Is this post intended to be an advertisement for the camera manufacturer? The author could simply have called it a pocket-sized video camera. The make of the camera is insignificant. Mentions of particular brands of pudding and liquid protein beverages seem gratuitous, as well.

You just *did* three product placements. The post reads like a press release. And you didn't critique the product, you discussed it as if it was a household term -- something that you are helping to make it become. Is it relevant to tell people what tool our representatives use when those tools are given to them as part of a marketing plan for a commercial entity? Do you suppose that CNN and Flip do not have a business arrangement? Similarly, is anyone but RIM better off as a result of our press pounding in for weeks which make of smart phone President Obama uses? A minimal amount of research on my part suggests that the camera which was the topic of your post is, in fact, easy to use, but makes it quite difficult for users to do anything with the images captured unless they have previously purchased software from a criminal monopoly in Washington State. And that regardless of what operating system is used, the camera stores video in a proprietary format instead of using any one of many open standards that would improve interoperability. If the user wishes to use the proprietary software bundled with the camera to upload still or video images to a Web-based service, he or she is limited to the single company with which the camera's manufacturer has partnered to provide each service. Another quick search reveals that multiple manufacturers produce ultra-compact video cameras which are sold in this one's price range, recording HD video, using standards-based codecs and container formats, and saving to standard SD cards. Please consider the possibility that you have been manipulated into participating in a carefully-crafted marketing scheme.