Current SIEM and log management approaches for network and security devices are 'moot' in the cloud
Oct 27, 2010 | 06:00 PM
By Ericka Chickowski, Contributing Writer DarkReading
After spending buckets of money and years of intense human resources on the deployment of comprehensive security information and event monitoring (SIEM) tools and techniques, many organizations are seeing these precious investments lose much of their value in the rush to reach for the cloud.
Public cloud initiatives and, to some degree, even virtualization deployments are adding security black holes to the enterprise security monitoring framework. No "light" of visibility goes in or out of these blind spots.
To maintain security standards within increasingly distributed, virtualized, and outsourced IT infrastructure, enterprises will have to adjust if they want to understand the events that affect their infrastructure and the flow of users and data across the traditional enterprise network perimeter.
"Virtualization and cloud breaks the current model," says Mike Rothman, analyst for Securosis. "You've got no visibility of the infrastructure, by definition. So the existing methods of SIEM/log management for network and security devices anyway are moot."
This issue is amplified in the public cloud arena, where enterprises share infrastructure with other organizations dynamically and have little control or even glimpses into how everything is put together and flows.
"Most SIEM products have no difficulty providing complete visibility in virtual environments and private clouds where you have control over both the physical and virtual environments. Where system access and control are limited, so is the visibility," says Michael Maloof, CTO for TriGeo Network Security. "While cloud-based applications are a boon to productivity and data access, they rarely provide the same level of activity monitoring that you have in more traditional environments. For example, a cloud application linked to Active Directory can provide you with access control data, but not that the access originated in China."
But even when virtualized environments are actually controlled within the organization's infrastructure boundary, there remain complications in keeping track of all the activity that occurs at different virtualized layers.
"I think people can make an assumption that anything that's inside the environment is safe, but you may see rogue virtual environments coming in," says Bill Roth, chief marketing officer for LogLogic. He warns that the first step in keeping tabs on virtualized environments is to make sure there are only as many VMs as absolutely necessary. "It's so easy to spin up, and storage and processing is becoming so cheap that you run the risk of VM sprawl; companies need to be vigilant against it," he says.
No matter whether in a public or private cloud, organizations need to see to it that applications are better tuned to output monitoring information, Securosis' Rothman advises.
"We need to start instrumenting the applications to provide monitoring information and the like to provide some means of visibility," he says. "The reality is most application folks don't do a good job of building visibility into their applications. But they'll need to, given that organizations want the flexibility to run some or all of the applications in a cloud-type of environment."
Most important within the cloud environment, though, is the acquisition of key logs that offer better views into how the infrastructure that affects enterprise data really is working.
"If you're going into a cloud, demand your logs so you understand how your system is moving around so you understand what kind of performance you're getting," Roth says. "Demand your logs and demand transparency. If you can't get them, it should be a deal-breaker. Just because the cloud metaphor is opaque doesn't mean the service should be."
Maloof agrees, explaining that organizations will not be able to shift responsibility for a data breach onto their cloud provider, so they need to be proactive about keeping an eye out for potential problems.
"The fact is that while you can 'cloud-source' many applications today, that doesn't eliminate the liability associated with data loss and the need to demonstrate sound monitoring policies for compliance requirements," Maloof says.
And it shouldn't stop at logs. Organizations also need to work with providers to get a good picture into user activity and data access trends for cloud-based pools of information. This starts with improved cloud access control.
"Identity and access management systems are a critical piece of the puzzle, closely linked with well-defined policies and application-layer policy enforcement," Maloof says. "While the data and the applications exist outside the traditional network boundaries, the identity and access control systems will bridge both the physical and virtual systems."
The success of these drives for visibility really hinges on cloud provider participation, though. According to LogLogic's Roth, who is an active participant in the Cloud Security Alliance (CSA), customers are still having a hard time convincing larger providers, such as Amazon, to improve their transparency. He believes that customers need to put the pressure on. In addition, participating in organizations such as the CSA can help the industry develop standards for security monitoring within the cloud.
"We are working on a number of things that I think are going to be really important," Roth says of the CSA, which is expected to release drafts of a security monitoring matrix in November. "These are things that I think are going to be facilitate the development of cloud security."
http://www.darkreading.com/security_monitoring/security/management/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=228000206&cid=nl_DR_weekly_2010-10-28_html
Friday, October 29, 2010
India's IT aims to soften image as Obama visits Wed, Oct 27 2010
By Tony Munroe and Peter Henderson
MUMBAI/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) -
U.S. President Barack Obama's visit to India puts the spotlight on its $60 billion IT sector, which argues it is a creator of jobs in the United States and should not be blamed for high unemployment.
An increase in U.S. visa fees, a ban on offshoring by the state of Ohio and the industry's portrayal in campaign ads as a drain of U.S. jobs has set a frosty tone ahead of Obama's visit to India in early November.
Obama is expected to visit Mumbai, India's financial hub and the centre of the 2008 militant attacks. U.S. officials say much of the trip's focus will be boosting trade that is expected to double in five years from the current level of $50 billion.
But it is a sign of the times that Obama is not expected to visit Bangalore, the country's technology hub. Nor is he expected to visit Hyderabad, another Indian IT hotbed, where his predecessor, George W. Bush, stopped in a 2006 visit.
"It is a worry, there's no question, but the worry is more about unemployment, not about the political rhetoric," said Pramod Bhasin, chief executive of outsourcer Genpact Ltd.
"We as an industry have to help create jobs in America and we have to communicate that much better than we've done in the past," said Bhasin, whose firm employs about 2,000 in the United States and expects to double or triple that over the next two to three years. Three-quarters of Genpact staff are in India.
Obama's fellow Democrats are expected to take a drubbing in the Nov. 2 balloting amid unemployment stuck near 10 percent.
In California, where the jobless rate tops 12 percent, Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer accuses her Republican rival Carly Fiorina of sending jobs abroad when she was chief of Hewlett-Packard.
Legislation that would end tax breaks for firms that create jobs and profits overseas was thwarted in the Senate, but a new rule raising the cost of certain visas to enter the United States, part of a border security bill, will cost Indian IT firms $200 million and sets an ominous precedent for the industry.
"It has nothing to do with immigration, but it has had an impact on the costs of IT services companies from India. That is the kind of legislation that worries us," said S Gopalakrishnan, CEO of sector bellwether Infosys Technologies Ltd.
SUCCESS VICTIM
India's IT services industry, which generates 70 percent of its revenue from the United States and accounts for 5 percent of India's economy, is a victim of its own success.
Before the global economic downturn, the sector was growing by roughly one-third per year as companies across industries shipped commoditised work to India and elsewhere to cut costs.
U.S. blue chips from Intel and Google to Cisco and Microsoft have substantial operations in India, which is increasingly a research hub for Silicon Valley. IBM alone is believed to employ more than 70,000 in India, although it would not confirm that figure.
While China's emergence as an industrial powerhouse has spawned U.S. backlash over lost manufacturing jobs and a weak currency that keeps exports cheap, India is associated with armies of young engineers and service staff working for one-fifth to one-third the wages of American white collar workers.
For India, the IT boom has created a world-leading industry that has been culturally transformative in a tradition-rich country, employing two million people working in modern offices and buying cars and apartments.
Outsourcers say they enable clients to innovate and compete, providing skills not readily available in the United States.
"There is a huge dearth of software engineers in the U.S., and a large part has been mitigated by offshore work," said Aparup Sengupta, managing director and global chief executive of Aegis Ltd, an IT services firm owned by the Essar conglomerate.
The perception within the United States is often less benign.
In an episode of "Outsourced," a new U.S. comedy TV show, bricks are thrown through the window of an American call center that has transferred its work to India.
JOB CREATION
Indian IT industry players say they are not to blame for U.S. job losses, and instead talk up creation of jobs both directly and indirectly in the United States.
"Job losses are not due to outsourcing. They're due to subprime, they're due to the financial mess, they're due to lots of other things," said Bhasin of Genpact, which this year bought an operation in Illinois from Walgreens as part of a deal to provide accounting services for the drugstore chain.
Outsourcing work to a lower-cost U.S. site can save roughly 20-25 percent, while moving work to India saves 70 to 80 percent.
Last year, Infosys announced a plan to hire 1,000 employees in the United States and said it has made nearly 300 job offers since then. Of 122,000 Infosys staff, over 2,000 are U.S.-based.
"We think there are perceptions and myths today, and these need to be corrected, because it's not about jobs moving to India, its about our creating jobs there," said Som Mittal, president of Nasscom, the trade body for the Indian tech sector.
Anti-outsourcing talk may cool after next week's elections but could reemerge with greater intensity in the run-up to 2012, when Obama will be up for re-election.
"In February, no one is going to be talking about India," said Derek Scissors, a research fellow in the Asian Studies Center at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington. "But what about 2012? That's a different story."
Additional reporting by Bharghavi Nagaraju in BANGALORE; Editing by Alistair Scrutton and Sanjeev Miglani
http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-52480220101027?pageNumber=2
MUMBAI/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) -
U.S. President Barack Obama's visit to India puts the spotlight on its $60 billion IT sector, which argues it is a creator of jobs in the United States and should not be blamed for high unemployment.
An increase in U.S. visa fees, a ban on offshoring by the state of Ohio and the industry's portrayal in campaign ads as a drain of U.S. jobs has set a frosty tone ahead of Obama's visit to India in early November.
Obama is expected to visit Mumbai, India's financial hub and the centre of the 2008 militant attacks. U.S. officials say much of the trip's focus will be boosting trade that is expected to double in five years from the current level of $50 billion.
But it is a sign of the times that Obama is not expected to visit Bangalore, the country's technology hub. Nor is he expected to visit Hyderabad, another Indian IT hotbed, where his predecessor, George W. Bush, stopped in a 2006 visit.
"It is a worry, there's no question, but the worry is more about unemployment, not about the political rhetoric," said Pramod Bhasin, chief executive of outsourcer Genpact Ltd.
"We as an industry have to help create jobs in America and we have to communicate that much better than we've done in the past," said Bhasin, whose firm employs about 2,000 in the United States and expects to double or triple that over the next two to three years. Three-quarters of Genpact staff are in India.
Obama's fellow Democrats are expected to take a drubbing in the Nov. 2 balloting amid unemployment stuck near 10 percent.
In California, where the jobless rate tops 12 percent, Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer accuses her Republican rival Carly Fiorina of sending jobs abroad when she was chief of Hewlett-Packard.
Legislation that would end tax breaks for firms that create jobs and profits overseas was thwarted in the Senate, but a new rule raising the cost of certain visas to enter the United States, part of a border security bill, will cost Indian IT firms $200 million and sets an ominous precedent for the industry.
"It has nothing to do with immigration, but it has had an impact on the costs of IT services companies from India. That is the kind of legislation that worries us," said S Gopalakrishnan, CEO of sector bellwether Infosys Technologies Ltd.
SUCCESS VICTIM
India's IT services industry, which generates 70 percent of its revenue from the United States and accounts for 5 percent of India's economy, is a victim of its own success.
Before the global economic downturn, the sector was growing by roughly one-third per year as companies across industries shipped commoditised work to India and elsewhere to cut costs.
U.S. blue chips from Intel and Google to Cisco and Microsoft have substantial operations in India, which is increasingly a research hub for Silicon Valley. IBM alone is believed to employ more than 70,000 in India, although it would not confirm that figure.
While China's emergence as an industrial powerhouse has spawned U.S. backlash over lost manufacturing jobs and a weak currency that keeps exports cheap, India is associated with armies of young engineers and service staff working for one-fifth to one-third the wages of American white collar workers.
For India, the IT boom has created a world-leading industry that has been culturally transformative in a tradition-rich country, employing two million people working in modern offices and buying cars and apartments.
Outsourcers say they enable clients to innovate and compete, providing skills not readily available in the United States.
"There is a huge dearth of software engineers in the U.S., and a large part has been mitigated by offshore work," said Aparup Sengupta, managing director and global chief executive of Aegis Ltd, an IT services firm owned by the Essar conglomerate.
The perception within the United States is often less benign.
In an episode of "Outsourced," a new U.S. comedy TV show, bricks are thrown through the window of an American call center that has transferred its work to India.
JOB CREATION
Indian IT industry players say they are not to blame for U.S. job losses, and instead talk up creation of jobs both directly and indirectly in the United States.
"Job losses are not due to outsourcing. They're due to subprime, they're due to the financial mess, they're due to lots of other things," said Bhasin of Genpact, which this year bought an operation in Illinois from Walgreens as part of a deal to provide accounting services for the drugstore chain.
Outsourcing work to a lower-cost U.S. site can save roughly 20-25 percent, while moving work to India saves 70 to 80 percent.
Last year, Infosys announced a plan to hire 1,000 employees in the United States and said it has made nearly 300 job offers since then. Of 122,000 Infosys staff, over 2,000 are U.S.-based.
"We think there are perceptions and myths today, and these need to be corrected, because it's not about jobs moving to India, its about our creating jobs there," said Som Mittal, president of Nasscom, the trade body for the Indian tech sector.
Anti-outsourcing talk may cool after next week's elections but could reemerge with greater intensity in the run-up to 2012, when Obama will be up for re-election.
"In February, no one is going to be talking about India," said Derek Scissors, a research fellow in the Asian Studies Center at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington. "But what about 2012? That's a different story."
Additional reporting by Bharghavi Nagaraju in BANGALORE; Editing by Alistair Scrutton and Sanjeev Miglani
http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-52480220101027?pageNumber=2
Internet accounts for 7.2% of British economy: study Oct 28 05:28 AM US/Eastern
The Internet contributed 100 billion pounds (155 billion dollars, 115 billion euros) to the British economy last year, about 7.2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), a report showed Thursday.
The sector is bigger than the construction, transport or utilities industries in Britain, according to the study by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG), which was commissioned by the British arm of Internet giant Google.
The research also predicted that by 2015, the British 'Internet economy' is likely to grow to 10 percent of GDP, eclipsing the financial sector.
"The Internet is pervasive in the UK economy today, more so than in most advanced countries," said Paul Zwillenberg, a partner with BCG in London.
"Whether they are driving international expansion, improving their interactions with customers or the efficiency of their supply chains, UK companies are increasingly embracing the Internet's potential."
Much of the growth is driven by consumption, the majority of it online spending but also what consumers spend on getting access to the Internet, while the rest comes from government spending, private investment and exports.
The study found that about 62 percent of adults, or 31 million people, have bought goods or services online so far this year and collectively they spent about 50 billion pounds last year on goods or travel.
More than 19 million out of a total of 26 million British households have an Internet connection and broadband access has doubled since 2005.
Overall, Britain was ranked sixth among major economies on the BCG "e-intensity index" which judges the reach and depth of the Internet, after Denmark, South Korea, Japan, Sweden and the Netherlands.
Copyright AFP 2008
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.cc58070f3f3b3257db047a1b6231a166.421&show_article=1
The sector is bigger than the construction, transport or utilities industries in Britain, according to the study by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG), which was commissioned by the British arm of Internet giant Google.
The research also predicted that by 2015, the British 'Internet economy' is likely to grow to 10 percent of GDP, eclipsing the financial sector.
"The Internet is pervasive in the UK economy today, more so than in most advanced countries," said Paul Zwillenberg, a partner with BCG in London.
"Whether they are driving international expansion, improving their interactions with customers or the efficiency of their supply chains, UK companies are increasingly embracing the Internet's potential."
Much of the growth is driven by consumption, the majority of it online spending but also what consumers spend on getting access to the Internet, while the rest comes from government spending, private investment and exports.
The study found that about 62 percent of adults, or 31 million people, have bought goods or services online so far this year and collectively they spent about 50 billion pounds last year on goods or travel.
More than 19 million out of a total of 26 million British households have an Internet connection and broadband access has doubled since 2005.
Overall, Britain was ranked sixth among major economies on the BCG "e-intensity index" which judges the reach and depth of the Internet, after Denmark, South Korea, Japan, Sweden and the Netherlands.
Copyright AFP 2008
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.cc58070f3f3b3257db047a1b6231a166.421&show_article=1
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Texas Sends Amazon a $269 Million Sales Tax Bill
By SARAH WEINMAN Posted 9:25 AM 10/25/10 Company News, Media, Amazon.com, Taxes, Retail, Books
As states grapple with increasingly squeezed budgets, one simmering battle -- trying to collect sales taxes from retailing behemoth Amazon (AMZN) -- has heated up considerably over the past year. The jury's still out on how much money states like Rhode Island and North Carolina (which is thick in litigation with Amazon over this very issue) will get from online sales-tax initiatives. But Texas has issued its own bill to Amazon -- to the tune of $269 million.
Although the state evidently said its bill, for uncollected sales taxes from December 2005 to December 2009 with extra interest and penalties, was sent to Amazon in August, The Dallas Morning News reported that the matter wasn't made public until Amazon released its latest quarterly report on Friday. The hefty tax bill was tucked away while the company trumpeted much better news of $7.56 billion in revenue and a 16% jump in earnings for the third quarter of 2010.
In reporting the bill in its filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Amazon declared: "We believe that the State of Texas did not provide a sufficient basis for its assessment and that the assessment is without merit. Depending on the amount and the timing, an unfavorable resolution of this matter could materially affect our business, results of operations, financial position, or cash flows. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter."
Not Really Doing Business in Texas?
The issue of uncollected sales tax runs deeper in Texas because Amazon maintains a distribution center in Irving (close to Dallas-Forth Worth International Airport), which it opened in 2006. Two years later, the Texas comptroller's office launched an investigation into Amazon's bifurcated status.
The company defended its lack of sales tax collection by saying Amazon doesn't actually own the distribution center. It's owned by a subsidiary, Amazon.com KYDC LLC, which is technically based in Kentucky. Assigning the distribution center to a different holding company, by Amazon's logic, means it doesn't have nexus there -- and that's why it feels it's off the hook.
Of course, Texas disagrees, having estimated it loses $600 million a year from untaxed online sales. With a bill sent to Amazon, that opens the door to long-expected litigation between the two parties as well as to the possibility that other states will jump on the collection bandwagon. It may also hamper the retailer's plans to open several more distribution centers around the country because the prospect of sales tax collection may prove too much -- and too costly -- of a headache.
See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/9o2XZB
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/taxes/texas-bills-amazon-269-million-sales-taxes/19687338/
As states grapple with increasingly squeezed budgets, one simmering battle -- trying to collect sales taxes from retailing behemoth Amazon (AMZN) -- has heated up considerably over the past year. The jury's still out on how much money states like Rhode Island and North Carolina (which is thick in litigation with Amazon over this very issue) will get from online sales-tax initiatives. But Texas has issued its own bill to Amazon -- to the tune of $269 million.
Although the state evidently said its bill, for uncollected sales taxes from December 2005 to December 2009 with extra interest and penalties, was sent to Amazon in August, The Dallas Morning News reported that the matter wasn't made public until Amazon released its latest quarterly report on Friday. The hefty tax bill was tucked away while the company trumpeted much better news of $7.56 billion in revenue and a 16% jump in earnings for the third quarter of 2010.
In reporting the bill in its filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Amazon declared: "We believe that the State of Texas did not provide a sufficient basis for its assessment and that the assessment is without merit. Depending on the amount and the timing, an unfavorable resolution of this matter could materially affect our business, results of operations, financial position, or cash flows. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter."
Not Really Doing Business in Texas?
The issue of uncollected sales tax runs deeper in Texas because Amazon maintains a distribution center in Irving (close to Dallas-Forth Worth International Airport), which it opened in 2006. Two years later, the Texas comptroller's office launched an investigation into Amazon's bifurcated status.
The company defended its lack of sales tax collection by saying Amazon doesn't actually own the distribution center. It's owned by a subsidiary, Amazon.com KYDC LLC, which is technically based in Kentucky. Assigning the distribution center to a different holding company, by Amazon's logic, means it doesn't have nexus there -- and that's why it feels it's off the hook.
Of course, Texas disagrees, having estimated it loses $600 million a year from untaxed online sales. With a bill sent to Amazon, that opens the door to long-expected litigation between the two parties as well as to the possibility that other states will jump on the collection bandwagon. It may also hamper the retailer's plans to open several more distribution centers around the country because the prospect of sales tax collection may prove too much -- and too costly -- of a headache.
See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/9o2XZB
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/taxes/texas-bills-amazon-269-million-sales-taxes/19687338/
Monday, October 25, 2010
Google admits that its Street View cars DID take emails and passwords from computers
By Vanessa Allen
Last updated at 11:58 PM on 24th October 2010
Google was accused of spying on households yesterday after it admitted secretly copying passwords and private emails from home computers. The internet search giant was forced to confess it had downloaded personal data during its controversial Street View project, when it photographed virtually every street in Britain.
In an astonishing invasion of privacy, it admitted entire emails, web pages and even passwords were 'mistakenly collected' by antennae on its high-tech Street View cars.Privacy campaigners accused the company of spying and branded its behaviour
'absolutely scandalous'. The Information Commissioner's Office said it would launch a new investigation. Scotland Yard is already considering whether the company has
broken the law.
Google executive Alan Eustace issued a grovelling apology and said the company was 'mortified', adding: 'We're acutely aware that we failed badly.' Critics seized on the admission as the latest example of technology's ever-expanding ability to harvest information about ordinary households, often without their knowledge or consent.
Google sent a fleet of specially equipped cars around Britain in 2008, armed with 360-degree cameras to gather photographs for its Street View project. There were immediate complaints that the pictures were a security risk, after householders complained that house numbers and car registrations were easily identifiable.
Privacy fears followed when it emerged that individuals could be seen, including a man emerging from a sex shop in London's Soho, three police officers arresting a man in Camden, North London, and children throwing stones at a house in Musselburgh, Scotland.
Earlier this year the California-based firm admitted that the cars' antennae had also scanned for wireless networks, including home wi-fi, which connect millions of personal computers to the internet. Google registered the location, name and identification code of millions of networks and entered them into a database to help it sell adverts. The firm - which uses the slogan 'Don't be evil' - was able to record the location of every wireless router and network without alerting households because wi-fi signals are 'visible' to other internet devices, including the cars' antennae.
Google played down the significance of the wi-fi mapping and insisted it had not collected or stored data from personal computers. It then backtracked and said its software had 'inadvertently' collected fragments of data which were being transmitted as the cars criss-crossed Britain. The cars' antennae skipped networks five times a second, it said, meaning each network was only accessed for one-fifth of a second. But it has now emerged that entire emails, web pages and passwords were
copied and stored during that split-second. The information was only gathered from wireless networks which were not password-protected. But it means the antennae potentially harvested millions of private emails and passwords around the country. It is not known how many householders have unprotected wireless networks.
Simon Davies, director of Privacy International, said: 'It's absolutely scandalous that this situation has developed and so many people have had their communications intercepted. 'The company must launch a full inquiry and produce a public report on exactly what happened, as well as release the audit it has already undertaken. 'There are a lot of questions that need to be answered about how and why the company did this.'
Google's cars collected wi-fi network locations in more than 30 countries. The firm insisted the private data was not analysed or used for any commercial purpose. It has previously blamed an engineer who inserted a rogue computer code in the Street View cars' software, and said it was a 'clear violation' of the company's code of conduct.
The Street View project has triggered privacy investigations around the world. In Australia, the country's communications minister Stephen Conroy said the data harvest was the 'single greatest breach in the history of privacy'. Privacy regulators in seven countries analysed the data following complaints about the Street View scheme, and it was their investigations which forced Google's latest admission.
In Britain, Privacy International lodged a complaint with Scotland Yard earlier this year. Officers are still considering whether a crime has been committed. The Information Commissioner said it would investigate Google's latest admission. If the firm is found to have breached privacy, it could face a fine of up to £500,000. Google, which made a profit of £4.5billion last year, said its Street View cars no longer collected any type of wireless information, and promised to improve its privacy policies.
Daniel Hamilton, campaign director at privacy group Big Brother Watch, said: 'The harvesting of sensitive personal information like this is completely unacceptable. 'Google is fast developing a reputation as a company that cares little for privacy or data security.' Paul Allen, editor of Computeractive magazine, said Google's antennae could 'see' any information that was not protected by encryption. Secure websites, such as banking sites, could not be accessed and any activity on password-protected networks was also safe. He said: 'Google should have realised at the outset that this was possible, and taken steps to guard against it. But consumers should also ensure their network has a password.'
Google's new director of privacy, Alma Whitten, said: 'We are profoundly sorry for having mistakenly collected payload data from unencrypted networks. 'As soon as we realised what had happened, we stopped collecting all wi-fi data from our Street View cars and immediately informed the authorities. 'This data has never been used in any Google product and was never intended to be used by Google in any way. We want to delete the data as soon as possible and will continue to work with the authorities to determine the best way forward.'
Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1323310/Google-used-Street-View-cars-emails-passwords-privacy-breach.html#ixzz13K3BB8QI
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1323310/Google-used-Street-View-cars-emails-passwords-privacy-breach.html
Last updated at 11:58 PM on 24th October 2010
Google was accused of spying on households yesterday after it admitted secretly copying passwords and private emails from home computers. The internet search giant was forced to confess it had downloaded personal data during its controversial Street View project, when it photographed virtually every street in Britain.
In an astonishing invasion of privacy, it admitted entire emails, web pages and even passwords were 'mistakenly collected' by antennae on its high-tech Street View cars.Privacy campaigners accused the company of spying and branded its behaviour
'absolutely scandalous'. The Information Commissioner's Office said it would launch a new investigation. Scotland Yard is already considering whether the company has
broken the law.
Google executive Alan Eustace issued a grovelling apology and said the company was 'mortified', adding: 'We're acutely aware that we failed badly.' Critics seized on the admission as the latest example of technology's ever-expanding ability to harvest information about ordinary households, often without their knowledge or consent.
Google sent a fleet of specially equipped cars around Britain in 2008, armed with 360-degree cameras to gather photographs for its Street View project. There were immediate complaints that the pictures were a security risk, after householders complained that house numbers and car registrations were easily identifiable.
Privacy fears followed when it emerged that individuals could be seen, including a man emerging from a sex shop in London's Soho, three police officers arresting a man in Camden, North London, and children throwing stones at a house in Musselburgh, Scotland.
Earlier this year the California-based firm admitted that the cars' antennae had also scanned for wireless networks, including home wi-fi, which connect millions of personal computers to the internet. Google registered the location, name and identification code of millions of networks and entered them into a database to help it sell adverts. The firm - which uses the slogan 'Don't be evil' - was able to record the location of every wireless router and network without alerting households because wi-fi signals are 'visible' to other internet devices, including the cars' antennae.
Google played down the significance of the wi-fi mapping and insisted it had not collected or stored data from personal computers. It then backtracked and said its software had 'inadvertently' collected fragments of data which were being transmitted as the cars criss-crossed Britain. The cars' antennae skipped networks five times a second, it said, meaning each network was only accessed for one-fifth of a second. But it has now emerged that entire emails, web pages and passwords were
copied and stored during that split-second. The information was only gathered from wireless networks which were not password-protected. But it means the antennae potentially harvested millions of private emails and passwords around the country. It is not known how many householders have unprotected wireless networks.
Simon Davies, director of Privacy International, said: 'It's absolutely scandalous that this situation has developed and so many people have had their communications intercepted. 'The company must launch a full inquiry and produce a public report on exactly what happened, as well as release the audit it has already undertaken. 'There are a lot of questions that need to be answered about how and why the company did this.'
Google's cars collected wi-fi network locations in more than 30 countries. The firm insisted the private data was not analysed or used for any commercial purpose. It has previously blamed an engineer who inserted a rogue computer code in the Street View cars' software, and said it was a 'clear violation' of the company's code of conduct.
The Street View project has triggered privacy investigations around the world. In Australia, the country's communications minister Stephen Conroy said the data harvest was the 'single greatest breach in the history of privacy'. Privacy regulators in seven countries analysed the data following complaints about the Street View scheme, and it was their investigations which forced Google's latest admission.
In Britain, Privacy International lodged a complaint with Scotland Yard earlier this year. Officers are still considering whether a crime has been committed. The Information Commissioner said it would investigate Google's latest admission. If the firm is found to have breached privacy, it could face a fine of up to £500,000. Google, which made a profit of £4.5billion last year, said its Street View cars no longer collected any type of wireless information, and promised to improve its privacy policies.
Daniel Hamilton, campaign director at privacy group Big Brother Watch, said: 'The harvesting of sensitive personal information like this is completely unacceptable. 'Google is fast developing a reputation as a company that cares little for privacy or data security.' Paul Allen, editor of Computeractive magazine, said Google's antennae could 'see' any information that was not protected by encryption. Secure websites, such as banking sites, could not be accessed and any activity on password-protected networks was also safe. He said: 'Google should have realised at the outset that this was possible, and taken steps to guard against it. But consumers should also ensure their network has a password.'
Google's new director of privacy, Alma Whitten, said: 'We are profoundly sorry for having mistakenly collected payload data from unencrypted networks. 'As soon as we realised what had happened, we stopped collecting all wi-fi data from our Street View cars and immediately informed the authorities. 'This data has never been used in any Google product and was never intended to be used by Google in any way. We want to delete the data as soon as possible and will continue to work with the authorities to determine the best way forward.'
Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1323310/Google-used-Street-View-cars-emails-passwords-privacy-breach.html#ixzz13K3BB8QI
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1323310/Google-used-Street-View-cars-emails-passwords-privacy-breach.html
Friday, October 22, 2010
Mozilla Championing Open Web Apps Could Threaten Firefox
Mozilla Labs is working towards building a web app system that would let developers deploy apps across browsers and platforms.
By Jim Rapoza, InformationWeek
Oct. 20, 2010
Many people have said that we are now moving from a web of sites to a web of apps. And recent announcements by two major web players seem to be pushing the move to an application centric web.
Mozilla announced on Tuesday a new labs initiative called Open Web Apps. This follows closely on the heels of Google's announcement of a Chrome Store for apps.
Of the two, the announcement that I find most intriguing is Mozilla's Open Web Apps, and yes, it is because of that overused term "open." And that's because, to a large degree, Mozilla seems to really mean it.
One of the biggest aspects of the Mozilla Open Web App ecosystem is their plan to make sure that the apps created this way will run across web browsers and platforms. So that means you could build an app on this platform and have it run on Firefox, Chrome, IE, Opera, Safari and mobile web browsers based on WebKit.
Of course, there have been claims for write once/run everywhere functionality for a long time. But new web technologies and overall better standards support across modern browsers make this type of capability possible, especially if the Mozilla system can smooth out some of the traditional problems with building apps to run on multiple platforms.
The other interesting thing about this plan from Mozilla is that, to a certain degree, it could work against the popularity of Firefox. Right now, the main advantage that Firefox has over some of its competitors is its massive library of extensions. If this Open Web App plan is successful, many things that are built specifically for Firefox could be migrated to open web apps.
There is more to this Open Web App ecosystem than just building an open web application platform. Mozilla is also hoping to do for broad web applications what Facebook and the Apple Store do for developers on those systems, namely make it simple to build and deploy applications and get paid by users who download those applications.
This of course would lead to some kind of centralized account management. But at least the focus from Mozilla is on app portability, so conceivably I could buy an app on the web while using Chrome at home, and be able to use the same app on my iPhone and on Firefox on my laptop without having to repurchase the application.
There will definitely be a lot of issues to be ironed out here, especially in the areas of privacy and security. Looking at Facebook's recent problems with application developers one can easily image a much bigger problem in an open web environment.
Still, these moves towards open web application systems are positive steps and could go a long way towards removing some of the proprietary walled garden systems that now rule, especially on the mobile side.
Copyright C 2009 United Business Media LLC, All rights reserved.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/browsers/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=227900392&cid=nl_IW_btl_2010-10-22_html
By Jim Rapoza, InformationWeek
Oct. 20, 2010
Many people have said that we are now moving from a web of sites to a web of apps. And recent announcements by two major web players seem to be pushing the move to an application centric web.
Mozilla announced on Tuesday a new labs initiative called Open Web Apps. This follows closely on the heels of Google's announcement of a Chrome Store for apps.
Of the two, the announcement that I find most intriguing is Mozilla's Open Web Apps, and yes, it is because of that overused term "open." And that's because, to a large degree, Mozilla seems to really mean it.
One of the biggest aspects of the Mozilla Open Web App ecosystem is their plan to make sure that the apps created this way will run across web browsers and platforms. So that means you could build an app on this platform and have it run on Firefox, Chrome, IE, Opera, Safari and mobile web browsers based on WebKit.
Of course, there have been claims for write once/run everywhere functionality for a long time. But new web technologies and overall better standards support across modern browsers make this type of capability possible, especially if the Mozilla system can smooth out some of the traditional problems with building apps to run on multiple platforms.
The other interesting thing about this plan from Mozilla is that, to a certain degree, it could work against the popularity of Firefox. Right now, the main advantage that Firefox has over some of its competitors is its massive library of extensions. If this Open Web App plan is successful, many things that are built specifically for Firefox could be migrated to open web apps.
There is more to this Open Web App ecosystem than just building an open web application platform. Mozilla is also hoping to do for broad web applications what Facebook and the Apple Store do for developers on those systems, namely make it simple to build and deploy applications and get paid by users who download those applications.
This of course would lead to some kind of centralized account management. But at least the focus from Mozilla is on app portability, so conceivably I could buy an app on the web while using Chrome at home, and be able to use the same app on my iPhone and on Firefox on my laptop without having to repurchase the application.
There will definitely be a lot of issues to be ironed out here, especially in the areas of privacy and security. Looking at Facebook's recent problems with application developers one can easily image a much bigger problem in an open web environment.
Still, these moves towards open web application systems are positive steps and could go a long way towards removing some of the proprietary walled garden systems that now rule, especially on the mobile side.
Copyright C 2009 United Business Media LLC, All rights reserved.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/browsers/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=227900392&cid=nl_IW_btl_2010-10-22_html
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Health Coverage Tax Credits Strain IRS Capacity
Washington, D.C.
(October 19, 2010)
By WebCPA Staff
The Internal Revenue Service's ability to process the growing number of Health Coverage Tax Credit claims under the 2009 stimulus bill is doubtful,leading to questions about the agency's ability to handle its new responsibilities under the new health care reform law.
A new report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration concluded that the IRS successfully and promptly expanded the Health Coverage Tax Credit as required by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, but predicted the IRS will have difficulty in handling significant increases in the number of monthly enrolled participants.
The HCTC is a refundable tax credit created in 2002 to assist certain workers who lost their jobs due to foreign trade, and retirees who receive payments from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. The TIGTA report found that the IRS successfully increased the federal government's subsidy for the HCTC from 65 to 80 percent and allowed individuals to receive a reimbursement while enrolling in the monthly payment option.
While the IRS successfully processed a 67 percent increase in the number of individuals whose health plans received monthly payments (from 15,533 individuals in 2009 to 25,960 individuals in 2010), its ability to process a significantly larger volume is limited, TIGTA found. The HCTC program and systems are built to support only 57,000 enrolled participants. The IRS will face challenges if there is a significant increase in the number of monthly enrolled participants as a result of provisions included in the Recovery Act or newly enacted health care reform legislation.
"Fortunately, the number of claims for this credit has been within IRS's capacity to process the claims and payments," said TIGTA Inspector General J. Russell George in a statement. "The IRS will need to take program and system capacity limitations into consideration when preparing for implementation of new health care laws."
TIGTA made three recommendations to improve the accuracy and consistency of HCTC payment information, including ensuring that individuals receive accurate Health Coverage Tax Credit Advance Payments (Form 1099-H) payment information. The IRS agreed with two of the three recommendations, but disagreed with TIGTA's recommendation to ensure individuals receive accurate Forms 1099-H.
http://www.webcpa.com/news/Health-Coverage-Tax-Credits-Strain-IRS-Capacity-56024-1.html?ET=webcpa:e1085:82384a:&st=email&utm_source=editorial&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WebCPA_Daily_101910
(October 19, 2010)
By WebCPA Staff
The Internal Revenue Service's ability to process the growing number of Health Coverage Tax Credit claims under the 2009 stimulus bill is doubtful,leading to questions about the agency's ability to handle its new responsibilities under the new health care reform law.
A new report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration concluded that the IRS successfully and promptly expanded the Health Coverage Tax Credit as required by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, but predicted the IRS will have difficulty in handling significant increases in the number of monthly enrolled participants.
The HCTC is a refundable tax credit created in 2002 to assist certain workers who lost their jobs due to foreign trade, and retirees who receive payments from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. The TIGTA report found that the IRS successfully increased the federal government's subsidy for the HCTC from 65 to 80 percent and allowed individuals to receive a reimbursement while enrolling in the monthly payment option.
While the IRS successfully processed a 67 percent increase in the number of individuals whose health plans received monthly payments (from 15,533 individuals in 2009 to 25,960 individuals in 2010), its ability to process a significantly larger volume is limited, TIGTA found. The HCTC program and systems are built to support only 57,000 enrolled participants. The IRS will face challenges if there is a significant increase in the number of monthly enrolled participants as a result of provisions included in the Recovery Act or newly enacted health care reform legislation.
"Fortunately, the number of claims for this credit has been within IRS's capacity to process the claims and payments," said TIGTA Inspector General J. Russell George in a statement. "The IRS will need to take program and system capacity limitations into consideration when preparing for implementation of new health care laws."
TIGTA made three recommendations to improve the accuracy and consistency of HCTC payment information, including ensuring that individuals receive accurate Health Coverage Tax Credit Advance Payments (Form 1099-H) payment information. The IRS agreed with two of the three recommendations, but disagreed with TIGTA's recommendation to ensure individuals receive accurate Forms 1099-H.
http://www.webcpa.com/news/Health-Coverage-Tax-Credits-Strain-IRS-Capacity-56024-1.html?ET=webcpa:e1085:82384a:&st=email&utm_source=editorial&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WebCPA_Daily_101910
Microsoft Partners: Ozzie's Shoes Will Be Tough To Fill
By Kevin McLaughlin, CRN 9:38 PM EST Mon. Oct. 18, 2010
Ray Ozzie is Microsoft's top visionary, an executive who at one time was seen as a possible successor to Bill Gates. So it's not surprising that his decision to step down as chief software architect would have a disquieting effect on channel partners, particularly since Microsoft doesn't plan on replacing him.
Ozzie, the architect of Microsoft's Windows Azure platform-as-a-service, and other cloud initiatives such as Live Mesh, has played a behind-the-scenes role at microsoft that hasn't included much interaction with channel partners. Nonetheless, partners are well aware of the guiding role Ozzie has played in Microsoft's SaaS and cloud computing business and they're curious about who will handle that leadership role in the future.
"When Bill Gates left, Ray Ozzie was a logical choice to fill his shoes," said Ken Winell, CEO of ExpertCollab, a Microsoft solution provider in Florham Park, N.J. "Under Ozzie's leadership, the cloud computing and collaboration environments grew, and I'm concerned over who Microsoft will find to replace him."
However, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has already said he doesn't plan on hiring a replacement for the chief software architect role. Solution providers believe this would be a mistake on Microsoft's part.
Michael Cocanower, president of Phoenix-based Microsoft solution provider ITSynergy, says Ozzie's departure "leaves a real void" in terms of product innovation and leadership. "With Ozzie leaving, and the torch not being passed to anyone, I'm concerned over Microsoft's direction and strategy," he said.
Microsoft's Side Of The Story
Ozzie isn't leaving right away: Microsoft says he'll be staying on for an unspecified period of time to help out with the company's entertainment business. Whatever this means isn't clear: Microsoft may be trying to preempt speculation about the impetus behind yet another high profile executive departure, or it may be looking to leverage Ozzie's visionary thinking in a part of its business that has also seen talented executives jump ship this year.
In any event, Ozzie's departure will give fodder to speculation about internal discord between Microsoft product teams impairing the company's ability to keep pace with smaller, more nimble competitors. In February, Dick Brass, a Microsoft vice president from 1997 to 2004, described Microsoft as a "clumsy, uncompetitive innovator" whose products "are lampooned, often unfairly but sometimes with good reason."
John Parkinson, managing director at ParkWood Advisors, a solution provider in Lake Forest, Ill., says even while Gates was still in charge, product teams at Microsoft have been loath to accept central direction. For Ozzie, working to move the company to a cloud computing strategy, architecture and philosophy "must have been a slog," he said.
"That Ozzie was able to achieve as much as he did is a testament to how fundamentally smart he is and how good his instincts are," Parkinson said. "But Microsoft has become too big for central architectural direction, and it must have been frustrating for him to see the ship turn so slowly towards a direction he saw so clearly."
Another solution provider, who was granted anonymity, speculates that once Ozzie shepherded Windows Azure to its launch, he may have been unwilling to continue dealing with the slow pace of the Microsoft culture. "He has been there long enough to plant the seeds, but probably didn't want to fight the turf battles to prove a point," said the source. "I think of it as like the difference between wanting to design incredible landscaping and not really wanting to cut the grass."
What Impact Will Ozzie's Departure Have?
Speculation about Ozzie leaving Microsoft flared last December when the company unveiled its new Server & Cloud Division (SCD) and named Bob Muglia, president of the Server and Tools division, as its head. Along with that move, Microsoft transferred leadership of the Windows Azure development team from Ozzie to Muglia.
Obviously Microsoft has plenty of executives who can keep the company's momentum going in cloud computing. The big question is, will losing a visionary thinker like Ozzie hurt Microsoft, or is the company's strategy sufficiently baked at this point where cloud is ready to become another humming Microsoft revenue engine?
Karl Palachuk, founder and CEO of KPEnterprises Business Consulting, a Sacramento, Calif.-based solution provider, doesn't feel Ozzie's departure from the role of chief cloud visionary at Microsoft will have much effect on Microsoft's cloud service offerings.
"You could make the argument that someone needs to be the Cloud Services Czar at Microsoft and orchestrate a united approach," Palachuk said. "Maybe Ozzie was supposed to be doing that, but there's no evidence that any progress was made along those lines. As a result, his departure won't have much impact at all."
http://www.crn.com/news/applications-os/227900230/microsoft-partners-ozzies-shoes-will-be-tough-to-fill.htm
Ray Ozzie is Microsoft's top visionary, an executive who at one time was seen as a possible successor to Bill Gates. So it's not surprising that his decision to step down as chief software architect would have a disquieting effect on channel partners, particularly since Microsoft doesn't plan on replacing him.
Ozzie, the architect of Microsoft's Windows Azure platform-as-a-service, and other cloud initiatives such as Live Mesh, has played a behind-the-scenes role at microsoft that hasn't included much interaction with channel partners. Nonetheless, partners are well aware of the guiding role Ozzie has played in Microsoft's SaaS and cloud computing business and they're curious about who will handle that leadership role in the future.
"When Bill Gates left, Ray Ozzie was a logical choice to fill his shoes," said Ken Winell, CEO of ExpertCollab, a Microsoft solution provider in Florham Park, N.J. "Under Ozzie's leadership, the cloud computing and collaboration environments grew, and I'm concerned over who Microsoft will find to replace him."
However, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has already said he doesn't plan on hiring a replacement for the chief software architect role. Solution providers believe this would be a mistake on Microsoft's part.
Michael Cocanower, president of Phoenix-based Microsoft solution provider ITSynergy, says Ozzie's departure "leaves a real void" in terms of product innovation and leadership. "With Ozzie leaving, and the torch not being passed to anyone, I'm concerned over Microsoft's direction and strategy," he said.
Microsoft's Side Of The Story
Ozzie isn't leaving right away: Microsoft says he'll be staying on for an unspecified period of time to help out with the company's entertainment business. Whatever this means isn't clear: Microsoft may be trying to preempt speculation about the impetus behind yet another high profile executive departure, or it may be looking to leverage Ozzie's visionary thinking in a part of its business that has also seen talented executives jump ship this year.
In any event, Ozzie's departure will give fodder to speculation about internal discord between Microsoft product teams impairing the company's ability to keep pace with smaller, more nimble competitors. In February, Dick Brass, a Microsoft vice president from 1997 to 2004, described Microsoft as a "clumsy, uncompetitive innovator" whose products "are lampooned, often unfairly but sometimes with good reason."
John Parkinson, managing director at ParkWood Advisors, a solution provider in Lake Forest, Ill., says even while Gates was still in charge, product teams at Microsoft have been loath to accept central direction. For Ozzie, working to move the company to a cloud computing strategy, architecture and philosophy "must have been a slog," he said.
"That Ozzie was able to achieve as much as he did is a testament to how fundamentally smart he is and how good his instincts are," Parkinson said. "But Microsoft has become too big for central architectural direction, and it must have been frustrating for him to see the ship turn so slowly towards a direction he saw so clearly."
Another solution provider, who was granted anonymity, speculates that once Ozzie shepherded Windows Azure to its launch, he may have been unwilling to continue dealing with the slow pace of the Microsoft culture. "He has been there long enough to plant the seeds, but probably didn't want to fight the turf battles to prove a point," said the source. "I think of it as like the difference between wanting to design incredible landscaping and not really wanting to cut the grass."
What Impact Will Ozzie's Departure Have?
Speculation about Ozzie leaving Microsoft flared last December when the company unveiled its new Server & Cloud Division (SCD) and named Bob Muglia, president of the Server and Tools division, as its head. Along with that move, Microsoft transferred leadership of the Windows Azure development team from Ozzie to Muglia.
Obviously Microsoft has plenty of executives who can keep the company's momentum going in cloud computing. The big question is, will losing a visionary thinker like Ozzie hurt Microsoft, or is the company's strategy sufficiently baked at this point where cloud is ready to become another humming Microsoft revenue engine?
Karl Palachuk, founder and CEO of KPEnterprises Business Consulting, a Sacramento, Calif.-based solution provider, doesn't feel Ozzie's departure from the role of chief cloud visionary at Microsoft will have much effect on Microsoft's cloud service offerings.
"You could make the argument that someone needs to be the Cloud Services Czar at Microsoft and orchestrate a united approach," Palachuk said. "Maybe Ozzie was supposed to be doing that, but there's no evidence that any progress was made along those lines. As a result, his departure won't have much impact at all."
http://www.crn.com/news/applications-os/227900230/microsoft-partners-ozzies-shoes-will-be-tough-to-fill.htm
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Jobs blasts rivals as iPad sales disappoint
By Gabriel Madway
SAN FRANCISCO | Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:39am EDT
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Apple Inc CEO Steve Jobs went on the offensive on Monday after a rare disappointment in sales by the iPad maker sent its shares tumbling, but even his biting words failed to reverse market sentiment.
Jobs, who has not addressed investors on an earnings call for two years, lashed out at competitors Google Inc and Research in Motion and dismissed the smaller tablets made by rivals such including Samsung and Dell.
"The current crop of 7-inch tablets are going to be DOA, dead on arrival," Jobs told analysts on the conference call. "Their manufacturers will learn the painful lesson that their tablets are too small."
Shares of Apple -- the second-largest corporation on the Standard & Poor's 500 index, after Exxon Mobil -- slid 6 percent in after-hours trading, which would be their biggest single-day loss since 2008.
Supply and production bottlenecks kept iPads, which have a 9.7-inch touch screen, from store shelves and buyers waiting weeks sometimes for their gadget. The company sold 4.19 million iPads in the fiscal fourth quarter.
"A little bit disappointing there. Street was expecting closer to 5 million units. The problem is supply, they can't make enough of them," said Gleacher & Co analyst Brian Marshall.
Analysts said sales should ramp up in the holiday quarter as Apple resolves supply hitches.
Gross margins fell short of target as iPads, whose profit margin is lower than it is for iPhones, made up a larger proportion of Apple's sales. Investors had expected more from a company that had smashed Wall Street's targets in each of the past eight quarters.
Gross margins came to 36.9 percent, below Wall Street's average forecast of 38.2 percent, despite better-than-expected components costs in the period.
"The one surprise is on the margin side. Everything else is pretty spectacular," said Gartner analyst Van Baker.
There was no disappointment in the iPhone, however, whose surging sales showed little impact from a PR debacle last summer over the device's antenna.
Apple sold 14.1 million of the smartphones, a gain of 91 percent and better than Wall Street had expected. The company said demand is still outstripping supply, with the iPhone now available in 89 countries.
Mac sales surged 27 percent to 3.9 million, at the high end of analysts' estimates. Apple Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer said the strong Mac performance was evidence that the iPad was not cannibalizing sales.
SURVEYING THE COMPETITION
Jobs noted that Apple's iPhone outsold RIM's BlackBerry in its most recent quarter. "I don't see them catching up with us in the foreseeable future," Jobs said.
And he criticized Google's Android as a "fragmented" operating system. RIM and Google did not respond to requests for comment.
In the still emerging tablet market, Jobs said there appears to be just a "handful of credible entrants," and he said price points on rival tablets won't be able to compete with the iPad, which starts at just $499.
Some analysts agreed with Jobs, and foresaw sales of the iPad, which came on the market only in April, jumpstarting next year as the gadget gets rolled out to more countries and to more mass-market retail outlets like Wal-Mart Stores.
As an indication of industry bullishness, research group iSuppli said it expects Apple to sell a whopping 43.7 million iPads next year.
"IPads were low, but I also think they had a lot of production problems getting that off the ground. So I don't think that really is a good demand indicator for iPad," said analyst Jane Snorek of First American Funds.
Apple on Monday reported a net profit of $4.31 billion, or $4.64 a share, in the fiscal fourth quarter ended September 25, up from $2.53 billion, or $2.77 cents a share, in the year-ago period.
That was better than the average analyst estimate of $4.08 a share, according to Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S.
Revenue surged 67 percent to $20.3 billion, ahead of Wall Street's target of $18.9 billion.
As it looks ahead to the holiday season, Apple -- which typically issues very conservative outlooks -- forecast current-quarter earnings of $4.80 a share on revenue of $23 billion. The consensus estimate is for a profit of $5.07 a share on revenue of $22.4 billion.
Shares of Cupertino, California-based Apple slid 6.1 percent to $298.50 in extended trading, after a brief trading halt. They closed at $318.00 on Nasdaq.
(Writing by Edwin Chan; Editing by Richard Chang, Gary Hill)
http://reut.rs/cfTWPY
SAN FRANCISCO | Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:39am EDT
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Apple Inc CEO Steve Jobs went on the offensive on Monday after a rare disappointment in sales by the iPad maker sent its shares tumbling, but even his biting words failed to reverse market sentiment.
Jobs, who has not addressed investors on an earnings call for two years, lashed out at competitors Google Inc and Research in Motion and dismissed the smaller tablets made by rivals such including Samsung and Dell.
"The current crop of 7-inch tablets are going to be DOA, dead on arrival," Jobs told analysts on the conference call. "Their manufacturers will learn the painful lesson that their tablets are too small."
Shares of Apple -- the second-largest corporation on the Standard & Poor's 500 index, after Exxon Mobil -- slid 6 percent in after-hours trading, which would be their biggest single-day loss since 2008.
Supply and production bottlenecks kept iPads, which have a 9.7-inch touch screen, from store shelves and buyers waiting weeks sometimes for their gadget. The company sold 4.19 million iPads in the fiscal fourth quarter.
"A little bit disappointing there. Street was expecting closer to 5 million units. The problem is supply, they can't make enough of them," said Gleacher & Co analyst Brian Marshall.
Analysts said sales should ramp up in the holiday quarter as Apple resolves supply hitches.
Gross margins fell short of target as iPads, whose profit margin is lower than it is for iPhones, made up a larger proportion of Apple's sales. Investors had expected more from a company that had smashed Wall Street's targets in each of the past eight quarters.
Gross margins came to 36.9 percent, below Wall Street's average forecast of 38.2 percent, despite better-than-expected components costs in the period.
"The one surprise is on the margin side. Everything else is pretty spectacular," said Gartner analyst Van Baker.
There was no disappointment in the iPhone, however, whose surging sales showed little impact from a PR debacle last summer over the device's antenna.
Apple sold 14.1 million of the smartphones, a gain of 91 percent and better than Wall Street had expected. The company said demand is still outstripping supply, with the iPhone now available in 89 countries.
Mac sales surged 27 percent to 3.9 million, at the high end of analysts' estimates. Apple Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer said the strong Mac performance was evidence that the iPad was not cannibalizing sales.
SURVEYING THE COMPETITION
Jobs noted that Apple's iPhone outsold RIM's BlackBerry in its most recent quarter. "I don't see them catching up with us in the foreseeable future," Jobs said.
And he criticized Google's Android as a "fragmented" operating system. RIM and Google did not respond to requests for comment.
In the still emerging tablet market, Jobs said there appears to be just a "handful of credible entrants," and he said price points on rival tablets won't be able to compete with the iPad, which starts at just $499.
Some analysts agreed with Jobs, and foresaw sales of the iPad, which came on the market only in April, jumpstarting next year as the gadget gets rolled out to more countries and to more mass-market retail outlets like Wal-Mart Stores.
As an indication of industry bullishness, research group iSuppli said it expects Apple to sell a whopping 43.7 million iPads next year.
"IPads were low, but I also think they had a lot of production problems getting that off the ground. So I don't think that really is a good demand indicator for iPad," said analyst Jane Snorek of First American Funds.
Apple on Monday reported a net profit of $4.31 billion, or $4.64 a share, in the fiscal fourth quarter ended September 25, up from $2.53 billion, or $2.77 cents a share, in the year-ago period.
That was better than the average analyst estimate of $4.08 a share, according to Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S.
Revenue surged 67 percent to $20.3 billion, ahead of Wall Street's target of $18.9 billion.
As it looks ahead to the holiday season, Apple -- which typically issues very conservative outlooks -- forecast current-quarter earnings of $4.80 a share on revenue of $23 billion. The consensus estimate is for a profit of $5.07 a share on revenue of $22.4 billion.
Shares of Cupertino, California-based Apple slid 6.1 percent to $298.50 in extended trading, after a brief trading halt. They closed at $318.00 on Nasdaq.
(Writing by Edwin Chan; Editing by Richard Chang, Gary Hill)
http://reut.rs/cfTWPY
Friday, October 15, 2010
Exposed: 3 more bogus myths about the private cloud
David Linthicum's Cloud Computing blog:
Earlier this week, I described three bogus myths about the private cloud perpetuated by private-cloud vendors. But public-cloud vendors are doing their best to create FUD about their competitors, spreading bogus myths about private clouds -- which is causing confusion for IT.
So that you don't get fooled and waste countless dollars and hours pursuing a silly public cloud strategy rather than a sensible private-cloud strategy, here are the top three myths about the private cloud promulgated by the public cloud vendors. (For the record, both public clouds and private clouds are necessary. I'm favor of using each where it makes sense.)
Public cloud myth 1: Private clouds are not clouds at all
I get it: Private clouds are not consumed from an outside provider using massive amounts of IT resources that you don't own. Thus, it's difficult to say that private clouds provide the same elasticity and value as public clouds. Right? Wrong. There is no reason you can't build an IT architecture within the enterprise that takes advantage of the same design patterns and, thus, the value attributes of public clouds -- including elasticity.
Public cloud myth 2: Private clouds are just virtualized servers
The ability to be a cloud means you're doing much more than simple virtualization. This includes supporting a true multitenant architecture, use-based accounting, deep management, and auto-provisioning. These days, private clouds provide most of the features and functions of public clouds. Indeed, all public clouds but Amazon Web Services provide a private-cloud instance of their software.
Public cloud myth 3: Public clouds are always cheaper than private clouds
Although it's true that the ability to use applications, development platforms, and infrastructure from a pay-as-you-go subscription service seems cheaper than buying, installing, and supporting your own hardware and software, that's not always the case. You have to consider each offering, looking at all aspects of the cost over at least a three-year horizon. In many instances, public clouds are less expensive, but it's never "always cheaper." You would be surprised by how many times it's not.
This article, "Exposed: 3 more bogus myths about the private cloud," originally appeared at InfoWorld.com. Read more of David Linthicum's Cloud Computing blog and follow the latest developments in cloud computing at InfoWorld.com.
Earlier this week, I described three bogus myths about the private cloud perpetuated by private-cloud vendors. But public-cloud vendors are doing their best to create FUD about their competitors, spreading bogus myths about private clouds -- which is causing confusion for IT.
So that you don't get fooled and waste countless dollars and hours pursuing a silly public cloud strategy rather than a sensible private-cloud strategy, here are the top three myths about the private cloud promulgated by the public cloud vendors. (For the record, both public clouds and private clouds are necessary. I'm favor of using each where it makes sense.)
Public cloud myth 1: Private clouds are not clouds at all
I get it: Private clouds are not consumed from an outside provider using massive amounts of IT resources that you don't own. Thus, it's difficult to say that private clouds provide the same elasticity and value as public clouds. Right? Wrong. There is no reason you can't build an IT architecture within the enterprise that takes advantage of the same design patterns and, thus, the value attributes of public clouds -- including elasticity.
Public cloud myth 2: Private clouds are just virtualized servers
The ability to be a cloud means you're doing much more than simple virtualization. This includes supporting a true multitenant architecture, use-based accounting, deep management, and auto-provisioning. These days, private clouds provide most of the features and functions of public clouds. Indeed, all public clouds but Amazon Web Services provide a private-cloud instance of their software.
Public cloud myth 3: Public clouds are always cheaper than private clouds
Although it's true that the ability to use applications, development platforms, and infrastructure from a pay-as-you-go subscription service seems cheaper than buying, installing, and supporting your own hardware and software, that's not always the case. You have to consider each offering, looking at all aspects of the cost over at least a three-year horizon. In many instances, public clouds are less expensive, but it's never "always cheaper." You would be surprised by how many times it's not.
This article, "Exposed: 3 more bogus myths about the private cloud," originally appeared at InfoWorld.com. Read more of David Linthicum's Cloud Computing blog and follow the latest developments in cloud computing at InfoWorld.com.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Will WP7 force Google to get its act together over Android?
By Adrian Kingsley-Hughes | October 12, 2010, 9:51am PDT
If analyst predictions are to be believed, Android is set to have a good 12 months. But the OS is far from being a perfect mobile platform, especially where the average consumer is concerned. Will Microsoft's new Windows Phone
7 platform help Google focus on making Android better?
So, what's the problem with Android? Well, Brian X. Chen says it all really:
By contrast, Google doesn't subject manufacturers to similar testing criteria. And we're seeing the consequences: Some touchscreens work better than others, some apps don't work on one version of Android while they do on another, and some manufacturers are even cramming bloatware onto Android devices.
Most importantly, a consistent user experience will help customers understand what they're getting when they're shopping for a Windows phone.
The OS is going to be the same with identical features on every handset, so as a consumer, your decision-making will boil down to the hardware's look, weight and size. Compare that to the experience of buying an Android phone, which could be running a different version depending on the handset you buy: Donut, Eclair, Froyo, blueberry pie, Neapolitan or whatever Google chooses to call it eventually. You won't have to ask yourself, "Am I going to get X on this phone or do I have to get another one?" because they're all running the same OS with a few variations in hardware.
See, the problem with Android is that it betrays its Linux heritage. An aggressive development cycle, combined with the open source nature of the platform has resulted in a confusing hellstew of hardware and OSes. Geeks like nothing better than to tinker and play with stuff and tweak. The idea of different OS versions gets them excited. But geeks don't land themselves with a dud purchase because they've done all the research in advance, and a new handset running an old OS is just a challenge for them. For geeks, that kind of thing is fun.
But consumers don't think like this. In fact, most consumers don't really think at all. Apple took the decision making process out of buying and gave users a small, specific choice selection. Microsoft is trying to make all
WP7 handsets operate in much the same way, again, so consumers don't have to think. That leaves Android as the thinking person's OS. Does that leave the platform vulnerable?
Question is, can Google wrestle any control over hardware and crapware loaded into the OS away from OEMs? Or is Android destined to become more confused and messier? Are OEMs and carriers abusing the open source nature of Android? Does it matter?
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/will-wp7-force-google-to-get-its-act-together-over-android/9927?tag=nl.e550
If analyst predictions are to be believed, Android is set to have a good 12 months. But the OS is far from being a perfect mobile platform, especially where the average consumer is concerned. Will Microsoft's new Windows Phone
7 platform help Google focus on making Android better?
So, what's the problem with Android? Well, Brian X. Chen says it all really:
By contrast, Google doesn't subject manufacturers to similar testing criteria. And we're seeing the consequences: Some touchscreens work better than others, some apps don't work on one version of Android while they do on another, and some manufacturers are even cramming bloatware onto Android devices.
Most importantly, a consistent user experience will help customers understand what they're getting when they're shopping for a Windows phone.
The OS is going to be the same with identical features on every handset, so as a consumer, your decision-making will boil down to the hardware's look, weight and size. Compare that to the experience of buying an Android phone, which could be running a different version depending on the handset you buy: Donut, Eclair, Froyo, blueberry pie, Neapolitan or whatever Google chooses to call it eventually. You won't have to ask yourself, "Am I going to get X on this phone or do I have to get another one?" because they're all running the same OS with a few variations in hardware.
See, the problem with Android is that it betrays its Linux heritage. An aggressive development cycle, combined with the open source nature of the platform has resulted in a confusing hellstew of hardware and OSes. Geeks like nothing better than to tinker and play with stuff and tweak. The idea of different OS versions gets them excited. But geeks don't land themselves with a dud purchase because they've done all the research in advance, and a new handset running an old OS is just a challenge for them. For geeks, that kind of thing is fun.
But consumers don't think like this. In fact, most consumers don't really think at all. Apple took the decision making process out of buying and gave users a small, specific choice selection. Microsoft is trying to make all
WP7 handsets operate in much the same way, again, so consumers don't have to think. That leaves Android as the thinking person's OS. Does that leave the platform vulnerable?
Question is, can Google wrestle any control over hardware and crapware loaded into the OS away from OEMs? Or is Android destined to become more confused and messier? Are OEMs and carriers abusing the open source nature of Android? Does it matter?
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/will-wp7-force-google-to-get-its-act-together-over-android/9927?tag=nl.e550
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
IRS Defers Requirement for Reporting Health Coverage Costs
Washington, D.C.
(October 12, 2010)
By WebCPA Staff
The Internal Revenue Service has released a draft Form W-2 for 2011, which employers use to report wages and employee tax withholding.
Like what you see? Click here to sign up for WebCPA's daily newsletter to get the latest news and behind the scenes commentary you won't find anywhere else.
The IRS also announced Tuesday that it will defer the new requirement for employers to report the cost of coverage under an employer-sponsored group health plan, making that reporting by employers optional in 2011.
The draft Form W-2 includes the codes that employers may use to report the cost of coverage under an employer-sponsored group health plan. The Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that this relief is necessary to provide employers the time they need to make changes to their payroll systems or procedures in preparation for compliance with the new reporting requirement. The IRS will be publishing guidance on the new requirement later this year.
Although reporting the cost of coverage will be optional with respect to 2011, the IRS said it continues to stress that the amounts reportable are not taxable. Included in the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress in March, the new reporting requirement is intended to be informational only, and to provide employees with greater transparency into overall health care costs.
http://www.webcpa.com/news/IRS-Defers-Requirement-Reporting-Health-Coverage-Costs-55956-1.html?ET=webcpa:e1071:82384a:&st=email&utm_source=editorial&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WebCPA_Daily_101210
(October 12, 2010)
By WebCPA Staff
The Internal Revenue Service has released a draft Form W-2 for 2011, which employers use to report wages and employee tax withholding.
Like what you see? Click here to sign up for WebCPA's daily newsletter to get the latest news and behind the scenes commentary you won't find anywhere else.
The IRS also announced Tuesday that it will defer the new requirement for employers to report the cost of coverage under an employer-sponsored group health plan, making that reporting by employers optional in 2011.
The draft Form W-2 includes the codes that employers may use to report the cost of coverage under an employer-sponsored group health plan. The Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that this relief is necessary to provide employers the time they need to make changes to their payroll systems or procedures in preparation for compliance with the new reporting requirement. The IRS will be publishing guidance on the new requirement later this year.
Although reporting the cost of coverage will be optional with respect to 2011, the IRS said it continues to stress that the amounts reportable are not taxable. Included in the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress in March, the new reporting requirement is intended to be informational only, and to provide employees with greater transparency into overall health care costs.
http://www.webcpa.com/news/IRS-Defers-Requirement-Reporting-Health-Coverage-Costs-55956-1.html?ET=webcpa:e1071:82384a:&st=email&utm_source=editorial&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WebCPA_Daily_101210
Google Fires Back at Oracle over Android Lawsuit
By: Clint Boulton 2010-10-06
Google denied Oracle's claims of patent and copyright infringement related to its use of Java in Android and countered that the company is singling out its operating system after years of supporting open-source software.
Oracle, whose patents it controls through its Sun Microsystems acquisition early this year, in August sued Google over its use of Java in the open source Android operating system.
Android, activated on more than 200,000 devices per day, includes Java applications running on a Java-based application framework and core libraries running on a Dalvik virtual machine. Oracle filed seven counts of patent infringement and one copyright claim.
Google filed its counterclaim in California district court Oct. 4, asking the judge to dismiss Oracle's suit and render the patents Oracle holds invalid.
To demonstrate inconsistency on the part of its accuser, Google said Oracle complained when Sun refused to release all of Java to open source, retaining control over the use of Java on mobile devices.
That was in 2006. Google stated that Oracle advanced its support for fully open Java in February 2009, but changed its tune after acquiring Sun in January 2010.
"Since that time, and directly contrary to Oracle Corp.'s public actions and statements, as well as its own proposals as an executive member of the JCP [Java Community Process], Oracle Corp. and Sun have ignored the open-source community's requests to fully open-source the Java platform," Google claimed.
Google added in a public statement: "It's disappointing that after years of supporting open source, Oracle turned around to attack-not just Android-but the entire open-source Java community with vague software patent claims.
Open platforms like Android are essential to innovation, and we will continue to support the open-source community to make the mobile experience better for consumers and developers alike."
Oracle spokesperson Deborah Hellinger dismissed this position, noting that Google chose to use Java code without obtaining a license when it built Android.
"Additionally, it modified the technology, so it is not compliant with Java's central design principle to 'write once and run anywhere'," Hellinger added. "Google's infringement and fragmentation of Java code not only damage Oracle, it clearly harms consumers, developers and device manufacturers."
Oracle's suit is one of a few major legal attacks against Android, though the first specifically against Google, which released the OS code to open source in 2008. The bulk of the legal blows against Android have come against manufacturers who built Android smartphones.
Apple in March sued HTC, claiming it violated 20 of its patents surrounding the iPhone's interface, architecture and hardware. Microsoft just last week sued Motorola, claiming its Android smartphones violated nine software patents.
IDC analyst Al Hilwa told eWEEK the legal skirmishes waged against Android will continue for some time, sowing seeds of doubt over the Android platform and those who choose to build smartphones, tablet computers and applications for it.
"Microsoft suing Motorola casts additional shadows on Android, but I don't see any sign that Google will step in with any promise to indemnify Android OEMs for patent-infringement liabilities, so that uncertainty continues in the market," Hilwa added. "Lawsuits like this are not going to accelerate the adoption of Android, though I haven't seen anyone walk away just yet."
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/Google-Fires-Back-at-Oracle-Over-Android-Lawsuit-316313/?kc=EWKNLLIN10122010
Google denied Oracle's claims of patent and copyright infringement related to its use of Java in Android and countered that the company is singling out its operating system after years of supporting open-source software.
Oracle, whose patents it controls through its Sun Microsystems acquisition early this year, in August sued Google over its use of Java in the open source Android operating system.
Android, activated on more than 200,000 devices per day, includes Java applications running on a Java-based application framework and core libraries running on a Dalvik virtual machine. Oracle filed seven counts of patent infringement and one copyright claim.
Google filed its counterclaim in California district court Oct. 4, asking the judge to dismiss Oracle's suit and render the patents Oracle holds invalid.
To demonstrate inconsistency on the part of its accuser, Google said Oracle complained when Sun refused to release all of Java to open source, retaining control over the use of Java on mobile devices.
That was in 2006. Google stated that Oracle advanced its support for fully open Java in February 2009, but changed its tune after acquiring Sun in January 2010.
"Since that time, and directly contrary to Oracle Corp.'s public actions and statements, as well as its own proposals as an executive member of the JCP [Java Community Process], Oracle Corp. and Sun have ignored the open-source community's requests to fully open-source the Java platform," Google claimed.
Google added in a public statement: "It's disappointing that after years of supporting open source, Oracle turned around to attack-not just Android-but the entire open-source Java community with vague software patent claims.
Open platforms like Android are essential to innovation, and we will continue to support the open-source community to make the mobile experience better for consumers and developers alike."
Oracle spokesperson Deborah Hellinger dismissed this position, noting that Google chose to use Java code without obtaining a license when it built Android.
"Additionally, it modified the technology, so it is not compliant with Java's central design principle to 'write once and run anywhere'," Hellinger added. "Google's infringement and fragmentation of Java code not only damage Oracle, it clearly harms consumers, developers and device manufacturers."
Oracle's suit is one of a few major legal attacks against Android, though the first specifically against Google, which released the OS code to open source in 2008. The bulk of the legal blows against Android have come against manufacturers who built Android smartphones.
Apple in March sued HTC, claiming it violated 20 of its patents surrounding the iPhone's interface, architecture and hardware. Microsoft just last week sued Motorola, claiming its Android smartphones violated nine software patents.
IDC analyst Al Hilwa told eWEEK the legal skirmishes waged against Android will continue for some time, sowing seeds of doubt over the Android platform and those who choose to build smartphones, tablet computers and applications for it.
"Microsoft suing Motorola casts additional shadows on Android, but I don't see any sign that Google will step in with any promise to indemnify Android OEMs for patent-infringement liabilities, so that uncertainty continues in the market," Hilwa added. "Lawsuits like this are not going to accelerate the adoption of Android, though I haven't seen anyone walk away just yet."
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/Google-Fires-Back-at-Oracle-Over-Android-Lawsuit-316313/?kc=EWKNLLIN10122010
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Android Share Gains on Apple iOS, comScore Says
By: Clint Boulton
2010-10-07
comScore said Google Android ran on 19.6 percent of all smartphones through August. Apple garnered a 24.2 percent share, putting Android within 5 percentage points.
Google's Android operating system ran on 19.6 percent of the 55.7 million smartphones through August, putting the platform's market share within 5 percentage points of rival Apple iOS, comScore said.
From July to August, Android ascended 2.6. percent from its 17 percent share of the 53.4 million smartphones the researcher counted.
No. 2 smartphone provider Apple also gained for the month, inching up to
24.2 percent in August from 23.8 percent in July. Android and iOS'
smartphone share gains appear to be coming at the expense of Research in Motion and Microsoft.
RIM led the U.S. smartphone OS market with 37.6 percent of handsets, down
2.3 percent from its July count of 39.3 percent. Microsoft's share was 10.8 percent, down one full percentage point from July when it held 11.8 percent.
RIM and Microsoft have been slipping for some time thanks to iOS since 2007 and Android in 2010, according to most analysts.
Susquehanna Research analyst Jeffrey Fidacaro said in an Oct. 7 note: "The three-month average mobile data usage for August from comScore continues to highlight increased web browsing and application downloads as the fastest growing trends, with text messaging and accessing social media/blogs gaining..."
"We believe these usage trend benefits Apple and Android-based products at the expense of RIM and Microsoft, which is reflected in RIM's 4 percentage point U.S. subscriber share loss from May to August.:
What stands out from the data is the way Android has tempered iOS's meteoric rise. IOS commanded 25 percent of the market in April, which means the Android army of some 60-plus devices launched all over the worlds has blighted the iPhone a bit.
Indeed, thanks to devices such as Sprint's HTC Evo 4G (spring) and Verizon Wireless' popular Droid lineup, including the HTC Droid Incredible (spring), Motorola Droid X and Droid 2 (summer), Android has grown market share from
12 percent in April to nearly 20 percent.
That puts it within 5 percent of iPhone, certainly within striking distance of the popular device.
The iPhone line was got a boost in late June with the launch of iPhone 4, which sold at least a few million. However, it's launch may have been tempered by the April launch of Apple's iPad.
Analysts believe Apple sold between 8 million and 10 million of the popular tablet computers, giving it a tremendous headstart on the market.
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Android-Share-Gains-on-Apple-iOS-ComScore-Says-105327/?kc=EWKNLNAV10122010STR2
2010-10-07
comScore said Google Android ran on 19.6 percent of all smartphones through August. Apple garnered a 24.2 percent share, putting Android within 5 percentage points.
Google's Android operating system ran on 19.6 percent of the 55.7 million smartphones through August, putting the platform's market share within 5 percentage points of rival Apple iOS, comScore said.
From July to August, Android ascended 2.6. percent from its 17 percent share of the 53.4 million smartphones the researcher counted.
No. 2 smartphone provider Apple also gained for the month, inching up to
24.2 percent in August from 23.8 percent in July. Android and iOS'
smartphone share gains appear to be coming at the expense of Research in Motion and Microsoft.
RIM led the U.S. smartphone OS market with 37.6 percent of handsets, down
2.3 percent from its July count of 39.3 percent. Microsoft's share was 10.8 percent, down one full percentage point from July when it held 11.8 percent.
RIM and Microsoft have been slipping for some time thanks to iOS since 2007 and Android in 2010, according to most analysts.
Susquehanna Research analyst Jeffrey Fidacaro said in an Oct. 7 note: "The three-month average mobile data usage for August from comScore continues to highlight increased web browsing and application downloads as the fastest growing trends, with text messaging and accessing social media/blogs gaining..."
"We believe these usage trend benefits Apple and Android-based products at the expense of RIM and Microsoft, which is reflected in RIM's 4 percentage point U.S. subscriber share loss from May to August.:
What stands out from the data is the way Android has tempered iOS's meteoric rise. IOS commanded 25 percent of the market in April, which means the Android army of some 60-plus devices launched all over the worlds has blighted the iPhone a bit.
Indeed, thanks to devices such as Sprint's HTC Evo 4G (spring) and Verizon Wireless' popular Droid lineup, including the HTC Droid Incredible (spring), Motorola Droid X and Droid 2 (summer), Android has grown market share from
12 percent in April to nearly 20 percent.
That puts it within 5 percent of iPhone, certainly within striking distance of the popular device.
The iPhone line was got a boost in late June with the launch of iPhone 4, which sold at least a few million. However, it's launch may have been tempered by the April launch of Apple's iPad.
Analysts believe Apple sold between 8 million and 10 million of the popular tablet computers, giving it a tremendous headstart on the market.
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Android-Share-Gains-on-Apple-iOS-ComScore-Says-105327/?kc=EWKNLNAV10122010STR2
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Eric Schmidt: Google gets close to 'the creepy line'
By Shane Richmond Media Last updated: October 5th, 2010
Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, has described his company's policy: "Google policy is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it."
Schmidt was talking to The Atlantic about the possibility of a Google implant - a chip under your skin that would track you and provide easy web access. That, Schmidt said, was probably over 'the creepy line'.
However, he followed that by saying: "With your permission you give us more information about you, about your friends, and we can improve the quality of our searches. We don't need you to type at all. We know where you are. We know where you've been. We can more or less know what you're thinking about."
Some might argue that that is over the line too but Google will only read your mind "with your permission", so that's a relief.
Schmidt has a history of attention-grabbing and quotable statements about Google's increasing, err, creep into our lives. There was the time that he
said: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." Recently he has suggested that young people might in future change their names so as to escape their Google-able past.
Last month he muttered cryptically about having "other ways" to get access to Facebook's data should the social network decline to let Google index it.
Schmidt's comments often sound like those of a man speaking off the cuff, and perhaps saying a little more than he should. Maybe that's what they are but I'm not sure. I spent some time with Schmidt earlier this year and since then I've heard him repeat in other interviews - almost word-for-word - answers that he gave me. I think Schmidt has thought very carefully about these issues and he's very clear on the message he wants to give.
Google makes some wonderful products. I use many of them, including Gmail, Google Reader and, of course, search. However, their attitude towards our private data is a cause for concern, not least because Google tends to make its services 'opt-out', rather than 'opt-in', which means that the permission Schmidt talks about will be given implicitly.
While Google is honest about wanting to "get right up to the creepy line", it would also suit them if that line could be pushed ever further back.
Schmidt's comments play a tiny role in helping that process along. I would bet that in a decade the line will have been pushed even further. In the meantime, though, there will be a lot more court challenges and protests as Google slowly gets its way.
It's tempting to suggest that Eric Schmidt should keep quiet instead of stirring people up every few months but I think he knows exactly what he's doing.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/shanerichmond/100005766/eric-schmidt-getting-close-to-the-creepy-line/
Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, has described his company's policy: "Google policy is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it."
Schmidt was talking to The Atlantic about the possibility of a Google implant - a chip under your skin that would track you and provide easy web access. That, Schmidt said, was probably over 'the creepy line'.
However, he followed that by saying: "With your permission you give us more information about you, about your friends, and we can improve the quality of our searches. We don't need you to type at all. We know where you are. We know where you've been. We can more or less know what you're thinking about."
Some might argue that that is over the line too but Google will only read your mind "with your permission", so that's a relief.
Schmidt has a history of attention-grabbing and quotable statements about Google's increasing, err, creep into our lives. There was the time that he
said: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." Recently he has suggested that young people might in future change their names so as to escape their Google-able past.
Last month he muttered cryptically about having "other ways" to get access to Facebook's data should the social network decline to let Google index it.
Schmidt's comments often sound like those of a man speaking off the cuff, and perhaps saying a little more than he should. Maybe that's what they are but I'm not sure. I spent some time with Schmidt earlier this year and since then I've heard him repeat in other interviews - almost word-for-word - answers that he gave me. I think Schmidt has thought very carefully about these issues and he's very clear on the message he wants to give.
Google makes some wonderful products. I use many of them, including Gmail, Google Reader and, of course, search. However, their attitude towards our private data is a cause for concern, not least because Google tends to make its services 'opt-out', rather than 'opt-in', which means that the permission Schmidt talks about will be given implicitly.
While Google is honest about wanting to "get right up to the creepy line", it would also suit them if that line could be pushed ever further back.
Schmidt's comments play a tiny role in helping that process along. I would bet that in a decade the line will have been pushed even further. In the meantime, though, there will be a lot more court challenges and protests as Google slowly gets its way.
It's tempting to suggest that Eric Schmidt should keep quiet instead of stirring people up every few months but I think he knows exactly what he's doing.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/shanerichmond/100005766/eric-schmidt-getting-close-to-the-creepy-line/
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Hacker infiltration ends D.C. online voting trial
By Mike DeBonis | October 4, 2010; 2:14 PM ET
Last week, the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics opened a new Internet-based voting system for a weeklong test period, inviting computer experts from all corners to prod its vulnerabilities in the spirit of "give it your best shot." Well, the hackers gave it their best shot -- and midday Friday, the trial period was suspended, with the board citing "usability issues brought to our attention."
Here's one of those issues: After casting a vote, according to test observers, the Web site played "Hail to the Victors" -- the University of Michigan fight song.
"The integrity of the system had been violated," said Paul Stenbjorn, the board's chief technology officer.
Stenbjorn said a Michigan professor whom the board has been working with on the project had "unleashed his students" during the test period, and one succeeded in infiltrating the system.
The fight song is a symptom of deeper vulnerabilities, says Jeremy Epstein, a computer scientist working with the Common Cause good-government nonprofit on online voting issues. "In order to do that, they had to be able to change anything they wanted on the Web site," Epstein said.
Because of the hack, Stenbjorn said Monday, a portion of the Internet voting pilot -- which was expected to be rolled out this month -- is being temporarily scrapped.
The program, called "digital vote by mail," is intended to allow military or overseas voters to cast secure absentee ballots without having to worry whether the mail would get them back to elections officials before final counting. Those voters, about 900 of them, still will be able to receive blank ballots via the Internet for the Nov. 2 general election, but they will not be allowed to submit their completed ballots via the DVM system, Stenbjorn says. Instead, they'll have to put them in the mail or send them unsecured via e-mail or fax.
The security hole that allowed the playing of the fight song has been identified, Stenbjorn said, but it raised deeper concerns about the system's vulnerabilities. "We've closed the hole they opened, but we want to put it though more robust testing," he said. "I don't want there to be any doubt.
... This is an abundance-of-caution sort of thing."
Last week, Common Cause and a group of computer scientists and election-law experts warned city officials that the Internet voting trial posed an unacceptable security risk that "imperils the overall accuracy of every election on the ballot." But board officials said the system provides security and privacy upgrades over a method of Internet voting that's already legal: filling out a paper ballot, then scanning it and attaching it to an e-mail.
Stenbjorn says he hopes that the Web-voting system's security vulnerabilities will be addressed in time for a D.C. Council special election expected next spring. The board has spent about $300,000 in federal grant money on the project.
A D.C. Council hearing on elections issues, which will include the Internet voting test, is set for Friday.
By Mike DeBonis | October 4, 2010; 2:14 PM ET
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/debonis/2010/10/hacker_infiltration_ends_dc_on.html
Last week, the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics opened a new Internet-based voting system for a weeklong test period, inviting computer experts from all corners to prod its vulnerabilities in the spirit of "give it your best shot." Well, the hackers gave it their best shot -- and midday Friday, the trial period was suspended, with the board citing "usability issues brought to our attention."
Here's one of those issues: After casting a vote, according to test observers, the Web site played "Hail to the Victors" -- the University of Michigan fight song.
"The integrity of the system had been violated," said Paul Stenbjorn, the board's chief technology officer.
Stenbjorn said a Michigan professor whom the board has been working with on the project had "unleashed his students" during the test period, and one succeeded in infiltrating the system.
The fight song is a symptom of deeper vulnerabilities, says Jeremy Epstein, a computer scientist working with the Common Cause good-government nonprofit on online voting issues. "In order to do that, they had to be able to change anything they wanted on the Web site," Epstein said.
Because of the hack, Stenbjorn said Monday, a portion of the Internet voting pilot -- which was expected to be rolled out this month -- is being temporarily scrapped.
The program, called "digital vote by mail," is intended to allow military or overseas voters to cast secure absentee ballots without having to worry whether the mail would get them back to elections officials before final counting. Those voters, about 900 of them, still will be able to receive blank ballots via the Internet for the Nov. 2 general election, but they will not be allowed to submit their completed ballots via the DVM system, Stenbjorn says. Instead, they'll have to put them in the mail or send them unsecured via e-mail or fax.
The security hole that allowed the playing of the fight song has been identified, Stenbjorn said, but it raised deeper concerns about the system's vulnerabilities. "We've closed the hole they opened, but we want to put it though more robust testing," he said. "I don't want there to be any doubt.
... This is an abundance-of-caution sort of thing."
Last week, Common Cause and a group of computer scientists and election-law experts warned city officials that the Internet voting trial posed an unacceptable security risk that "imperils the overall accuracy of every election on the ballot." But board officials said the system provides security and privacy upgrades over a method of Internet voting that's already legal: filling out a paper ballot, then scanning it and attaching it to an e-mail.
Stenbjorn says he hopes that the Web-voting system's security vulnerabilities will be addressed in time for a D.C. Council special election expected next spring. The board has spent about $300,000 in federal grant money on the project.
A D.C. Council hearing on elections issues, which will include the Internet voting test, is set for Friday.
By Mike DeBonis | October 4, 2010; 2:14 PM ET
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/debonis/2010/10/hacker_infiltration_ends_dc_on.html
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Microsoft Joins Apple, Oracle in Suing to Impede Android
By: Clint Boulton
2010-10-03
Microsoft's patent infringement lawsuit versus Motorola over Google Android smartphones is the latest bid to slow Android's roll in the market. Apple sued HTC and Oracle sued Google, both over Android, earlier this year.
Microsoft Joins Apple, Oracle in Suing to Impede Android
When Microsoft filed its patent infringement suit versus Motorola Oct. 1, it joined Apple and Oracle in their attack against Google's Android operating system, which has come on strong in the latter half of 2010.
Microsoft claimed Motorola's Android smartphones violated nine software patents related to synchronizing e-mail, calendars and contacts; scheduling meetings; and notifying applications of changes in signal strength and battery power.
Motorola makes the popular Motorola Droid, Droid X and Droid 2 Android handsets, which leverage Microsoft's Exchange ActiveSync for messaging synchronization, among other popular technologies that stretch back several years.
A Google spokesperson told eWEEK about the new suit:
"We are disappointed that Microsoft prefers to compete over old patents rather than new products. Sweeping software patent claims like these threaten innovation. While we are not a party to this lawsuit, we stand behind the Android platform and the partners who have helped us to develop it."
Microsoft's suit echoes what Apple did with HTC back in March. Instead of suing Google to hinder or halt Android, Apple sued HTC, maker of popular Android phones such as the Droid Incredible and HTC Evo 4G. Apple claimed that HTC violated 20 of its patents surrounding the iPhone's interface, architecture and hardware.
Interestingly, Microsoft could have followed Apple in suing HTC, but it instead struck an intellectual property deal in which HTC is paying to use Microsoft smartphone software in its Android handsets.
Clearly, no such deal could be reached with Motorola. Perhaps Microsoft chose not to pursue one. Why is that?
Search Engine Land's Greg Sterling suggested Microsoft is engaging in a bit of old-fashioned payback for Motorola abandoning the Windows Mobile platform, which is hemorrhaging market share.
Also, Android relies on Linux kernel v2.6 for core system services, and Microsoft hasn't been shy about its disdain for Linux, or its penchant for suing over it.
A much more practical reason, noted IDC analyst Al Hilwa, is that Microsoft is on the verge of launching Windows Phone 7 this month.
"Android was a great gift to the industry, but lawsuits like this are beginning to throw doubts on its provenance," Hilwa wrote in a note to eWEEK.
"Microsoft is of course launching Windows Phone 7 for which it charges handset makers some dollars. The lawsuits around Android make the point that device licenses for the technology stack may be viewed as inexpensive when measured against the legal fees that might be incurred. What does Microsoft really want?"
What Microsoft really wants is to impede and impinge Android, which this year passed Windows Mobile in smartphone market share.
ComScore said Android grew its U.S. smartphone market share from 12 percent to 17 percent in the three-month period ending in July, vaulting over Microsoft's Windows Mobile, which has 11.8 percent.
Android is activated on 200,000 devices per day, and there are more than 60 handsets running the open-source platform. Microsoft wants to plant a protective stake in the ground for its Windows Phone 7 launch.
Oracle, too, sued over Android, though without smartphones to sell, the database software giant targeted Google for its use of Java technology in building Android.
That use is questionable to be sure, with Google doing an end run around the Java construct to build its own platform. But Oracle just wants a piece of the red-hot Android action, not prevent phone makers from selling devices.
Interestingly, while Google released Android under the open-source model of free, it now seems phone makers and eventually Google itself will pay millions of dollars to use the OS. File this under "when free isn't really free."
"Patents are the way of tech today, whether we like it or not," Hilwa added.
"Companies regularly engage in licensing discussions and deals with their partners and competitors, who are often the same. These lawsuits come up when there is a breakdown in the discussions."
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Microsoft-Joins-Apple-Oracle-in-Suing-to-Impede-Android-815529/?kc=EWKNLLIN10052010
2010-10-03
Microsoft's patent infringement lawsuit versus Motorola over Google Android smartphones is the latest bid to slow Android's roll in the market. Apple sued HTC and Oracle sued Google, both over Android, earlier this year.
Microsoft Joins Apple, Oracle in Suing to Impede Android
When Microsoft filed its patent infringement suit versus Motorola Oct. 1, it joined Apple and Oracle in their attack against Google's Android operating system, which has come on strong in the latter half of 2010.
Microsoft claimed Motorola's Android smartphones violated nine software patents related to synchronizing e-mail, calendars and contacts; scheduling meetings; and notifying applications of changes in signal strength and battery power.
Motorola makes the popular Motorola Droid, Droid X and Droid 2 Android handsets, which leverage Microsoft's Exchange ActiveSync for messaging synchronization, among other popular technologies that stretch back several years.
A Google spokesperson told eWEEK about the new suit:
"We are disappointed that Microsoft prefers to compete over old patents rather than new products. Sweeping software patent claims like these threaten innovation. While we are not a party to this lawsuit, we stand behind the Android platform and the partners who have helped us to develop it."
Microsoft's suit echoes what Apple did with HTC back in March. Instead of suing Google to hinder or halt Android, Apple sued HTC, maker of popular Android phones such as the Droid Incredible and HTC Evo 4G. Apple claimed that HTC violated 20 of its patents surrounding the iPhone's interface, architecture and hardware.
Interestingly, Microsoft could have followed Apple in suing HTC, but it instead struck an intellectual property deal in which HTC is paying to use Microsoft smartphone software in its Android handsets.
Clearly, no such deal could be reached with Motorola. Perhaps Microsoft chose not to pursue one. Why is that?
Search Engine Land's Greg Sterling suggested Microsoft is engaging in a bit of old-fashioned payback for Motorola abandoning the Windows Mobile platform, which is hemorrhaging market share.
Also, Android relies on Linux kernel v2.6 for core system services, and Microsoft hasn't been shy about its disdain for Linux, or its penchant for suing over it.
A much more practical reason, noted IDC analyst Al Hilwa, is that Microsoft is on the verge of launching Windows Phone 7 this month.
"Android was a great gift to the industry, but lawsuits like this are beginning to throw doubts on its provenance," Hilwa wrote in a note to eWEEK.
"Microsoft is of course launching Windows Phone 7 for which it charges handset makers some dollars. The lawsuits around Android make the point that device licenses for the technology stack may be viewed as inexpensive when measured against the legal fees that might be incurred. What does Microsoft really want?"
What Microsoft really wants is to impede and impinge Android, which this year passed Windows Mobile in smartphone market share.
ComScore said Android grew its U.S. smartphone market share from 12 percent to 17 percent in the three-month period ending in July, vaulting over Microsoft's Windows Mobile, which has 11.8 percent.
Android is activated on 200,000 devices per day, and there are more than 60 handsets running the open-source platform. Microsoft wants to plant a protective stake in the ground for its Windows Phone 7 launch.
Oracle, too, sued over Android, though without smartphones to sell, the database software giant targeted Google for its use of Java technology in building Android.
That use is questionable to be sure, with Google doing an end run around the Java construct to build its own platform. But Oracle just wants a piece of the red-hot Android action, not prevent phone makers from selling devices.
Interestingly, while Google released Android under the open-source model of free, it now seems phone makers and eventually Google itself will pay millions of dollars to use the OS. File this under "when free isn't really free."
"Patents are the way of tech today, whether we like it or not," Hilwa added.
"Companies regularly engage in licensing discussions and deals with their partners and competitors, who are often the same. These lawsuits come up when there is a breakdown in the discussions."
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Microsoft-Joins-Apple-Oracle-in-Suing-to-Impede-Android-815529/?kc=EWKNLLIN10052010
Monday, October 4, 2010
New computers will 'boot up in seconds'
Wave goodbye to BIOS, say hello to UEFI, a new technology that will drastically reduce start-up times.
By Claudine Beaumont, Technology Editor
Published: 10:01AM BST 04 Oct 2010
The next generation of home computers will be able to boot up in just a few seconds, as 25-year-old BIOS technology makes way for new start-up software known as UEFI.
BIOS technology, which has been used to boot up computers since 1979, was never designed to last as long as it has, and is one of the reasons modern computers take so long to get up and running.
By contrast, UEFI - which stands for Unified Extensible Firmware Interface - has been built to meet modern computing needs, and will soon be the pre-eminent technology in many new computers, enabling them to go from 'off'
to 'on' in seconds.
"At the moment, it can be 25- to 30 seconds of boot time before you see the first bit of OS sign-on," Mark Doran, head of the UEFI Forum, told the BBC.
"With UEFI, we're getting it down to a handful of seconds.
"It's not quite instant-on, but it is already a lot better than conventional BIOS can manage."
BIOS technology has barely changed since the early days of mass computing, and the system struggles to cope with modern computing evolutions, such as USB-connected keyboards or flash drives.
UEFI is a more adaptable system, that can cope with keyboards and peripherals being connected to different ports, and which could also be used to support the next-generation of touch-screens and natural gesture interfaces.
Experts expect UEFI to start gaining a significant foothold in the computing market from as early as next year.
Many consumer electronics companies are working hard to reduce the boot times of their machines, a factor that is particularly important with mobile devices and tablet computers. Google's forthcoming Chrome OS has a rumoured boot time of just a few seconds.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8040816/New-computers-will-boot-up-in-seconds.html
By Claudine Beaumont, Technology Editor
Published: 10:01AM BST 04 Oct 2010
The next generation of home computers will be able to boot up in just a few seconds, as 25-year-old BIOS technology makes way for new start-up software known as UEFI.
BIOS technology, which has been used to boot up computers since 1979, was never designed to last as long as it has, and is one of the reasons modern computers take so long to get up and running.
By contrast, UEFI - which stands for Unified Extensible Firmware Interface - has been built to meet modern computing needs, and will soon be the pre-eminent technology in many new computers, enabling them to go from 'off'
to 'on' in seconds.
"At the moment, it can be 25- to 30 seconds of boot time before you see the first bit of OS sign-on," Mark Doran, head of the UEFI Forum, told the BBC.
"With UEFI, we're getting it down to a handful of seconds.
"It's not quite instant-on, but it is already a lot better than conventional BIOS can manage."
BIOS technology has barely changed since the early days of mass computing, and the system struggles to cope with modern computing evolutions, such as USB-connected keyboards or flash drives.
UEFI is a more adaptable system, that can cope with keyboards and peripherals being connected to different ports, and which could also be used to support the next-generation of touch-screens and natural gesture interfaces.
Experts expect UEFI to start gaining a significant foothold in the computing market from as early as next year.
Many consumer electronics companies are working hard to reduce the boot times of their machines, a factor that is particularly important with mobile devices and tablet computers. Google's forthcoming Chrome OS has a rumoured boot time of just a few seconds.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8040816/New-computers-will-boot-up-in-seconds.html
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Aiming at Android, Microsoft sues Motorola
October 1, 2010 11:46 AM PDT
by Ina Fried
Microsoft today sued Motorola, alleging several of the cell phone maker's Android devices infringe on Redmond's patents.
Microsoft both sued Motorola in U.S. District Court in Washington and brought a complaint before the International Trade Commission. Microsoft alleges Motorola infringes on nine Microsoft patents related to key smartphone experiences such as syncing e-mail, calendar, and contacts, and notifying applications about changes in signal strength and battery power, Microsoft said. The complaint cites Motorola's Droid 2 phone as an example.
"We have a responsibility to our customers, partners, and shareholders to safeguard the billions of dollars we invest each year in bringing innovative software products and services to market," Microsoft deputy general counsel Horacio Gutierrez said in a statement.
The suit comes as Microsoft is trying to line up phone makers to use its Windows Phone 7 operating system. Although Google-developed Android can be used free of charge, Microsoft has been trying to make the case that phone makers should consider the potential intellectual-property issues and related costs before going with Android.
Earlier this year, Apple sued HTC--which makes both Windows Phone and Android phones--over patent issues. Apple expanded its suit in June, adding two additional patents. Then HTC responded with a countersuit, alleging Apple infringes five of its patents. Microsoft provides those using Windows Mobile and Windows Phone operating systems with patent protections, something that Google has yet to commit to.
Motorola was once a significant licensee of Windows Mobile, but in recent years has shifted largely to Android.
Motorola had no immediate comment on Microsoft's suit. A Google representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In a blog posting, Gutierrez defended Microsoft's need to take legal action.
"The rules of the road are long-established in the software industry, and fundamental to the industry's growth and economic impact is respect for others' intellectual property rights," he said. "Our action today merely seeks to ensure respect for our intellectual property rights infringed by Android devices; and judging by the recent actions by Apple and Oracle, we are not alone in this respect."
Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-20018305-56.html#ixzz11DoV5UkD
by Ina Fried
Microsoft today sued Motorola, alleging several of the cell phone maker's Android devices infringe on Redmond's patents.
Microsoft both sued Motorola in U.S. District Court in Washington and brought a complaint before the International Trade Commission. Microsoft alleges Motorola infringes on nine Microsoft patents related to key smartphone experiences such as syncing e-mail, calendar, and contacts, and notifying applications about changes in signal strength and battery power, Microsoft said. The complaint cites Motorola's Droid 2 phone as an example.
"We have a responsibility to our customers, partners, and shareholders to safeguard the billions of dollars we invest each year in bringing innovative software products and services to market," Microsoft deputy general counsel Horacio Gutierrez said in a statement.
The suit comes as Microsoft is trying to line up phone makers to use its Windows Phone 7 operating system. Although Google-developed Android can be used free of charge, Microsoft has been trying to make the case that phone makers should consider the potential intellectual-property issues and related costs before going with Android.
Earlier this year, Apple sued HTC--which makes both Windows Phone and Android phones--over patent issues. Apple expanded its suit in June, adding two additional patents. Then HTC responded with a countersuit, alleging Apple infringes five of its patents. Microsoft provides those using Windows Mobile and Windows Phone operating systems with patent protections, something that Google has yet to commit to.
Motorola was once a significant licensee of Windows Mobile, but in recent years has shifted largely to Android.
Motorola had no immediate comment on Microsoft's suit. A Google representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In a blog posting, Gutierrez defended Microsoft's need to take legal action.
"The rules of the road are long-established in the software industry, and fundamental to the industry's growth and economic impact is respect for others' intellectual property rights," he said. "Our action today merely seeks to ensure respect for our intellectual property rights infringed by Android devices; and judging by the recent actions by Apple and Oracle, we are not alone in this respect."
Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-20018305-56.html#ixzz11DoV5UkD
Friday, October 1, 2010
Postal regulators deny request for rate hike
By Ed O'Keefe
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 30, 2010; 10:52 PM
Postal regulators Thursday denied requests by the U.S. Postal Service to raise postage rates in January beyond the rate of inflation, ruling that the mail agency's recent financial woes were caused by a flawed business model and not the recent recession.
The decision means a rise in stamp prices and other postage rates will not take effect in January as the Postal Service had hoped - at least not yet.
In July, it requested the right to raise postage rates on first-class mail, periodicals and other services beyond the rate of inflation. A 2006 law allows the service to file an exigent, or urgently necessary, case to raise prices that much if it can prove that "exceptional or extraordinary circumstances" warranted the increase.
Alhough the recession and recent declines in the volume of mail are "exceptional or extraordinary circumstances" that could justify a price increase, the Postal Service's long-term structural problems have caused recent budget shortfalls, the Postal Regulatory Commission said in its first ruling on an exigent case.
Regulators said, however, that the Postal Service could file another exigent case to raise rates, using different arguments.
"The Postal Service didn't make the case, didn't make the connection between the problems they suffered during the recession and the revenue they were requesting," the commission's chairman, Ruth Y. Goldway, said in an interview. The request seemed more part of the mail agency's 10-year business plan than one prompted by an emergency, she said.
Thursday's ruling came the day before the Postal Service is set to announce billions of dollars in losses in fiscal 2010 amid declining mail volume. It ends fiscal 2010 with about $2 billion in cash and available credit, said Postmaster General John E. Potter, who expressed disappointment with the regulators' decision.
"Clearly, the Postal Service is a viable business," Potter said. But he added that legislative constraints on the mail agency are hampering its ability to operate efficiently and profitably.
Potter is lobbying lawmakers for the flexibility to close unprofitable post offices and set delivery routes and pricing without seeking congressional approval. Senate Democrats unveiled a bill last week supported by Potter that might come up for consideration in Congress's lame-duck session, aides said. But Republicans oppose most of the proposals and are expected to introduce competing legislation soon.
Business leaders cheered Thursday's ruling.
The Affordable Mail Alliance, a coalition of major mail customers, was organized after the service proposed the rate increase. Its spokesman, Tony Conway, said Thursday's decision "has helped countless businesses stay competitive and saved tens of thousands of jobs."
"The commissioners recognized that imposing an additional tax on Postal Service customers is not the way to address its financial troubles," Conway said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/30/AR2010093006564.html
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 30, 2010; 10:52 PM
Postal regulators Thursday denied requests by the U.S. Postal Service to raise postage rates in January beyond the rate of inflation, ruling that the mail agency's recent financial woes were caused by a flawed business model and not the recent recession.
The decision means a rise in stamp prices and other postage rates will not take effect in January as the Postal Service had hoped - at least not yet.
In July, it requested the right to raise postage rates on first-class mail, periodicals and other services beyond the rate of inflation. A 2006 law allows the service to file an exigent, or urgently necessary, case to raise prices that much if it can prove that "exceptional or extraordinary circumstances" warranted the increase.
Alhough the recession and recent declines in the volume of mail are "exceptional or extraordinary circumstances" that could justify a price increase, the Postal Service's long-term structural problems have caused recent budget shortfalls, the Postal Regulatory Commission said in its first ruling on an exigent case.
Regulators said, however, that the Postal Service could file another exigent case to raise rates, using different arguments.
"The Postal Service didn't make the case, didn't make the connection between the problems they suffered during the recession and the revenue they were requesting," the commission's chairman, Ruth Y. Goldway, said in an interview. The request seemed more part of the mail agency's 10-year business plan than one prompted by an emergency, she said.
Thursday's ruling came the day before the Postal Service is set to announce billions of dollars in losses in fiscal 2010 amid declining mail volume. It ends fiscal 2010 with about $2 billion in cash and available credit, said Postmaster General John E. Potter, who expressed disappointment with the regulators' decision.
"Clearly, the Postal Service is a viable business," Potter said. But he added that legislative constraints on the mail agency are hampering its ability to operate efficiently and profitably.
Potter is lobbying lawmakers for the flexibility to close unprofitable post offices and set delivery routes and pricing without seeking congressional approval. Senate Democrats unveiled a bill last week supported by Potter that might come up for consideration in Congress's lame-duck session, aides said. But Republicans oppose most of the proposals and are expected to introduce competing legislation soon.
Business leaders cheered Thursday's ruling.
The Affordable Mail Alliance, a coalition of major mail customers, was organized after the service proposed the rate increase. Its spokesman, Tony Conway, said Thursday's decision "has helped countless businesses stay competitive and saved tens of thousands of jobs."
"The commissioners recognized that imposing an additional tax on Postal Service customers is not the way to address its financial troubles," Conway said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/30/AR2010093006564.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
