For the majority of 2007, I have been a subscriber to the premium versions of a few Web widgets, including FeedBurner, for RSS distribution and optimization, and SiteMeter, for visitor tracking and trends. The few bucks a month out of my pocket are typically well spent, first to gauge my curiosity, and second, to provide real data on what's working with the blog and what's not.

Not too long ago, Google acquired FeedBurner, putting the popular application under the company's corporate umbrella. While I haven't yet seen any impact due to the change, today we learned that all those premium services, which I had valued at $4.99 a month, are now available for the low, low price of $0.00 a month, courtesy of Google.

While I can't argue with the price, it not only makes me feel like I was paying something for nothing, but any time you give a product a price of free, it suggests it lacks value, and raises the concern that the product may not see the level of innovation and support it might receive if it were to generate revenue. Why would Google take its engineers time to optimize something that doesn't inherently drive cash into the account after all, instead of focusing on AdWords?

Therein lies the detail. If Google is controlling the distribution of the blogosphere's RSS feeds through FeedBurner, and the reading of those RSS feeds, through Google Reader, there's nothing to stop the company from capitalizing on that monopoly and slapping RSS ads everywhere. After all, who doesn't love an ad-supported free service? That's how television has worked for a century!

I wish I could say I'm ecstatic that I'm no longer going to be billed by Google. Those 5 bucks a month will get me one more 25 cent can of Diet Coke on a daily basis each workday, after all. But I just wonder if we'll be as ecstatic about the move once the full picture is revealed.

For more discussion, see:

Insider Chatter: Free FeedBurner? The HIGH Price You Pay
ParisLemon: FeedBurner Pro and MyBrand Made Free By Google
WebProNews: Google Feeds Free FeedBurner MyBrand

Bruce Almighty, starring Jim Carrey and Morgan Freeman, was hilarious. When given God-like powers, Carrey manages to use his powers for the mundane and silly before realizing so many in the world need their prayers answered and that always giving people what they want may not be the best thing. While Carrey could be seen enhancing his girlfriend's bosom, or teaching his dog to sit on the toilet, in the sequel, Evan Almighty, now led by Office funnyman Steve Carell, is almost all business in his new role as Noah, charged with building an ark to protect his hometown from a promised flood. Unlike "Bruce", "Evan" is overly religious, and the near-preachiness of the story, at least for me, seemed to sap some of its potential.

Some spoilers ahead... you have been warned...

Evan Baxter, who we last left as a newscaster at the local anchor desk, has now successfully run for Congress, and is moving out of the small town and into the rich suburbs, much to the concern of his wife and kids. After he prays to "Change the world", God turns him into a modern-day incarnation of Noah, down to the long white beard, and acting as a magnet for two of every kind of animal, to find shelter in the ark. Unlike "Bruce", which saw Carrey aloof in his brush with deity, the "Evan" movie is rife with references to Genesis 6:14, and commonly known elements of the Noah story, like the appearance of two doves, one of whom fetches an olive branch at the conclusion of the film to show all is well, as the proverbial rainbow shines in the background.

In the movie, we can understand the stresses of a freshman representative who has to choose between home life and a career, and Evan's trying to escape this new assignment from God, through denial and in other scenes, through physical escape from the plague of animals that won't leave him alone. We understand when his wife and kids, as well as the local media, think he's a nutcase. But, as with most summer comedies, there are big holes. It doesn't really make sense that the animals be housed in the ark, despite the parallels with the Bible story. And when the thousands of animals do congregate by the in-process ark, the media and townspeople aren't seeing that as a sign that just maybe Evan is on to something. But it is funny to see how this modern-day Noah is just as much at risk due to building code violations as he would be to the mocking of unbelievers.

The supporting cast, beyond Carell, is pretty good. John Goodman is solid as always, though I didn't see him promoted all that much, and Wanda Sykes is funny, though it seems her job was to drop one liners for the camera each time she was in the picture. With no character development for her, it seems she was just reenacting her standup routines best seen on Comedy Central. Carell pulls off the Noah routine well, looking forlorn with what has befallen him, and struggling to maintain a career when he has a higher calling. But he's no Jim Carrey. There's only one of those, and the absence of the star who can take over the movie screen and have your sides in stitches reduces this film to a Sunday School story with jokes.

With the improvements in Web browser functionality, Flash adoption, Java and high-end graphics cards commonplace, simple games no longer need downloadable software, dedicated consoles, or other equipment. Instead, game developers can create in-browser applications that, with few exceptions, work in every browser on any operating system. Now, instead of worrying about whether to make the PC version before the Mac version, or if Linux support is crucial, developers can write once and play anywhere.

While some of the most popular online hangouts include Yahoo! Games and Pogo (an Electronic Arts subsidiary), other sites without the big bucks behind them are creating simple games that are hard to stop playing once you've begun. Among them are the aptly named Addicting Games, Cognitive Labs and One More Level. I can hear the kids' cries now... "Mom! Do I have to go to bed? Just one more level!"

My favorite by far is Addicting Games' Pinch Hitter. Having been introduced to it by some subversive friends at Athletics Nation, I've shared the links with family and colleagues, and am never satisfied with my results. While capable of hitting the occasional home run, I still have a tendency to strike out, which can severely damage my score. I strongly suggest you take a few swings yourself. If you do play, be sure to post your high score in the comments. Only on rare occasions can I top 25,000.

As far as Pixar movies go, Ratatouille wasn't exactly the best the company has ever delivered. While the vast majority of movie goers have enjoyed the film's story of a scent-gifted rat who takes on Parisian cuisine, I can only say that I found the movie humorous, but by no means an instant classic. Though any Pixar film is better than any other studio's animated feature, I found Ratatouille fell behind The Incredibles, Finding Nemo, the Toy Story series and even A Bug's Life, and if it generates a sequel, I don't think it'll find any legs.

As a kid, I remember a children's book on a mouse named Anatole who worked in a french cheese factory with a career as a cheese taster. It could be that with that background, and having already seen a 9-minute sneak preview of Ratatouille via a promotion from Pixar on our TiVo, I felt that the story was an old one by the time I saw it. I was amused by the characters, and enjoyed the story, but much of it didn't work for me, from the age-old geek gets girl subplot, to the family crisis caused when the main character sets out on his own. I also wasn't keen on the imaginary friend chef, or the ultra-difficult food critic, who echoed the evil queen stereotypes in Snow White or Sleeping Beauty. The show also seemed quite dark, especially if being marketed toward young children.

Would I recommend seeing the film? Sure! But only once, and don't expect it to be the best movie you've ever seen. For other, likely more positive, comments, check out Webomatica's take on the film.