effects and navigation and whatnot.

Then in 2002, Flash 6 came with flash video support, which made it easy to do web-video without having to rely on shit like Realplayer or Windows Media or even QuickTime (though as we’ll see, QuickTime’s day would come again). The real power of this type of video really wasn’t exploited until YouTube launched in early 2005. Suddenly, Flash, which had been a dying component, came back and it came back big time.

In essence, video was Flash’s saving grace. When the iPhone debuted without Flash support in June 2007, YouTube worked to convert its videos to H.264, so that they could play on the iPhone. In December of 2007, Adobe added H.264 support to Flash 9. This was a very, very prudent move and it was done because Adobe could see the writing on the wall: Web video was all going to go H.264. Not only is it the best compression standard that’s available in terms of size/performance now, but there is tons of hardware acceleration support and the new crop of consumer cameras records in it natively. If Flash can act as a container for that format, Flash can stave off its extinction in the video space.

Well, HTML5 and continued smartphone adoption patterns is going to finally make content providers question why they are suing a Flash container when they can just display the same video natively, without the container. Forgetting about Mozilla’s refusal to get on the ball here (and really, I’m just going to say this right now — I have no desire to get into any meaningless arguments over “freedom” or the “potential” of Theora with anyone. Do that on your own time. I don’t fucking care and neither does the rest of the rational world. I like the Xiph project, I don’t think Theora, which is based on old-ass technology should become the standard just because toe-jam eaters like Richard Stallman hate anything that doesn’t conform their insane standards. Want something truly “free” to take over — develop something new.), HTML5 has tons of promise because it makes sense to serve the content directly rather to put in a wrapper.

As for sites like Hulu that require Flash now — if they have any brains at all, they will have an iPad application available at launch.

And let’s not forget that the problems of Flash are not limited to the iPad. Fennec, the Firefox Mobile browser that currently runs only on the Nokia N900 — yeah, they had to drop Flash support because it degraded performance too much. The HTC Hero supports Flash, it fucking sucks and is a terrible experience. Flash 10.2, which will FINALLY bring some hardware side optimizations to the platform, making it viable on netbooks, is only for x86 processors. ARM is out. ARM derivatives like the A4 are out. If Flash isn’t optimized to work on the next crop of mobile devices, why are we all shrieking over the fact that rather than offer shitty support, Apple (and other smartphone makers) aren’t supporting Flash?

This is where, if Microsoft were smart, they would start compiling Silverlgiht to run and run well on EVERYTHING. That way if you want a framework (and not just a container for a video player) that can work on multiple devices, you have an option.

But now I’ve written far more than I intended to write. No one said I wasn’t opinionated.

Out.