Shared by Kristopher
android apps, android, nexus one

The Android Market may still lag behind the iPhone App Store in terms of variety and quality, but there is something to be said for the Android operating system's extremely tight integration with existing Google products, and the wide choice of devices and carriers.

There's no question that the iPhone has many wonderful apps, but Android's smart syncing with existing tools, interesting Android-only experiments coming every day from Google employees, and its open marketplace model have yielded some tools that may give the average iPhone user pause.

If you're looking for a change, or you're in the smartphone market and still weighing the pros and cons, consider these Android-only apps and how they might fit into your work, play, and mobile lifestyle.

---

1. OpenHome

---

There's no denying that the iPhone OS is a gorgeous piece software. But when it comes to the home screen, you get what you get, and you don't get upset, to quote a nursery school mantra.

Android is completely open-source, which means that apps can change the functionality and appearance of the OS, if you permit them to. This isn't always good for safety, but it's great for customization.

OpenHome is one of the leading customization apps available on the Market. It functions as a replacement for the default home screen, into which you can load customs skins, icon packs, and fonts many of which are freely available in the Market and created by other users.

In addition to the look and feel of your OS, OpenHome also allows for other custom tweaks including soft keyboard improvements and widget modifications.

---

2. Google Voice

---

Imagine a world where you never have to listen to another voicemail again. That's almost what you get when you set up Google Voice and utilize the Android app. Google Voice lets you keep your existing mobile number, but will forward your missed calls to a generated Google number that you can check on the web, in your e-mail, or via the app.

The service automatically generates voicemail transcription that is usually accurate enough to get the gist of what the caller is saying. Instead of getting a voicemail on your phone, you'll receive and e-mail (or text message) with the transcription.

The app then lets you scroll through your messages visually, like an e-mail inbox, and stream the audio messages from the web as needed, all without wasting precious mobile minutes.

There are certainly other great voicemail alternatives for the iPhone (and Voice is available as a web-based service), but Google Voice's deep integration with Gmail (you can also enable audio playback within web e-mail messages) makes it a great compliment to your hand-held arsenal of communications tools.

Google Voice is still an invite-only service at the moment. You can request an invite from Google here, or hit up your friends on social networks for one.

---

3. NESoid

---

Classic gamers rejoice! NESoid is a Nintendo ROM emulator for Android that actually works. The app itself is software that interprets ROM files the format of choice for hacked console games. Assuming you're loading a worthwhile ROM file from your SD card, the gameplay is really smooth.

The lite version of NESoid is free, but prevents you from loading a saved-state of a game. The full version will cost you $3.49 and unlocks this feature.

Most ROMS are not exactly kosher in terms of copyright, so we'll leave it at your discretion whether you want to actually track down the games. This is likely why console emulators have not made it through the stringent App Store approval process, but are now appearing in Android's more liberal Market.

---

4. Google Finance

---

If you've got an eye on your stock portfolio 24/7, Google Finance can be a useful tool for getting customized, real-time quotes.

The Android app syncs directly to your Google Finance portfolios and streams live data right into your hands by way of quote updates, charts, and financial news.

Android is currently the only mobile platform with an official Google Finance app.

---

5. Google Listen

---

Google Listen is a unique offering from Google Labs that functions like a search engine and subscription tool for podcasts across the web. If you're on the train and realize you've forgotten to download the latest episode of NPR's This American Life, simply fire up Google Listen, search for it, and stream it immediately, from the source.

Google Listen effectively eliminates the need to download podcasts or connect your handset to your computer. And with subscription options built in, once you find a show you like, you'll never miss an episode while you're on the go.

---

6. Gmail and Google Calendar

---

Last but not least, the utility of the fully integrated Gmail and Calendar apps that come built-in to the Android OS cannot be overstated. One of the core reasons why any Gmail or Google Apps user should go Android is that the handset will complete your suite of cloud computing productivity tools.

Because of the intrinsic link between your Android phone and your Google account, the mobile functionality of Google apps like Gmail and Calendar are seamless. Draft an e-mail on your phone and it is instantly viewable in your drafts folder on the web. Update an appointment on the web Calendar, and it's reflected on your phone seconds later.

Android users also enjoy the built-in functionality of shared calendars, Gmail labels, threaded conversations, and Send As accounts if it is configured in your settings.

If you live and work out of your Gmail inbox, an Android handset is the perfect extension.

---

More Android resources from Mashable:

---

- 7 Mind-Blowing Free Android Apps
- Free Multiplayer Android Games [3 of the Best]
- 3 News Apps for Android Compared
- The Best Free Twitter Apps for Android
- 30 Android Apps to Watch
- 8 Android Apps Worth Paying For (And Some That Aren't)

By Senior Editor Kris Smith

With the new FTC guidelines for bloggers and other new media types taking effect December 1, 2009 it is a perfect time to point out why this is a good thing for bloggers. Bloggers have had the opportunity to grow unrestricted for years. These guidelines should allow bloggers, hobbyists and professionals alike, not to be pushed up against a wall.

Copyright attorney and intellectual property rights expert Evan Brown said in a recent interview, The new guidelines play the important role of showing participants in the marketplace how the FTC will enforce the laws that help consumers have a better understand what they're seeing or hearing when they view an advertisement or promotion.

Here are five more reasons that it is important

1. Bloggers were the first in this new media push to be paid for their work, community and influence.

2. Without a clear disclosure guideline within the professional blogger community between agencies, brands and individual bloggers much if not all disclosure fell through the cracks

3. With a clearer disclosure guideline structure in place from the FTC it is now understood that this space will be regulated . . . meaning it is a business.

4. To continue being a professional, one must be paid for their skills. If guidelines and or enforcement of those guidelines weren't a reality many businesses that have been looking at this space would withdraw and turn back to traditional media for their buys. Lippe Taylor's SVP of Digital Marketing, Matthew Snodgrass agrees, The blogosphere seems to be forgetting that advertisers are also on the hook with these new guidelines. It will be in the advertiser's best interest to only deal with blogs that will also be adhering to these guidelines.

5. It puts a new emphasis on transparency in new media communications that can only help improve the culture of paid endorsements and the material connections that the FTC monitors to protect the public interest.

DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL CONNECTION: http://cmp.ly/0

Post from: TechStartups.com

You think you enjoyed Blu-ray vs HD DVD? Memory Stick vs SD? Pshaw! You haven't seen a format war until you've witnessed the betrayal and bloodbath that was Betamax vs VHS.

Sony was supposed to win this. The company made magnetic tape out of like paper and mud back in the 1940s, turned out a "pocketable" transistor radio in the 1950s, and invented the "portable" television by 1960. They had their first video tape recorder by 1963. They weren't the only ones, but they were among the first and best.

The so-called VTR business had a rocky start. The things were hulking bastards, with huge price tags and poor recording capability.

A company called Ampex put out the first "home entertainment" VTR in 1963, only it cost $30,000 in the Neiman Marcus Christmas catalog, and was nicknamed Grant's Tomb because the product manager who thought it up was going to be shoved inside by the company's accountants. (He would have fit, too, the thing was so big.) Sony comes along in the middle of that decade and puts out a $1,200 "portable" VTR that came with a leatherette case and its own TV. It still weighed 65 pounds.

The worst part about these 1960s VTRs was that they were basically reel-to-reelyou had to thread your own 1-inch videotape through spools and stuff, and by the end of the decade, a one-hour spool of tape was like 8 inches in diameter. Can you imagine your TiVo needing 180 spools of videotape to get the job done?

As Sony toiled on the videotape problem, Matsushitawho we now call Panasonicand its independent subsidiary JVC weren't really standing out in the VTR business. Let's say this: Nobody would have guessed they'd be able to overthrow Sony and kick mecha ass within the decade.

However, these guys were among the biggest manufacturers, dwarfing Sony many times over. Matsushita, known for efficiency, not innovation, tended to focus on big boring appliancesTVs, refrigerators, air conditionerswith a smaller team, branded Technics, devoted to dominating the hi-fi realm. JVC was all about TVs and audio gear, and had decent video know-how.

It was Sony who solved the reel-to-reel problem withta daaa!a video cassette. It was called U-Matic, and at 3/4" thick, it was smaller than the earlier formats, but still a bit of a chunkster. Since video was a bit of a Wild West, Sony felt like it needed partners to firmly establish a format, and to avoid a format war. It asked Matsushita and JVC, who said "yes" as long as Sony adopted some changes. They key here: The partnership included a deal where everybody shared all the patents. Turns out, probably not the smartest move by Sony.

Sony was right to form a posse, though. Every single electronics maker in Japan, Europe and America was trying to build a video recorder. Some American firms were obsessed with lasers (though ironically it would later be the Dutch and Japanese firms who actually put lasers to good use); other American firms were jazzed about microfilm...for video. None of them had success. Before we get on with the story, here's a list of totally failed video players and recorders:

Matsushita VX-100 and VX-2000
Matsushita AutoVision
Toshiba/Sanyo V-Cord
Ampex InstaVision
MCA DiscoVision/Magnavox Magnavision
CBS Electronic Video Recording
RCA HoloTape
Sears/Cartridge Television Cartrivision

See what I mean? A friggin' mess it was.

Part of the problem was the message. Nobody knew what the hell this was all about. Sony wasn't just a pioneer in the technology, they thought hard about how to explain why you totally desperately want something bad. At one point, Sony hired Bela Lugosi to dress up one last time as Dracula, and explain that, since he worked nights, he needed to catch up on primetime shows when he got home. Get it? Vampiresthey're out killing people when Barney Miller is playing! It was a good bit, and there were a lot more like it. Little by little, the public caught on to what VCRs were for.

Anyway, U-Matic, launched in 1971, wasn't a runaway success, either, but it was the bestselling video recorder to date, and the first successful VCR. In the realm of pro video, it was hot. Sony cashed in by steering from the home market to the businesses but JVC, who kept trying to pitch it for home use, got hosed. Like villains in some Shakespearean play, Matsushita and JVC kinda lurked in the background, planning for the next round when they might one-up that little charmer, Sony. The name of their plot? Video Home System, which you and I call VHS.

Sony was naive. Like, crazy naive. In 1974, it asked Matsushita and JVC to partner up again, this time on a fully baked format called Betamax. They weren't asking for intellectual collaboration, just a deal to make and sell the things. It was a nice system, with really small tapes, but the problem was, the tapes only recorded for an hour. Sony was like, "That's not a problem," but everyone else was like, "Yes, it is." The would-be partners dragged their heels suspiciously, not signing any deals. Sony kinda thought that was weird, but went ahead and launched the one-hour Betamax box in 1975.

Big mistake.

Not long after Sony went into wide release with the one-hour Betamax, JVC pulled a two-hour VHS out of its butt. And in time for Christmas 1976 no less. Sony had another flash of naivete when it pressed on with the one-hour system for a while, even though it had a two-hour system in the works. In that gap, JVC and its big poppa Matsushita scored sales and recognition.

Some people say Betamax was "better" but that depends on many factors, and could very well be an urban myth. The technologies were so close Sony's own chairman called VHS a copy of Betamax. What may have looked good in one system with certain settings might not look as good on another with different settings. And by some accounts, Betamax's more moving parts meant they were more expensive to manufacture and more costly to maintain and repair. It's not an open-and-shut case of quantity vs. quality. Either way you look at it, there are compromises.

By this point, it wasn't just some anything-goes contest with a million formats. By 1976, all those above had died or were dying. In Japan, there were just two choices. The Japanese government told everyone to sort it out. Hitachi, Mitsubishi and Sharp joined Team VHS, but didn't really move forward.

In February 1977, Sony grabbed Toshiba and Sanyo, and then signed the American powerhouse brand Zenith up for an order of Sony-made Betamaxes with the Zenith name on them. Was it going to happen for Betamax after all? Seemed like they'd finally drawn at least a few good cards from the deck.

Sony might not have been totally screwed at that moment, but there were two American powerhouses, and the other one, RCA, was undecided. Ironically, the fate of the Japanese VCR industry relied on how well it could handle the most American of sports: Football. In other words, now that both players could manage two hours of recording time, what RCA wanted was enough recording time to capture a gamethree hours would do.

What transpired next is unclear. Even though, at the time, both technologies were limited to two-hour capacity, Matsushita pledged to make RCA tape machines that could record for four hours.

Was this a lie? Was it vaporware? Whatever the deal, JVC engineers pulled off a four-hour capacity six weeks later, and RCA agreed to buy 55,000 machines that year, and up to a million more in the next three years. Better yet, RCA's SelectaVision VHS decks would cost $300 less than the two-hour Betamaxes, at $1000 a pop.

Although Betamax hung on for a bit longer, that, boys and girls, was the end of the competition. In 1979, Sony market share tilted downward, and by 1980, the jig was up for those poor bastards.

Note: I recognize that there are other issues that might have come into play here, including Universal's lawsuit of Sony, which lead to today's Supreme Court definition of fair-use copyright law, and the fact that some studios, including Warner, began squeezing movies onto videotape early, with varying degrees of success. However, I contend that none of that changed the outcomethe war above was fought between Sony and Matsushita, and Matsushita won.

SOURCES:
Fast Forward: Hollywood, The Japanese, and the VCR Wars - James Lardner (Special thanks to you, Jim, for chatting me through some of this)
Sony - John Nathan
The History of Television - Albert Abramson
Sony History - Sony Global Website
Made in Japan - Akio Morita
Quest for Prosperity - Konosuke Matsushita
[PDF] Case Report on Betamax - Verardi et al
"Why VHS was better than Betamax" - Guardian UK - Jack Schofield

Gizmodo '79 is a week-long celebration of gadgets and geekdom 30 years ago, as the analog age gave way to the digital, and most of our favorite toys were just being born.

With nabobs still nattering about TechCrunch's decision to publish internal Twitter documents, copyright lawyer Ben Sheffner reminds us that getting people to spill unauthorized info is commonly known as "journalism." Sheffner's post originally appeared on his blog, Copyrights & Campaigns.

I am genuinely baffled by the journalistic ethics debate over TechCrunch's decision to publish Twitter corporate documents that were apparently obtained through "hacking" and then forwarded to the Silicon Valley business blog.

TechCrunch appears to have played no role whatsoever in the alleged hacking. According to TechCrunch, it was simply sent 310 documents, unsolicited. It then decided to print "financial projections, product plans and notes from executive strategy meetings," as well as "the original pitch document for the Twitter TV show that hit the news in May." Why? "[M]ostly because it's awesome." TechCrunch voluntarily refrained from publishing other information contained in the documents, including "floorplans and security passcodes to get into the Twitter offices." According to the NY Times, TechCrunch's founder Michael Arrington (a fellow OMM alum) "is working closely with Twitter as it determines which pieces of information to publish," though "[h]e is protecting the identity of his source."

Here's what I don't get: why the ethical hand-wringing here? Why was TechCrunch's decision to publish some of the hacked documents any different from what mainstream publications like the Times and Wall Street Journal do countless times every day: print information and documents leaked from employees to reporters, without company permission? Every company I've ever heard of prefers to keep its business information confidential. Often, they have formal confidentiality policies, or even require employees (and contractors) to enter into strict nondisclosure agreements. Of course business reporters know this. And yet, without giving it a second thought, they ask employees to violate their duties to their employers, and leak confidential documents and spill the beans on company secrets. And their editors don't wring their hands; they praise their reporters for their scoops.

In some ways, what typical reporters do in soliciting confidential documents is ethically worse than what TechCrunch did. Reporters typically ask sources to give them confidential documents knowing full well that the employee is breaking company policy, and possibly civil or even criminal laws (e.g., conversion or theft of trade secrets). But TechCrunch did no such thing; by its account, the hacked documents just showed up unsolicited in its inbox. And assuming that's accurate, I think TechCrunch faces no significant legal risk from publishing the material. See Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001) (radio host not liable under wiretapping statutes for broadcasting illegally intercepted conversations, where he played no role in illegal interception).

The hand-wringers can't have it both ways. Either TechCrunch's decision to print was perfectly legitimate journalism or what business reporters do every single day is even more unethical. Am I missing some distinction?

Gosh, just as the Associated Press announces that it's going to follow a new meta tagging scheme to protect its content, it continues to show no clue about how to monetize its own traffic much less regulate it. Stories continue to die, just as they have when I covered the issue a year ago.

Back in June 2008, I wrote Hey AP! How About Running A Real News Web Site?, which in the wake of AP making noise about fair use guidelines examined how the organization failed to provide any central article that anyone could point at. A key part of my article:

To get back to the bloggers, let me point out a key problem you have. Your stories appear everywhere, like weeds. Then they die, unlike weeds. Like they disappear after roughly 30 days. This was an issue I pointed out when the Google deal was struck.

Now skip ahead to this past May. In writing Do Newspapers Owe Google Fair Share Fees For Researching Stories?, I said:

Let's consider last week's wonderful story from the AP about how old Japanese maps on Google Earth are causing problems with some in that country. Given that news stories have a tendency to disappear, I'm going to link to the story using its entire headline: Old Japanese maps on Google Earth unveil secrets. Now if the story should move for some reason, as least with the headline, there's a chance of locating it in some new location.

Try to go to that story today, where I linked to it at, and you get a 404 error:

The page you've requested does not exist at this address.

Nice. As Jean commented, you can still find the article over at the Huffington Post. Perhaps HuffPo's deal with the AP allows stories to be up longer than 30 days. Certainly the Seattle Times still has it, also. But the copy over at Yahoo is dead, meaning all that Digg love it had generated is now going to waste.

If people wonder why I might seem so hostile to newspapers screaming about how badly they're being done by Google, bloggers and aggregators, it's stuff like this that does it. This is lunacy. It doesn't engender respect or a believe that the AP or other organizations really understand the world they're operating in.

I linked to the article the AP itself had put out on its own web site. They kill it. Links from Digg that would generate thousands of visits are allowed to die. Duplicate content across the web isn't regulated by the AP itself there's no instructions for publications to block that content from search engines; no thought about consolidating links; no thought about how no one can tell what's the authorative piece that they should link to.

And yet the AP and others yap that they don't get credit enough, that people rip them off, that Google should somehow have supernatural abilities to make up for the mess they contribute to. Please.

But hey, it's all going to be better now. AP proposes new article formatting for the Web from the Associated Press itself tells us of a new standard (write that headline down, so you can find the article in 30 days when it dies). It involves meta tagging articles, which will:

The tag[s] identifying usage rights could allow Web sites that aggregate content to automatically sort articles by copyright terms and let publishers more easily track how their stories are being used, said Srinandan Kasi, AP's general counsel.

If you want to know more about the system, visit the Value Added News site. Don't worry as you're told:

Adding semantic value to your news is not rocket science. It doesn't even require serious plumbing in the depths of your database.

Then scroll down after that intro, and your head will hurt. Like if I use the microformat for Daily News, which Daily News is that? Because there's a number of them out there. The tech specs don't help.

As for the AP already using this, when I looked, I didn't see tags on some selected articles I examined. I certainly didn't see them on AP content being redistributed by AP members. I even wonder if the tags will carry over across the various content management systems out there, once they leap forth from the AP.

But wait, there's more. What about ACAP? That's supposed to be a shining star in the rights management area that AP signed on to ages ago. ACAP, which is being positioned (see also here) to European legislators as part of a solution to protect newspapers and publishers from those evil aggregators.

So now AP is going to use a second system in addition to ACAP? And yet meanwhile fail to follow the most important system, basic SEO?

Sigh. Maybe later I'll ask the AP about it. Maybe they'll even decide that someone from the AP can speak to me, unlike earlier this year. Believe it or not, I'd like to see them succeed. I only wish it were less talk, less smoke-and-mirrors, less we can't unless and more action with what they really can do now, in an action that technically makes sense.

Stephanie Condon / CNET News:
Bush signs RIAA-backed intellectual-property law Updated at 12:45 p.m. PDT with quotes. President Bush on Monday signed into law an intellectual-property enforcement bill that would consolidate federal efforts to combat copyright infringement under a new White House cabinet position.

<rant>

Let me tell you a story

Lid does a number of things around the Web, and sometimes I even find it hard to keep up. So I have a Google alert on her, so I can see what she is doing and what people are saying about her. That's my excuse anyways.

Last Friday I got an alert from Google with 3 references:

The references are:

1. Lid's ReadWriteWeb post about Social Media and who is doing it well from the Social Media Marketing Summit in San Francisco.
2. A post by Laurena about delicious and tagging which discusses and references Lid's article -just what the Web is intended for.
3. A post by Oggi' which looks remarkable like Lid's - it starts with the same 20 words - and even references her by name.

So who or what is Oggi's blog? Here is a screen shot.

Here is a breakdown of Oggi's blog:

1. 3 separate groups of Google advertising - two text based, and the third image based.
2. The title of the post which is the same as Lid's.
3. The content of the post is the same initial 20 words of Lid's post, then followed by Original post by Lidija Davis with Lid's name linked to her post on ReadWriteWeb.

Now the link on Lid's post is interesting in that it is not a direct link to the post on ReadWriteWeb, but rather an indirect link via Google's FeedBurner service. Here is the link:

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/readwriteweb/~3/nS1e6RgCjbw/social_media_for_business_who_is_doing_it.php

So what about the other posts on this blog? Surprise, surprise, they all reference other people's posts in exactly the same way. The same title is used, same first 20 words, and a link to the original post via FeedBurner.

Just to prove to myself that Google is still in fact indexing Oggi's blog, I did a site search for Lidija, and found two previous ReadWriteWeb posts.

So what is the point of Oggi's blog?

To hi-hack anyone who is searching for the title of noteworthy posts, so that if they click on the links, they will invoke 3 separate Google blocks of ads, with the user clicking through to the original article.

Now, who wins out of this?

1. Oggi - for the princely sum of a few fractions of a cent.
2. Google - for recording and charging the lucky advertisers for appearing on Oggi's blog - this too would be minimal; however, it is still money on the bottom line.

The individual amount of money changing hands is minimal; however, multiply this by the number of hapless visitors and it could get into the hundreds for Oggi, and multiply this by the number of Oggi clones out there and now you are getting into the thousands for Google. I must state that I have absolutely no clue as to the actual numbers, but I think I have underestimated both sets of numbers here.

So who loses?

1. The users of the Web for being distracted by useless profiteering
2. The advertiser.
3. The Web in general for being littered with content which has absolutely zero value.

So to recap:

1. I was sent an e-mail by Google alerting me to the existence of Oggi's blog, of which I was blissfully ignorant until then.
2. I visit Oggi's blog and find that I am reading a post of zero value to me, has zero content, well actually 29 words copied from elsewhere, and which is surrounded by 3 block's of Google advertisements.
3. The link to the original post is via Google's FeedBurner service.

The only thing which is not Google's is the blogging software, which is WordPress in this case. Otherwise, we would have had a clean sweep. Digressing a bit, we had a bit of fun last April fool's with this post on Google acquiring WordPress (remember this is not serious).

Now what Oggi is doing is cookie cutter stuff, so I can't see how Google cannot detect that the intent is none other than injecting a post in between the user and what they actually want to view and benefiting courtesy of Google ads.

But then the conspiracy person within me has a theory, and we all have one, just the degree varies (checkout ReadWriteWeb's very own post on Chrome)

Why aren't Google proactively purging such sites from their index, and thus alerts?

If they did then they loose money since ads are not being triggered.

I certainly hope this is not the case. I would expect that purging 100% of such sites from the index is actually impossible, but I think that low hanging fruit such as Oggi are simple enough for a group of 2-3 Googlers to solve - a few, ok, many, 20% days perhaps.

It maybe a long bow, but the theoretical dilemma is interesting, and no doubt finer minds than mine have discussed this to death.

I googled Google to see if you can report such blogs so this site is removed from the index, but the only thing I could find on the first page of the results, I am not a patient searcher, was a reference to reporting copyright infringements which requires me to mail in a letter (I kid you not).

I was expecting to find a report abuse' link one click away from the Google's home page, in About Google specifically.

With search being an integral part of everyone's online life now, and that given that googled' is now a verb, it plays a critical component of the Web, in that it potentially can control the pages which are viewed by users, thereby controlling the ads which are displayed, thereby controlling the potential revenue received by Google.

Google currently receives a lot of freedom in what they do, which they have rightly earned, but how can we be sure that this is not abused in the future?

How can we, the citizens of the Web, be assured that there is no conflict of interest between the search/index side of the business and the advertising side within Google?

Is there a common theme here? Checkout Michael Gray's view on Google's book search.

</rant>

WordPress and RSS go together like ham and cheese, but there are always ways to make the combination that much better and make sure you know exactly how well you are doing. The following 12 plugins will help you add information to your feeds, manage your subscribers and view statistics on how you're performing.

All of these plugins are supposed to work in version 2.5 and above. Also, as always, don't install all of these unless you want to decrease your blog's response time.

Additional Feed Content

Ozh' Better Feed - Allows you to add just about anything you want to your RSS feed entries such as links, ads, copyright information and more.

RSS Footer - Allows you to insert copyright information and link backs to your original posting in your RSS entries.

RSS Includes Pages - Allows you to include pages and not just posts in your RSS feed.

RSSupplement - Allows you to add a number of different things to your feed including comments link, social bookmarking links and more.

Simple Feed Copyright - Adds a simple copyright notice to the bottom of each entry in your RSS feed with a link back to your blog.

RSS Management

FD FeedBurner Plugin - Redirects your main feed, and your comments feed if you choose, through FeedBurner without any need to modify templates.

Feed Key - Allows you to add keys to restrict feeds to registered users.

Feed Wrangler - Allows you to manage your feed with ads, without, make some feeds bypass FeedBurner and more.

RSSless - Allows you to use short codes to remove certain types of content from your feeds such as videos or images that don't format correctly.

Stats

Feed Subscriber Stats - Allows you to see how many subscribers you have according to FeedBurner in your dashboard instead of going to their site or having to view your own site.

FeedBurner Widget - Allows you to add the FeedBurner chicklet directly from within your admin area.

FeedStats - Tracks feed usage in your dashboard. Lets you set the number of days to tracks, IPs to exclude and more.

---
Related Articles at Mashable - All That's New on the Web:

Wordpress Plugins Directory - Thanks, Wordpress!
Best of Mashable: WordPress
Wordpress 2.3 out on Monday; Now with Tags
Automattic Launches Wordpress Support Network
7 Tools For Fighting Spam In WordPress
30+ Tools For Working With Wordpress Posts
Wordpress 2.3 Released