Last night I heard about Twitter acquiring the Tweetie iPhone application.  Tweetie, often raved as the best Twitter iPhone app, will now be offered for free instead of $2.99.  On Twitter’s blog, the company justified its acquisition, “People are looking for an app from Twitter, and they’re not finding one.”  I think they are right, and I’m happy they will be giving away the app.

When I heard the news, I was not surprised that they had released a native application, but I was surprised they had acquired another company to do it.

After waking up this afternoon (hey, don’t judge; I was up working until 10am), I was linked to this story on CNET. As the story shows, some view Twitter’s move as an attack on third-party developers and have compared it to Apple’s move with iPhone OS 4.0 (a move I do have reservations about).

To me, Twitter’s actions are significantly different from Apple’s, and significantly better for users and developers.  As I see it, Twitter is simply re-entering the market that made Twitter what it is.  It is NOT moving to block any third-party development.  The developer community is understandably nervous about any acquisitions and freebies, but, in this case, I think the anxiety is misplaced.

I’m a firm believer in competition and transparency. Twitter seems to be, too.  They have certainly encouraged developers to create external solutions through their API (application programming interface).  The Twitter API is well documented and allows access from a variety of languages and platforms, unlike Apple’s approach, which rules out anything not written in Objective-C.

Services like Seesmic go beyond a simple read/post interface and offer an expanded service (ability to post to updates to 50+ services), serving more than a generic recreation of Twitter. In contrast, Tweetable offers a generic read/post service that integrates with the admin panel of my blog, making Twitter available in a unique location.  I’m all for that.

Ultimately, innovation and improvement are the two greatest assets in any business model. Twitter’s acquisition of Tweetie shows it understands this logic well.  I wouldn’t be surprised if Twitter follows up by buying more related services or expanding internally in similar directions.

I think  the iPad is an amazing device, but, right now, there’s just not enough to convince me to buy it.  That could change, though, with a lower price and contributions from third- party developers.  In fact, with a few improvements to the iPad, I could see myself standing at the cash register.

As I see it (and as I said when the iPad was first announced), this sleek new tablet is really a “complementary” device, one that nicely complements smart phones and personal computers rather than replacing them.  Would I call the technology revolutionary or magical? No, but it does some things very well and really fills a gap in technology.

Before I get down to the review, I wanted to restate my desire for a tablet device that is tailored specifically to media consumption.  I read a lot of e-books, news sites and blogs. It’s a big part of how I learn and always will be.  Having a device that allows me to access and consume the information EASILY is KEY.  Right now, I use my phone and computer for these media needs, but they are hardly ideal.  Reading a media-rich article on my phone is impossible, and booting my netbook on the road is too much hassle if I plan to spend only 20-30 minutes reading.  If the iPad was priced about $100 lower for the 16gb model, I’d pick one up no question.  Its ease of use and accessibility are great for my media needs.

High points of the iPad:

• Simplicity – While some would call it “idiot proof,” that’s a good thing, not a put down.  For casual users, in particular, ease of use is vital, and the iPad does it beautifully.   I will go out on a limb and say that this kind of simplicity is necessary to sell such a product.
• Design- Solid and comfortable in my hands, it feels a lot more natural than using a handset.
• Battery Life- Everyone raves about it.  In my 30 minute test-drive, I didn’t get a chance to experience that myself.
• Media- Print, video or photo are easily handled with the iPad. From the applications I used to the blogs I checked out, it just felt “natural.” Think about retaining the feel of a magazine, without the physical copy.
• Screen- Just using the iPad for half an hour inspired me to utilize brighter colors in my own designs. The screen is brilliant, the colors pop out.

Low points of the iPad:

• Typing- I can’t stand the keyboard.  Okay, maybe I’m just clumsy but without any openness to modify the keyboard, I feel helpless. Of course, I could get a BT keyboard, but that’s another $70 on top of the original purchase.
• Browser- Again, probably a fluke, but the iPad wanted to load the mobile content on some websites I used, mainly blogs.  Hopefully, this was just an error in my ways.
• Openness- Apple’s closed, proprietary approach has been a HUGE flaw in their approach to the mobile world, as I see it.  With Windows and Android tablets around the corner, this limitation is another reason to balk at the purchase.
• Price- While $499 for the base seems fair, Jason Calacanis brings up the point that, when you’re all done, the initial cost of ownership can near $1,000 . The other $500 will likely be spent on accessories and applications.
• Docks- The iPad needs to make a small tweak here to help people like me who use a wide screen monitor.  (Actually quite a lot of us use those screens.)  If I buy a dock, I want it docked in landscape mode. Small detail, but important to me.
• Pairing- It doesn’t seem like the iPad wants to pair with other mobile devices (Nexus One) through Blue Tooth. Not necessary, but would definitely be a bother if I wanted to sync contacts and other information.

General Review:

Despite these limitations, I was really impressed with the iPad, from the ground up.  The new tablet seems like a great device to add to my gadget collection.  I really look forward to owning one, but  I just don’t see it happening until the price drops or I get a lot of new work.  Although I’m picky about several iPad features , most of them have little effect on my desired use.  That use, as I said in a previous post, is to consume and digest information.  The iPad is great for that.  It’s not so good, in my opinion, for creating new content.

When you strip away the marketing hype, the device is a really a colorful tablet reader with a touch screen.  It plays media smoothly, browses the internet smoothly, and handles my communication about as well as my current computer or smart phone, or perhaps a little worse.  I don’t foresee playing games or using the iPad for creating media, so those features are irrelevant to me, though they may be important to others.

Along the same lines, I don’t see the lack of multitasking a serious hindrance (though other users might).  The only time multitasking would really matter is if I were creating media and needed to cite references. The one software limitation I keep mentioning is that the system is completely shut down to modification.  I’m not talking about over clocking, or even lower level changes.   Nope.  I’m focused on not being able to make minor but helpful changes to improve my own user experience.

Bottom Line:

I really like the iPad, but I keep balking at the price. If it were $100 less, I’d own it. $150 less, I’d buy it as a gift for family. Whatever the price, I would be more receptive if the hardware and software were not so closed.  I would certainly appreciate the ability to install a 3rd party keyboard.  Still, the iPad is a wonderful new addition to the world of useful, high-tech gadgets.

Now that the early adopters have bought the latest, newest thing, it’s important for Apple to bring down the price for the rest of us.  $500 is not the sweet spot for an economy that hasn’t recovered fully.  Apple, you’re making 30% on applications. If I buy the device, I’m purchasing applications just like every other owner.  If I buy the device for less, I’d be a lot more eager to fill it up with applications.   I hope it won’t be too long until I can do that.

Notion Ink’s Adam has been speculated about for a while, even matched up against upcoming iPad. While my views of the iPad are positive, Notion’s demonstration of the Adam at MWC gave light to an amazing competitor. Enough to fuel my desire for another Android device, despite having wanted the Apple iPad.

As mentioned before, tablets are coming to the market as competition to ebook readers. For the iPad, a major valid concern is that the LCD screen will hurt the eyes. Notion Ink tackles this by giving the user an option to turn off the back light, so the user can manually switch (or use the ambient light sensor) to switch between the two for the desired use. The benefit, in addition to easing the strain on the eyes, is that the device will have a greater battery life.

The Adam uses an Arm processor. The A9, which is in the Adam, is a dual-core and more powerful then any processor in Android devices to date. As it gains power, it will also gain battery life, offering 140 hours of audio or 16 hours of video playback. This is noticeably more then the iPad, however still less then the Amazon Kindle.

Speaking of video, the Adam offers 1080p video playback through the HDMI connection. Much stronger then the iPad, if you have the patience to hook it up to TV. In addition to quality video ability, the device also incorporates a camera which swivels 180 degrees. While I don’t see it as a practical addition, it does add a feature a lot will love.

In addition to an HDMI port, the tablet has 3x USB ports. This highlights a draw back of the iPad for most. I don’t expect they would be a selling point for me, but that’s because almost every thing I do away from my desktop is on a cloud server.

As for UI, there’s no information about their custom UI other then the fact that it’s in development. What has been hinted is that there will be an improved keypad, as well as functionality of a track pad located on the back.

With all the benefits over the iPad, one would expect it to be significantly more expensive then the iPad. Notion refuses to release pricing information, however they have referred to the price as being able to make you “happy.”

After having considering the iPad, the Kindle and the Nook, I see my self wanting to wait this device out through launch. Waiting impatientally, unfortunately, seeing as the release is supposed to be in Q2. The only thing I can do at this point is keep my eyes open for new information.

After seeing Windows Mobile 7, I have to say it really compliments Android as a serious mobile phone.  As Gizmodo said, it “out Appled Apple.” Not to say it won’t be an enjoyable experience, or a competitor in the mobile market, but it’s a different experience than the typical “Smartphone.”  The big question, then, is how does Microsoft’s new platform compare with Apple and Android–for users and for developers?

Windows Mobile 7′s interface and layout are the definition of simplicity. This comes as a direct challenge to the iPhone, which prides itself on a simple interface and usability. The WM7 user interface is about the easiest navigation I’ve seen and might be better than the iPhone because it has significantly more flexibility.

As I have said many times, one platform is not a substitute for another. This mobile operating system seems to target the market of iPhone users, who want a phone that “just works.” Microsoft is creating minimum phone specifications, ranging from screen size to sensors, to ensure that the phones run the OS smoothly. Because Android doesn’t have such standards (it provides more flexibility with the hardware), Windows Mobile 7 appears to be targeting the iPhone market share.

Unlike the iPhone OS and Windows Mobile, Android can be applied to a variety of devices. Android also has a virtually open application market, meaning developers can create what they want and deliver it when they want. So while the iPhone might own the mobile application market today, Android will really pick up steam as Microsoft and Apple create barriers for developers.  Such barriers seem inevitable for both Microsoft and Apple mobile operating platforms because both companies want a seamless interface and, unfortunately, don’t trust independent app developers to provide it.

With the thought of a hardware floor comes a nightmare of an application approval process similar to Apple’s. Needless to say, this would be extremely discouraging for developers looking to produce applications for the platform. The bright side–there’s always a bright side–is that Flash will probably be available soon on the Windows Mobile platform.. for those of you who care for Flash.

I received Gmail access to Google Buzz yesterday and had a chance to poke around with it away from a mobile platform. There’s a lot that needs to be worked out, however my opinion has changed quite a bit since playing around on the phone.

Naturally, my first impression was filled with concerns about privacy with the location tagging. From a mobile standpoint, I still feel quite the same. The difference with the Gmail based interface is that it doesn’t seem so invasive on that front. Overall, it actually functions really well (considering the hiccups with Wave) and feels more private then Twitter and smoother then Facebook.

Jason Calacanis posted a note on his blog claiming this was the end of Facebook. After receiving the Gmail access, I’d have to agree that in the long run it could be a direct competitor due to Facebook’s recent downward spiral. Naturally, Gmail has a great customer base to enter the market, but I think it has a lot more to deal with the presentation. Presentation and simplicity was the highlight to Facebook’s original success, however as the social site grew they moved in the opposite direction.

In previous posts, I’ve talked thoroughly about the simplicity of designs and ease of use being a strong point to the success of websites. Facebook had been an example, however even before the most recent redesign the networking site had fallen away from “networking” and became more of an entertainment site. With the addition of applications and games, Facebook was able to attract a whole new audience at the cost of detouring others with constant Farmville updates from peers. I remember wanting to quit Facebook over the first “best friends” invitation, because it resembled MySpace’s sparkling hearts.

Google Buzz has none of the added pizazz which attracts the easily excited. Rather, Buzz allows for peer to peer communication through a clean interface. Since there are no bells and whistles, at least distracting ones, Buzz becomes a feed from those you’re following. Almost a more business like approach to network, which is fitting because it is nested in a powerful email client almost always used for business.

Still, there are several things Buzz needs to improve to gain a faster share of the market. First, there needs to be a way to collapse or skip comments on individual and individual buzz. Second, there needs to be mobile implementation beyond browser interface that doesn’t urge location tagging. Third, and final, better arrangement of the Google Profile page. It’s just hideous.

Writing an opinion about a product that hasn’t been released is a difficult thing. The most difficult task is determining what features would be the most useful, considering it’s a new type of product. It is this reason I wanted to wait until after the rush of opinions, whether I agreed with them or not they distracted me from forming my own thorough opinion.

First, the way I see it, the iPad is more then just a large iPod touch and significantly less then a laptop. Most people are comparing the iPad to these two products, but the greatest differences are found in the uses for the devices. While the device will run a modified iPod firmware, the developers have the room to make it a thousand times more useful. The with a larger screen, more processing power and a greater battery life the applications can be more demanding and usable. Without running a full operating system, the tablet won’t be utilized like a laptop or netbook. This is not a bad thing.

A lot of people have complained about Flash support and lack of multitasking. Looking beyond Hulu, I don’t have much of an interest in Flash support. Don’t get me wrong, I would love the concept, but as time goes on I am finding less and less of a need for it. To me, the iPad wouldn’t be another media device rather a tool I’d use for work. I am sure I’d watch the occasional movie on a long plane ride, but it’s primary application would be reading and business related tasks. This brings me to my next point, multitasking and the illusion of increased productivity.

As someone who is a self-proclaimed master multitasker, I will admit it gets in the way of productivity. I could see someone wanting to listen to Pandora while reading their favorite blog, but when it comes down to it you don’t need a Twitter application running while you are working.. especially when your phone is right next to you. The reason the iPad doesn’t multitask is the same as the iPhone, they want a seamless user experience without overloading the system. I think this works for the iPad, but not the iPhone because I think people are more likely to multitask on a phone then they are a tablet.

Naturally, Google outdoes its announcement of Buzz yesterday by introducing a new service today. The announcement of their new fiber optic ISP trials, offering up to 1gb connections, comes as little to surprise to those following recent news. In the recent weeks, Google has made claims that the internet speeds in the US are lacking in comparison to where they should be. In their blog post Google even mentions that they’ve “urged” the FCC in encouraging faster speeds.

A lot of people I know are screaming “not again,” referring to Google as trying to own every aspect of technology. I see the ISP trial as a step to push regular ISP’s into offering a more competitive environment to help the end users. With the idea that by introducing the ultimate competitor, current ISP’s will be forced to improve their speeds and lower the barrier for such connections.

While I don’t see market trials forcing ISP’s to change their practices, I think it will open the demand for fiber optic at home connections.

The next question that comes to mind, is how Google plans on operating the service competitively with other carriers. Introducing a 1gb/s connection to markets limited at 15mb is going to disrupt the market, entirely, regardless of price. Most ISP’s at this point aren’t able to maintain comparable speeds on their back end, and I’m sure aren’t terribly interested in making such an adjustment.

So what are your thoughts? Is this a fair move on Google’s part? Will ISP’s change their ways after being bullied by Google?