video
Windows only: Free application Tableau Public creates beautiful visualizations from your data and lets you publish them to the web, where users can interact with your charts and graphs with live updates.
The video above provides a great overview of how the tool works. Essentially, you import your data into the desktop Windows application, then play around with different charts, graphs, or other options until you find the visualization or visualizations that best fit your data. When you’re happy with what you’ve put together, you can save the outcome to the web, which uploads the charts to the Tableau Public servers. From there you can embed it on any web page YouTube-style), and users can drill down into the data to their heart’s content.
Here’s an example of Tableau Public in action from a post on the Wall Street Journal:
Tableau Public is a free download for Windows, and looks like a great tool to try out next time you’re looking to make your otherwise boring data come to life. Update: Somehow I managed to miss the fact that Tableau Public is only free on a trial basis; its actual price tag is extremely hefty. (Though if you’re a student you can get it for as little as $69.)
Double Update: Actually, looks like Tableau Public is free after all! Straight from the horse’s mouth:
“People can download the free tool and publish their visualizations of their data for free. Tableau Public includes a free desktop product that you can download and use to publish interactive data visualizations to the web. The Tableau Public desktop saves work to the Tableau Public web servers – nothing is saved locally on your computer. All data saved to Tableau Public will be accessible by everyone on the internet, so be sure to work only with [publicly] available (and appropriate) data.
When people want to analyze their private or confidential data (particularly data in data warehouses and other large databases), then they may want to consider our commercial products.”
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 98144-2734Dear 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:
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]
Popular Posts Week Ending September 26, 2009.
- The JKWeddingDance video was real; the viral effect was MANUFACTURED – Post 1 of 2
- Facebook advertising metrics and benchmarks
- Contextual Help Bubble – Dictionary, Thesaurus, Wikipedia, Amazon, Google Translate, Clip2Send
- How to manufacture a viral video sensation and make viral profits – Post 2 of 2
- Samsung 52 inch HDTV $9.99 at BestBuy – purchase receipt below (6:21a eastern time August 12, 2009)
- social media benchmarks
- What is Web 3.0? Characteristics of Web 3.0
- How to make a viral video – a 5-step guide
- How NOT to design a web page
- Two viral campaigns – one drove sales, the other probably didn’t
Samsung’s SCH-W880 12 megapixel phonecamera with 3x optical zoom
Source: http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/28/samsungs-sch-w880-12-megapixel-phonecamera-with-3x-optical-zoom/

In a welcome reversal of trends, Samsung just stuffed a 3G cellphone into a 12 megapixel camera making this M8920 / SCH-W880 more of a camera than most 12 megapixel cameraphones can claim. While this presumed follow-up to Samsung’s Pixon 12 (M8910) isn’t official, the announcement looks imminent based on the leaked collateral above and the spyshots that emerged over the weekend. What’s impressive here is that extending 3x optical zoom — something carried over from the SCH-B600 — and dedicated camera controls like a mode dial, shutter and zoom, and big 3.3-inch WVGA AMOLED display. Rounding out the specs are HD (720p presumably) video, HSDPA data, WiFi, GPS, Bluetooth, microSD slot, and DMB mobile television; that latter spec making this Korea-only whenever it does launch. See her in the wild after the break.
[Via HDBlog.IT]
Continue reading Samsung’s SCH-W880 12 megapixel phonecamera with 3x optical zoom
Filed under: Cellphones, Digital Cameras
Samsung’s SCH-W880 12 megapixel phonecamera with 3x optical zoom originally appeared on Engadget on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 08:01:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.
Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments
Two viral campaigns – one drove sales, the other probably didn’t
Samsung’s extreme sheep LED art video went viral and was definitely passed along as the bit.ly stats show below, but whether it drove sales for Samsung, or whether people even knew what it meant (Samsung makes LED lit LCD TVs), no one will really know.
Whereas JetBlue’s All-You-Can-Jet Pass also went viral (similar order of magnitude of shares, again by way of the bit.ly stats) and it led straight to the page about the All-You-Can-Jet Pass where users could then go on to buy it.
In the case of Samsung, the video was cool, entertaining, and unexpected and went viral. But the link to sales was tenuous at best. In the case of JetBlue, the product itself went viral and the link to sales was direct.
Hmm… which had a larger business impact? you tell me.


Source: http://feeds.marketingcharts.com/~r/marketingcharts/~3/HIb4XajC-yc/
The anticipated growth of internet-enabled TVs in the next four years would likely increase the popularity of digitally downloaded movies, TV shows and video games while dampening sales related to DVDs, blu-ray discs, video game discs, and other physical content formats, according to Retailer Daily.
While internet-enabled TVs are only expected to account for about 3% [...]<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/marketingcharts/~4/HIb4XajC-yc" height="1" width="1"/>
Source: http://feeds.marketingcharts.com/~r/marketingcharts/~3/HIb4XajC-yc/
The anticipated growth of internet-enabled TVs in the next four years would likely increase the popularity of digitally downloaded movies, TV shows and video games while dampening sales related to DVDs, blu-ray discs, video game discs, and other physical content formats, according to Retailer Daily.
While internet-enabled TVs are only expected to account for about 3% [...]<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/marketingcharts/~4/HIb4XajC-yc" height="1" width="1"/>
Top Posts Week Ending August 22, 2009.
About Me
Tags
Recent Posts
- iPad on Sale today – only 24% will buy, 76% will wait and see
- Change or Die [Music]
- A Predictable Failure: Kimberly-Clark Offering Kleenex Hand Towels
- 1024-bit RSA encryption cracked by carefully starving CPU of electricity
- 975
- Apple vs Microsoft vs Sony [Graphs]
- This Is Why that Amazing NASA Earth Image Looked So Familiar
- 972
- Please Euthanize This Big Boy Already – How Lack of Innovation Killed Another Giant
- 969
Popular Posts
- HP Mini 311 Nvidia ION Netbook Hackintosh'ed
- Facebook advertising metrics and benchmarks
- What is Web 3.0? Characteristics of Web 3.0
- social media benchmarks
- Samsung 52 inch HDTV $9.99 at BestBuy - purchase receipt below (6:21a eastern time August 12, 2009)
- How to manufacture a viral video sensation and make viral profits - Post 2 of 2
- The JKWeddingDance video was real; the viral effect was MANUFACTURED - Post 1 of 2
- The Grand Unified Theory of Marketing(tm) - Digital String Theory
- Evian baby viral video has much higher ROI than Etrade baby superbowl ad
- Net Promoter Score (NPS) - A Metrics "Sacred Cow" That Should be Slaughtered?
Recent Articles by Dr. Augustine Fou
- The ROI for Social Media Is Zero - ClickZ
- What's Wrong With the Net Promoter Score - ClickZ
- The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing No Longer Apply, Part 2 ...
- How to Do Social Marketing in Heavily Regulated Industries ...
- The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing No Longer Apply - ClickZ
- 11 Most Popular Experts' Columns of 2009 on ClickZ - ClickZ ...
- December 27, 2009 - January 2, 2010 - ClickZ - News and ...
Pages
Archives
- March 2010 (10)
- February 2010 (21)
- January 2010 (12)
- December 2009 (4)
- November 2009 (2)
- October 2009 (14)
- September 2009 (6)
- August 2009 (19)
- July 2009 (34)
- June 2009 (11)
- May 2009 (4)
- April 2009 (6)
- March 2009 (13)
- February 2009 (32)
- January 2009 (25)
- December 2008 (1)
- October 2008 (1)
- November 2007 (1)

