728x90_newspapers_dark_1.gif
Showing posts with label about. Show all posts
Showing posts with label about. Show all posts

Monday, January 31, 2011

Yahoo Cuts About 600 Jobs, Or 4% Of Work Force >YHOO - Wall Street Journal

(Updates with additional details and background)

SAN FRANCISCO (Dow Jones)--Yahoo Inc. (YHOO) said Tuesday it was cutting about 600 jobs, or about 4% of its work force, as the struggling Internet media company strives to increase revenue and boost margins.

Yahoo spokeswoman Kim Rubey said the cuts were largely aimed at the Sunnyvale, Calif.-based company's products group, which builds advertising products, Web properties like the company's popular news, sports and finance pages, as well as its widely used email service.

Most of the jobs cut were in the U.S., she said.

"Today's personnel changes are part of our ongoing strategy ...


View the original article here

Saturday, December 25, 2010

Is Facebook about to offer email? Reports say it plans a 'Gmail... - San Jose Mercury News

Print   Email   Font ResizeBy Mike Swift

mswift@mercurynews.com

Posted: 11/12/2010 07:31:19 PM PSTUpdated: 11/13/2010 12:21:13 PM PST
Facebook may be on the verge of offering e-mail to the 500 million members of its social-networking site, making it the largest e-mail service on the planet.

More significantly, the offering could lead to a fundamental transformation of e-mail. Yahoo, Google and Microsoft are already scrambling to retool their e-mail services to build them more around people's social connections. Facebook would have a tremendous advantage because it owns a vast trove of data about people's relationships and would find it easier to graft e-mail onto its existing social services such as photo-sharing.

Facebook has invited the media to what appears to be a significant announcement in San Francisco on Monday morning, adding a

prominent hint that the news could involve a new e-mail service -- a press invitation bears a message icon. However, while tech blogs hummed Friday with speculation that Facebook will release "a Gmail killer," the Palo Alto-based company declined to confirm or deny those rumors, and a source with knowledge of the social network's plans said at least part of the speculation was incorrect -- adding even more uncertainty.

If it is announced, a Facebook e-mail service would allow its more than 500 million members to communicate with anyone inside or outside the walls of the social network. If they use it, Facebook would leapfrog the 361 million global users of Windows Live Hotmail, Yahoo Mail's 273 million users and Gmail's 193 million

users, according to comScore.

However, a Facebook e-mail service would be most remarkable not for the size of its network, but for how it could use its web of social connections to transform one of the oldest -- and perhaps still the most important -- functions of the Internet.

"There is a huge opportunity for these guys to fundamentally change the nature of e-mail," said Matt Cain, an analyst for the research firm Gartner who expects Facebook to unveil an external e-mail service Monday.

Imagine, Cain said, a Facebook system that could prioritize mail from any external source based on the closeness of your relationship to the sender, or that allows you to easily flip a one-to-one e-mail exchange into a conversation with a group of friends.

Facebook now offers an internal message service that is less functional than most Web-based e-mail, and only allows members to communicate with other Facebook accounts. But Facebook may hope to use a new external e-mail service to capture even more adherents, said Augie Ray, senior analyst for social computing for Forrester Research. Forrester says that while about 90 percent of U.S. adults check e-mail regularly, only 59 percent use social networking tools such as

(PrintExpress PDF Export. - IPA S)Facebook or Twitter.

An e-mail service "makes sense just largely from a reach perspective. Facebook has grown so large that we forget that it still has room for growth," Ray said.

And by adding e-mail to the Internet's most popular photo-sharing service, smartphone location-sharing service and social gaming site, Facebook would make an even stronger claim as a hub of personal communications, placing "Facebook as much into competition with AT&T as it is now with Google," Ray said.

The tech blog TechCrunch first reported in February that Facebook was working on an e-mail service, internally dubbed "Project Titan." And while it is possible that Monday's announcement will be something more modest, both TechCrunch and VentureBeat claimed Friday to have confirmed the e-mail service with anonymous sources.

Google and Yahoo are working to make e-mail more reflective of people's personal connections by adding social-networking features to existing e-mail services. Google had disastrous results when it based its Google Buzz social-networking service on people's Gmail contacts, running into a privacy Waterloo when it automatically imported people into the service. Yahoo, the most popular U.S. e-mail provider, recently launched a new version of Mail that allows users to broadcast their status on both Twitter and Facebook -- just as if they were actually on those sites.

Unhappy with Facebook's unwillingness to let people export their contacts from Facebook into a service like Gmail, Google last week blocked Facebook from allowing users to import their Google contacts directly into the social network.

Gmail is the hot property in e-mail right now, with its global audience up 21 percent during the 12 months ending in September, while Yahoo Mail and Hotmail have both lost share, according to comScore data.

Given Gmail's momentum, a Facebook e-mail service "puts tremendous pressure on Google," Cain said. "Gmail is the place to be, and all of sudden, in one fell swoop, Facebook can enable e-mail for 500 million users, and I would suspect there is a huge overlap."

Contact Mike Swift at 408-271-3648. Follow him at Twitter.com/swiftstories.

Print   Email   Font ResizeReturn to Top  

View the original article here

Sunday, November 7, 2010

Five myths about Sarah Palin - Washington Post

Think you know Sarah Palin? The former Alaska governor has been in the spotlight ever since John McCain named her as his running mate on Aug. 29, 2008. Yet, while practically everybody has an opinion about Palin, not all of those opinions are grounded in reality. Many of them are based more on a "Saturday Night Live" caricature than on the living, breathing, 46-year-old mother of five. The real Sarah Palin is a complex woman who has risen in no time from obscurity to the stratosphere of American politics, fusing celebrity and populism in novel ways. Now that she's laying the foundation for a possible presidential run in 2012, it's worth taking a moment to separate the facts about Palin from the fables.

1. Palin cost McCain the 2008 election.

She didn't. CNN's 2008 national exit poll, for example, asked voters whether Palin was a factor when they stepped into the voting booth. Those who said yes broke for McCain 56 percent to 43 percent.

Before Palin's selection, remember, McCain suffered from an enthusiasm gap. Republicans were reluctant to vote for the senator from Arizona because of his reputation as a maverick who'd countered his party on taxes, immigration, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and "cap and trade" climate legislation. But Palin's conservative record in Alaska and antiabortion advocacy changed the Republican mood. With her by his side, McCain's fundraising and support from conservatives improved. It wasn't enough to beat Barack Obama -- but McCain probably would have lost the presidency by a greater margin if he had, say, selected independent Sen. Joe Lieberman as his running mate, further alienating the GOP base.

Yes, it's possible that Palin's conservatism and uneven performance on the campaign trail shifted some voters to Obama's column. But even if Obama picked up some anti-Palin votes, he surely didn't need them: The economy was in recession, Wall Street was in meltdown, and the incumbent Republican president was incredibly unpopular. In the end, it's impossible to know how McCain would have performed if he hadn't selected Palin -- politics does not allow for control experiments.

2. Resigning as governor was rash.

No one expected Palin's resignation on July 3, 2009, just 2 1/2 years into her term. Her hastily composed and clumsily delivered farewell address left many observers confused about her motives. Some of her critics were only too eager to fill in the gaps with conjecture and hearsay (She's being investigated by the FBI! Sarah and Todd must be headed for divorce!). If there was one thing everybody knew for sure, it was that Palin's career in politics was over.

But none of the rumored scandals ever broke. The Palins remain married. And as for Sarah Palin's career, it's taken off. She plays a far greater role in American public life than she did before she left office.

When Palin returned to Alaska after the 2008 campaign, she confronted three problems. The political coalition on which she had based her governorship -- a combination of Democrats and renegade "Palinista" Republicans -- had collapsed. Her critics were using Alaska's tough ethics laws to launch investigations into her behavior, sapping her finances and her energy. Finally, every time she traveled to the Lower 48, Alaskans criticized her for putting her political interests above the state's.

Palin's solution was to resign. Her agenda stood a better chance of passing if then-Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell, who shared Palin's goals, succeeded her as governor. As a private citizen, meanwhile, Palin could make enough money to pay her legal bills. And she would no longer be accused of neglecting her official duties.

Some might say that Palin's resignation was shortsighted and showed that she was not ready for the demands of executive office. But if Palin had remained governor, she would have been denied opportunities to rally the tea party and fight in the battle over the Obama agenda. She would have been stuck on a regional stage. Instead, she's back on the national one.

3. Palin and the tea party are destroying the GOP.

You've heard the spiel: The Republican Party is in the midst of a civil war between moderate incumbents and far-right challengers backed by Palin and the tea party. Driving Charlie Crist from the GOP and defeating establishment figures such as Robert Bennett, Lisa Murkowski and Mike Castle spells electoral doom for the party. The only chance Republicans have for long-term success is to move to the center in a bid to win over millennials and Latinos.

But demographics aren't destiny, and no one knows what the future holds. The reality, right now, is that Palin and the tea party are saving the GOP by dragging it back to its roots and mobilizing conservative voters.

Remember, by the time Palin arrived on the national scene, the Republican Party was depleted, exhausted and held in disrepute. An unpopular war in Iraq, an economy in recession and GOP corruption had driven away independents. Meanwhile, massive government spending and a liberal immigration policy had dispirited conservatives.

This is where Palin came in. In the wake of Obama's historic victory, she and countless other grass-roots activists could have abandoned the GOP and turned the tea party into a conservative third party. They didn't. They decided instead to refashion the Republican Party from the ground up, pressuring it to live up to its limited-government ideals. Now, two years after Obama's win, Republicans are poised to reap major gains in the midterm elections. Palin and the tea party haven't hurt the GOP one bit.

4. Palin is extreme.

On many of the most important issues of the day, Palin holds positions that are squarely in the center-right of American political discourse. And many of those positions, not incidentally, are held by a large segment or even a majority of the public. For instance, neither the public nor Palin believes the stimulus worked. And while most Americans may not share Palin's views regarding "death panels," many join her in opposing Obama's health-care overhaul.

Over the past two years, Pew and Gallup surveys have tracked the public as it has moved to the right -- not on just one or two issues but on a whole constellation of them. Even on the controversial topics of abortion, guns and same-sex marriage, Palin is not as far away from the center as some suppose. A May 2009 Gallup poll, for example, found that a majority of Americans identified as "pro-life" rather than "pro-choice." In October 2009, Gallup measured record-low support for gun control. The public is divided on same-sex marriage, with about half the country joining Palin's (and Obama's) opposition.

5. Palin is unelectable.

Without question, a Palin 2012 campaign would be an uphill battle. Palin is unpopular -- massively so among Democrats, decisively so among independents. Even many Republicans don't believe she's ready to be president.

But opinions can change. Look at the political resuscitations of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Hillary Rodham Clinton. If Palin works hard and runs an impressive campaign, wavering Republicans and skeptical independents may give her a second look.

To earn that second look, she may need to find a big idea. It's hard to become president without one. Reagan had supply-side economics and the end of detente with the Soviets. Bill Clinton had the third way. George W. Bush had compassionate conservatism and the freedom agenda. Obama had national unity and hope and change.

At the moment, however, Palin still expresses her agenda mainly in negative terms, focusing on her opposition to Obama and the Washington establishment. She hasn't defined her "common-sense conservatism" in positive language. And she hasn't found a unifying, exhilarating theme.

Then again, she just might get along without one. After all, a presidential contest is a choice. The public might not love Palin. But by 2012, Americans might absolutely despise Obama. Two more years of a bad economy and an unpopular Afghan war, and anything is possible. Yes, there's a ceiling to Palin's support. But in 2012, there also will be a ceiling to Obama's.

Whose will be higher?

Matthew Continetti is opinion editor of the Weekly Standard and the author of "The Persecution of Sarah Palin: How the Elite Media Tried to Bring Down a Rising Star." He will be online Monday, Oct. 18, at 1 p.m. ET to chat. Submit your questions or comments before or during the discussion.

For more Outlook coverage on Sarah Palin and the tea party movement, see David Weigel's "Five myths about the tea party" and Steven Hayward's "Would Reagan vote for Sarah Palin?"

Want to challenge everything you think you know? Visit the "Five Myths" archive.


View the original article here

Friday, October 15, 2010

AT&T Talks Smack About Verizon's LTE Plans - InformationWeek

On Wednesday, Verizon Wireless announced the 38 markets in which it plans to launch LTE, its 4G network. Verizon's LTE network will get off the ground a full six months ahead of AT&T's, which has targeted a launch by the middle of 2011.

You know what Verizon Wireless isn't doing? Upgrading the speeds of its CDMA EVDO 3G network (according to AT&T). Verizon's CDMA EVDO Rev. A network tops out at 3.1Mbps, and that's where it will stay.

AT&T spokesperson Seth Bloom said in an email to InformationWeek, "Verizon is moving straight to LTE and not increasing their 3G speeds, so their customers will have a jarring drop-off in performance when not in an LTE service area – speed, sure, but also simultaneous voice/data, etc."

AT&T believes that Verizon's approach will lead to customer service problems, and that its own slow-and-steady speed improvement approach is superior.

Bloom continued, "In contrast, because we are building LTE while at the same time continuing to increase 3G speeds, our customers can expect to have a much better experience when they’re not in a 4G area. [This] will be vitally important for the customer experience no matter the carrier."

Verizon Wireless' LTE network will reach download speeds between 5 and 12Mbps, and upload speeds of 2 to 5Mbps. While 12Mbps is surely faster than 3.1Mbps, I think AT&T is overstating the performance issue a bit. Sure, speeds will drop as Verizon customers move between LTE and EVDO, but Verizon's EVDO network is solid as hell, and fast enough for most professionals' business needs when not under LTE coverage.

AT&T also happened to beat Verizon to announcing actual LTE hardware. Where Verizon said hardware announcements are forthcoming, AT&T announced an HSPA+ and LTE-compatible laptop dongle that can access the fast network speeds.

When asked for comment about plans to upgrade its 3G network speeds, Verizon Wireless spokesperson Jeffrey Nelson dropped this knowledge, "We have a proud history of meeting and exceeding market demands on our wireless networks. We build our networks for success right from the start and aren't surprised when we succeed in the marketplace. And we constantly improve them. It's just not enough to address your network problems by promising to do better down the road."

"When choosing a wireless company, people want more than promises. Customers value our long-term track record for leading on network reliability, speed, coverage and capacity. By moving aggressively and becoming the first company on the globe to build a large-scale LTE network, we'll gain first-to-market advantages in the US, with a head-start of at least 18-24 months."


View the original article here

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Faster Forward: Things I know about the 'Verizon iPhone' story - Washington Post

Because so many of you have asked, here is the total of what I know about the odds of a Verizon iPhone. That perpetual rumor subject is once again in the news, courtesy of a Wall Street Journal story that declares upfront: "Apple Inc. is making a version of its iPhone that Verizon Wireless will sell early next year, according to people familiar with the matter."

* The WSJ's piece is more specific than others -- after an overnight revision that changed it from referring to an iPhone running on Verizon's CDMA wireless technology to naming Verizon upfront. And the WSJ's reporters are no slouches.

* I have no direct evidence proving or disproving the WSJ's story. (If you do, you know how to reach me.)

* I don't put much value in anything Verizon Wireless might say today. If the company is really getting the thing, of course it will say nothing or offer deliberately vague, possibly misleading answers. Apple, meanwhile, will maintain its customary, sphinx-like silence.

* I suspect that Apple has had test CDMA versions of the iPhone for years, just as it had test versions of Mac OS X running on Intel processors for years before it announced it would switch from PowerPC chips to Intel's.

* Strictly as a business proposition, it's unwise for Apple to keep the iPhone chained to one carrier in the U.S. market when many potential customers don't want to use that carrier's services. That's not how it offers the iPhone elsewhere, as per the long-standing business maxim that "if somebody wants to give you their money for a product, you should let them." But there could be complicating factors: Maybe somebody at AT&T has naked pictures of Steve Jobs.

* Don't forget that every single story predicting the arrival of a Verizon iPhone on a date preceding today has been wrong. That is a nearly unmatched record of forecasting futility.

* I would also find it inconceivable for Apple to let Verizon give an iPhone the usual Verizon treatment -- prominent Verizon branding, a suite of non-removable Verizon apps, maybe even a separate app store -- much less the outright disfigurement of somebody else's software I saw in its new Samsung Fascinate.

* If you want to hold on to an antique phone in the hope that Verizon will pull an iPhone out of its hat sometime early next year, you might as well go ahead now. But I reserve the right to point and laugh at you if your optimism proves unwarranted. I might not even wait to mock you: Sitting around and hoping for a Verizon iPhone to descend from the skies, year after year, starts to resemble cargo-cult behavior. Seriously, aren't you tired of carrying around your Windows Mobile 6 device or your Palm Treo already?

* I believe I speak for every tech reporter in America when I write this: Very few things would make me happier than not to have to answer "when is the iPhone coming to Verizon" questions anymore. Seriously -- I hate this story. So, please, companies involved: Make it go away, one way or another.


View the original article here

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Donald Trump thinks about 2012 presidential bid - Reuters

Property mogul Donald Trump holds a golf club during a media event on the sand dunes of the Menie estate, the site for Trump's proposed golf resort, near Aberdeen, north east Scotland May 27, 2010. REUTERS/David Moir

Property mogul Donald Trump holds a golf club during a media event on the sand dunes of the Menie estate, the site for Trump's proposed golf resort, near Aberdeen, north east Scotland May 27, 2010.

Credit: Reuters/David Moir

WASHINGTON | Tue Oct 5, 2010 5:46pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - When billionaire real estate mogul Donald Trump looks in the mirror, he is starting to see the possibility of a U.S. president staring back at him.

Trump did a round of TV interviews on Tuesday to talk about the possibility of making a presidential run in 2012.

"For the first time in my life, I'm actually thinking about it (running for president)," Trump, who declared himself a Republican, told Fox News Channel.

Asked by MSNBC when will he make his decision, Trump offered little.

"Well, I'll make it over a period of time," he offered.

The 64-year-old, thrice-wed tycoon is a larger-than-life figure in the United States whose company operates a string of resorts and casinos.

Trump, sometimes known simply as "The Donald," nurtures his celebrity status by hosting a popular reality show on NBC, "The Apprentice," as well as "The Fabulous World of Golf" on the Golf Channel.

Trump told MSNBC "I'd love not do it," meaning run for president, but that the country has so many problems, such as the erosion of the manufacturing base to foreign competitors.

"The United States doesn't really make things anymore," he said.

The Republican Party is looking at a dozen or so potential candidates for the right to challenge Democratic President Barack Obama in 2012, such as Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

Trump did not rule out the possibility of running under the banner of the Tea Party, the conservative movement that so far is seen as a sub-group of the Republican Party but which some experts think could emerge as a third party.

"I am a Republican but have great respect for what the Tea Party has done because they have brought to light what's going on. I mean, we have trillion-dollar deficits. ... The country is going bankrupt, let's face it," he said.

(Reporting by Steve Holland)


View the original article here