Seriously

Teens Hate Twitter

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/businessinsider/~3/SQvuDM88UaA/teens-hate-twitter-2012-7

One surprise finding of our big research report, “The Secret Lives of Teens” is that kids aged 12-17 have very little use for Twitter.

A majority of them text and check Facebook everyday, but look how few use Twitter during an average 24-hours:

Teens who use Twitter

Seriously, the “never” us it:
Teens who use Twitter 

 

So what gives? Is this a horrible sign for Twitter?

Maybe not.

One theory we’ve been kicking around: One reason it appears teens hate Twitter, is that what they actually hate is news (they never read it online) and Twitter’s best use is as a news-delivery service. 

For more surprising data, see…

The Secret Lives Of Teenagers Online: A Full Report From Business Insider >

 

Please follow SAI on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, July 15th, 2012 news No Comments

There Is No Difference in Usage Between Unlimited Data Plans and Tiered Data Plans [Data]

Source: http://gizmodo.com/5887786/study-there-is-no-difference-in-usage-between-unlimited-data-plans-and-tiered-data-plans

Study: There Is No Difference in Usage Between Unlimited Data Plans and Tiered Data PlansHey Carriers. We need to talk. You know how you said you were going to start throttling high data usage users in hopes to preserve bandwidth? That’s bullshit, apparently. It’s only because you want to get us onto tiered data plans so you can charge us overages. With hate, everyone.

Seriously. Validas, an analytics firm, analyzed 50,000 cellphone bills from AT&T and Verizon to see if throttling was a necessary evil to conserve bandwidth. However, the numbers point to no. Instead, Validas guesstimates that it’s because carriers would rather have us on tiered data plans for the overage fees. According to Validas:

“When we look at the top 5% of data users, there is virtually no difference in data consumption between those on unlimited and those on tiered plans — and yet the unlimited consumers are the ones at risk of getting their service turned off. So it’s curious that anyone would think the throttling here represents a serious effort at alleviating network bandwidth issues. After all, Sprint does seemingly fine maintaining non-throttled unlimited data for its customers.”

The point being, throttling the Top 5% of unlimited data users seems to be unnecessary because the Top 5% are using the same amount of data on their tiered plans anyway. Go figure, carriers trying to squeeze a dime out of a nickel. [BGR]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, February 24th, 2012 Uncategorized No Comments

Google Rolling Out "Google Me," Their Facebook Killer, Very Soon [Unconfirmed]

Source: http://gizmodo.com/5573953/rumor-google-rolling-out-google-me-their-facebook-killer-very-soon

Well this is kinda wacky. Citing a “very credible source,” Digg founder Kevin Rose tweeted that Google is readying “Google Me,” a social service intended to go toe-to-toe (face-to-face?) with Facebook. It’s like Google stalking, but official, and thus marginally less creepy!

Google Buzz, their most recent foray into social networking, was not a resounding success (read: total privacy shitshow) and I imagine there’s some lingering skepticism about Google’s ability to actually keep all of its users information on lockdown.

Then again, they already know just about everything there is to know about you, so maybe it’d be easier to forget Facebook altogether and just click a button in Gmail that says, “Yes! Cull your extensive records to make a “Google Me” profile in my best image, selectively including the photographs and personal interests likeliest to get me laid.” Kidding, kidding, I promise that’s not what I’m all about. Seriously! Google me! [Kevin Rose via Runnin Scared and SF Weekly]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, June 27th, 2010 news 1 Comment

Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~3/Jp9ZubAuXTE/dude-drops-his-kindle-2-convinces-amazon-to-replace-it-and-pay-him-200-for-his-troubles

500x kindle lines2 Behold, the power of a scary-sounding letter from a lawyer! Paul dropped his Kindle 2 and it broke. Amazon wanted $200 to replace it. Instead, they replaced it and gave him an additional $200. Damn, son!

Seriously, how badass is this letter he sent to Amazon?

Paul Gowder
[Address omitted]

August 12, 2009

Amazon.com Inc.
Legal Department
1200 12th Avenue South
Suite 1200
Seattle, WA 98144-2734

Dear Sir or Madam:

On June 21, 2009, I purchased an Kindle 2 e-book reader from the Amazon.com website. I purchased this device based, in substantial part, on the expectation that it would be reasonably durable. In particular, I expected that it would be approximately as durable as is ordinary in the consumer electronics market.

Amazon.com advertises the Kindle 2 on the basis of its durability. Notably, Amazon.com displays a “drop test” video on the web page for this product. That video displays the device being dropped twice from thirty inches onto what appears to be tile. That video displays a fall with sufficient force that the device visibly bounces, and deliberately creates the impression that the device will function after impacts similar to that sequence of drops.

Despite those representations, the Kindle 2 is far less durable. On July 26, 2009, I dropped a messenger bag containing the device onto the sidewalk, from approximately two feet above the ground. It was dropped only once, and the messenger bag absorbed enough of the shock that nothing else in the bag, including a Macbook laptop, suffered an! y damage whatsoever. (Unlike the drop displayed in Amazon.com’s video, for example, nothing actually bounced.) Moreover, there was no visible damage on the exterior of the Kindle 2. Nonetheless, the Kindle 2 became completely unusable, with over 50% of its screen no longer able to display any text.

I called Amazon.com support and was told that, because of the accidental drop, you would not be willing to supply a replacement device under warranty. You did, however, offer to sell a new device at a discount, for $200.00. I took advantage of that offer under protest, and explicitly reserved my rights to bring a claim against you based on the unreasonable fragility of the device and the misrepresentations in your advertising. It is that claim that forms the subject of this letter.

I am prepared to offer an immediate settlement of my claims against Amazon.com for a payment of $400.00. That sum represents the $200.00 replacement fee I paid plus $200.00 to compensate me for the diminution of utility and value of the device as well as of the e-books I have purchased for that device, in light of the fact that the replacement device, too, can be expected to be far more fragile than advertised and prone to destruction under the slightest stress. This offer expires thirty days from your receipt of this letter. If you do not accept this offer, I intend to bring suit either individually, or, if I decide it is warranted, as representative for a class of similarly situated plaintiffs. At that time, I will seek the amount noted above, plus punitive damages under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civil Code §1750 et. seq., costs, fees, and such other monetary damages as provided for by law, including without limitation Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 et. seq., the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, and other relevant law.

Also, you have demanded the return of the broken device as a condition to the unreasonable discounted replacement offer which I accept! ed under protest. Your agent has informed me that you will charge my credit card for the full price if the broken device is not returned to you. I am considering seeking a protective order placing that device in the custody of the Court pending litigation. However, should I instead return the device, you are hereby notified that it is evidence in the anticipated litigation to which this letter refers. Should you modify, destroy, or resell the broken device, I will ask the Court to treat that as deliberate spoliation of evidence and make adverse inferences as appropriate.

Very truly yours,

Paul Gowder

And here’s Amazon’s response:
500x amazonuncle Pretty awesome. Just goes to show that if you put your somewhat-unreasonable request in an official-looking form and also threaten to sue, big companies will be happy to toss a token amount of money your way to make you go away. [Consumerist]


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, October 20th, 2009 digital No Comments

Dr. Augustine Fou is Digital Consigliere to marketing executives, advising them on digital strategy and Unified Marketing(tm). Dr Fou has over 17 years of in-the-trenches, hands-on experience, which enables him to provide objective, in-depth assessments of their current marketing programs and recommendations for improving business impact and ROI using digital insights.

Augustine Fou portrait
http://twitter.com/acfou
Send Tips: tips@go-digital.net
Digital Strategy Consulting
Dr. Augustine Fou LinkedIn Bio
Digital Marketing Slideshares
The Grand Unified Theory of Marketing