Sunday, July 1, 2012

Microsoft's new Surface tablets make a solid first impression | ZDNet

Microsoft's new Surface tablets make a solid first impression

By  | June 19, 2012, 12:26am PDT
Summary: Microsoft’s new Surface tablets are exquisitely engineered, and no one can accuse them of being me-too products. Yesterday’s launch was impressive, but it also left many questions unanswered.
Monday, at an invitation-only media event in Los Angeles, Microsoft got the tech press to do something almost unprecedented: wait with eager anticipation for a Microsoft product announcement.
Even more astonishing is that the reveal lived up to the hype.
Microsoft’s new tablets, to be marketed under the Surface brand, are remarkable for many reasons:
They are exquisitely engineered. From a distance, the magnesium cases and ClearType displays are drop-dead gorgeous. The impression of world-class design and engineering is even more striking when you actually pick one up and play with it, as I was able to do (albeit briefly) following the press event.
The ARM-powered Windows RT model is one-tenth of a millimeter thinner than the latest iPad. It has a 10.6-inch screen with a 16:9 HD resolution, compared to the iPad’s 9.5-inch screen with a 4:3 aspect ratio. The larger display on the Surface means more weight—24 grams extra, to be precise, or just under an ounce more than its rival from Cupertino.
A second model, built around an Intel Ivy Bridge CPU, runs Windows 8 Professional. Compared to its Windows RT cousin it’s slightly less thin (13.5 mm instead of 9.4 mm) and heavier (903 g, or a sliver over 2 pounds, compared to 1-1/2 pounds).
This is no “me too” product. Both Surface models are unapologetically unlike anything you’ve ever seen before. The signature feature—one that probably has some Apple product designers wondering “Why didn’t we think of that?”—is the magnetic cover that snaps firmly into place and doubles as a keyboard. The Touch Cover (3 mm thin) comes in an assortment of bold colors and includes a full-size keyboard with slightly raised keys and a trackpad.  The Type Cover, at 5mm, uses the same layout, but with keys that have the travel you would expect from a conventional keyboard. To appreciate the clever design and solid working of the magnetic latch, you really have to try it.
There’s also a kickstand integrated into the case itself. Snap it open to rest the tablet open at a 22-degree angle, which is ideal for watching a movie, chatting via webcam, or typing.
Both covers offer some of the power-saving features of the iPad Smart Cover, but the integrated keyboard and kickstand are a genuine improvement. You can turn a Surface tablet into the functional equivalent of a notebook without third-party add-ons. And the snug-fitting, rigid cover makes it possible to use the device in this configuration even on a lap.
Oh, and both models have full-size USB ports (USB 2.0 for the Windows RT model, USB 3.0 for the Windows 8 Professional version). That’s a key differentiator from the iPad.
It’s a bold break from Microsoft’s classic business model. For years, Microsoft has been telling OEMs to pay attention to user experience, stop loading machines with crapware, and concentrate on a few great models instead of a full line of dozens of mediocre offerings. This introduction is the same message, delivered with genuine emotion and the equivalent of a punch in the gut: “OEMs, please pay attention. This is how you build a PC.”
In the press release announcing the new tablets, Microsoft says, “OEMs will have cost and feature parity on Windows 8 and Windows RT.” But it’s safe to say that Steve Ballmer’s voicemail box is overflowing with colorful messages, delivered at full volume, by the heads of the OEMs who will have to compete with these new designs.
Microsoft kept this project secret, with not a single leak. One executive told me that the team working on Surface started its work three years ago, at the same time that development began on Windows 8. Using the trademark of an already-established product helped, as did a windowless lab protected by the kind of security normally reserved for government agencies with three-letter acronyms.
So how many other, similarly well kept secrets are in the pipeline?
The room full of reporters and analysts who watched the unveiling were generally approving and occasionally wowed by the spectacle. But the launch left many unanswered questions, a few genuine uncertainties, and a slight bit of disappointment.
How much will these gizmos cost? Microsoft isn’t talking details. The official line is relatively vague:
Suggested retail pricing will be announced closer to availability and is expected to be competitive with a comparable ARM tablet or Intel Ultrabook-class PC.
If one assumes that “comparable ARM tablet” means an iPad equipped with 32 or 64 GB of memory, then the equivalent Windows RT Surface models should cost $600 and $700, respectively. Of course, that price will presumably include the keyboard cover (available as extra-cost add-ons from Apple and third parties). It will also include Microsoft Office. (In my hands-on tests, I was able to try out the Microsoft Office 2013 apps on a Windows RT Surface.)
As for the Windows 8 Professional Surface, the current crop of Ultrabooks runs $999, give or take a couple hundred dollars. That is, not coincidentally, the starting price of a MacBook Air.
Of course, one could make the case that a single Surface device is actually two devices in one—a tablet and a keyboard-equipped notebook. If prospective buyers accept that proposition, then a “competitive” price will seem like a bargain.
When can you buy one? Put your credit card back in your wallet:
Surface for Windows RT will release with the general availability [GA] of Windows and the Windows 8 Pro model will be available about 90 days later. Both will be sold in the Microsoft Stores in the US and available through select online Microsoft Stores.
The smart money expects Windows 8 GA in October, which means a four-month wait for ARM-powered Surface tablets. And you’ll have to wait till early 2013 to get your hands on an Intel-powered Surface.
That’s disappointing. As I wrote yesterday, “Whatever Microsoft unveils tomorrow, I hope it’s not another big announcement of an exciting future product that won’t reach customers for 4-6 months or maybe even until next year.” Oops.
One possible reason for the long wait is competitive pressure. If other OEMs will be releasing their own devices to compete with Microsoft’s designs, it would be unsporting—and attract the attention of antitrust regulators—for Microsoft to beat them to market.
Detailed specs are sketchy. In the private demo area after the event, Joshua Topolsky of The Verge and I peppered Microsoft reps for details on specs like screen resolution, but we got no definitive answers. The press release says the Windows RT model has a “ClearType HD display,” while the Pro model has a “ClearType Full HD display.”
In his onstage introduction of the Pro model, Microsoft’s Mike Angiulo noted its “1080 resolution,” which would explain the “Full HD” label. Based on my inspection of the Windows RT version, I suspect it’s a 1366×768 device, which can handle 720p HD content.
Still, we shouldn’t need to ask for basic specs like this.
Battery life? No comment. It’s reasonable to expect that the two devices will be able to match Apple’s specs for the equivalent devices, but we won’t know until we can test shipping hardware.
This announcement was unprecedented both in its form and in its substance, and it will take some time to digest the impact of it all.
Will these new, unquestionably impressive designs put to rest the doubts that some critics have expressed about the Metro user experience?
Will consumers be confused by the differences between two similarly named devices with very different capabilities? A TV reporter I spoke with struggled with what should be a simple question: Do both these devices run Windows 8?
How will Android device makers react? The current crop of Android-powered tablets is incredibly weak compared to the iPad. The new Surface designs offer another point of comparison where Android falls far short.
How will Apple respond? Tim Cook’s dismissive remarks about Windows 8 tablets—“You can converge a toaster and a refrigerator…”—might ring a little hollow now that the real thing is available for comparison.
We’ll learn the answers to those questions over time. Meanwhile, I can’t wait to get my hands on one of these sleek new devices for more than 10 minutes.

Microsoft's new Surface tablets make a solid first impression | ZDNet:

'via Blog this'

Who could -- and probably should -- buy RIM? | ZDNet

Who could -- and probably should -- buy RIM? | ZDNet:

Who could -- and probably should -- buy RIM?

By  | June 29, 2012, 6:40am PDT
Summary: BlackBerry maker Research in Motion can stick around, split off and share its products, or sell off completely. Who could make a bid for its patents, its network or phone unit — or even the entire business?
Research in Motion, the BlackBerry maker, is sinking.
The company’s first-quarter earnings paint a dire picture from the once-proud smartphone giant, which left the company with open wounds as it expects to miss further targets for the upcoming second-quarter.
A RIM spokesperson told sister site CNET it has hired advisors — notably J.P. Morgan and RBC Capital — to “examine ways to leverage the BlackBerryplatform through partnerships, licensing opportunities, and strategic business model alternatives.”
The first sign of a sale: get the bankers in, and RIM has done exactly that.
On Thursday, RIM announced it would cut 5,000 employees as part of a corporate restructure, after missing analyst expectations by a wide gap. It announced a $518 million loss on revenue of $2.8 billion, only a month after it said it expected to announce an operating loss.
The BlackBerry maker is still selling smartphones, and — believe it or not — it’s managed go get out 280,000 PlayBook tablets; but it is holding back on the forthcoming BlackBerry 10 operating system and compatible handsets.
Even Wall Street analysts said RIM could “run out of cash and ultimately fail, even with the launch of its now-delayed BlackBerry 10 device early next year,” according to Reuters.
RIM can stay and stand its ground, split off and share its products through strategic licensing, orsell off the company completely.
But who would want a floundering former smartphone giant? It’s more than just a smartphone-building unit. It has a data network and a valued $1.3 billion to $3 billion patent portfolio, according to Macquarie analysts.
Let’s see who could have what, based on analysts’ predictions and practical implications.

Apple

The Cupertino-based technology giant could make a bid for RIM’s data network. Its already-established place in the enterprise market could convince the company into buying the government-grade email service to bolster its government and enterprise iMessage platform. Many former BlackBerry users are defecting to the iPhone anyway.
But Apple already has iOS and doesn’t need another operating system, ruling out a complete company buyout, and large acquisitions are typically uncharacteristic for Apple.

Amazon

Retail giant turned tablet maker Amazon reportedly looked at buying RIM in late 2011. The originalReuters report, citing anonymous sources, said RIM turned down the officer because it wanted to “fix its problems on its own.”
Amazon could acquire the BlackBerry Messenger functionality for its emerging market presence, and could lead to a much-needed boost in Amazon’s market share among the bigwigs away from other Android-based devices and the iPad juggernaut.
TD Securities said in an analysts’ note that e-commerce could be a “vibrant use” of the secure RIM network.

Canadian or U.S. government

In August, I argued the Canadian government could extend an olive branch to the company, but this looks increasingly unlikely. RIM plans to cut 5,000 jobs by the end of this year, pegging the total employee base will be reduced to about 11,500.
If RIM was Nokia’s size and at the low hundred-thousand mark, Canada might step in to protect the vast number of jobs. Canada said previously it would not block a foreign sale of RIM should a company make an offer, but stubborn RIM may not even allow a sale until it’s too late.
RIM isn’t central to the financial interests of Canada. It’s not like General Motors, or the Royal Bank of Canada. They didn’t even step in to help Nortel, a company that was far more critical to Canada’s economic situation than RIM is or ever was.
The U.S. government could buy the data network to keep its existing range of enterprise-enabled BlackBerry smartphones with an eye on replacing the devices over time, but it would be a tough sell to justify to the taxpayer, who must ultimately foot the bill.

Facebook

The world’s largest social network, with around 950 million users, has been on and off with developing a dedicated Facebook smartphone. RIM could offer device-building expertise in not only smartphone design but in the manufacturing process.
But analysts warn that it has little enterprise value and could be a drag on Facebook’s margins.
General Patent Corp. chief executive Alexander Poltorak told ZDNet: “Facebook seems a possible buyer of RIM’s patents. They have money, they need more patents and they are in the market looking for patents to buy.”

Google

With Android, like Apple, Google doesn’t need another operating system. It also doesn’t need a data network because it has secure email provider Postini hooked into Google Apps to provide much of the same function as the RIM network.
What Google really wants is RIM’s patent portfolio. “RIM would be a patent play for Google,” TD Securities analysts said.
General Patent’s Poltorak said: “Google would be a logical candidate since they had bid for this patents last summer at the Nortel auction and lost. However, Google’s main purpose in buying up patents is to wield them at Apple, but Apple is already licensed under these patents so no one can assert them against Apple.”

Microsoft

Analysts believe that Microsoft’s pitch to buy the smartphone-building side of RIM’s business would be an “atypical” move, but would be a market share play. A smartphone business would boost Microsoft’s poor Windows Phone market share — currently at around 4 percent, according to comScore — to around 15 percent overall.
The Wall Street Journal reported in December that Microsoft had “explored the possibility” of a buyout bid along with Nokia. The two companies already work together on a BlackBerry enterprise email service for Office 365, but it remains unclear as to whether Microsoft would make a firm bid for the small-in-comparison number of part Exchange/part BlackBerry users.
ZDNet’s Mary Jo Foley told me she doesn’t think Microsoft will or should buy any part of RIM.
“If they did, they would do serious damage to their lead Windows Phone partner Nokia. If Microsoft bought any part of RIM — other than RIM patents — it would seem that Microsoft wanted to be in the smartphone-manufacturing business. If Microsoft becomes a phone maker, why would they need Nokia any more?”
She noted that Microsoft executives this week denied it would build its own branded smartphone, saying it was “very satisfied” with its partnership with Nokia, seemingly ruling out any chance of a purchase.

Nokia

Unless Microsoft and Nokia joined forces, a buyout of RIM would all but certainly financially cripple Nokia. Not only would a major acquisition of new smartphones and a two operating systems — BlackBerry OS, and the forthcoming QNX-based BlackBerry 10 — add complication to the Windows Phone switch-over, which is currently in progress.
Nokia is also facing a restructuring following a reshuffle of its production plants, while at the same time cutting around 4,000 jobs. With its own dwindling market share, Nokia would likely steer clear of RIM altogether.
Back to the age-old question: who falls first, RIM or Nokia? At the moment, it’s likely the former but the latter isn’t faring so well either.

Samsung

Rumblings last year suggested Samsung may have wanted to put in a price for RIM, but “may have” are the two key words.
Samsung has experimented outside the realms of Android with Windows Phone software, and also sought diversification with Bada OS. The Korean smartphone giant is also looking for enterprise security approval, and a RIM acquisition could certainly help speed this process along.
According to reports, only days after RIM hired Goldman Sachs earlier this year to field potential buyout bids, it looked to Samsung as a company wanting to be sold. The flailing smartphone maker’s share price went up by more than 10 percent, despite Samsung’s announcement shortly after denying the claims.

The bottom line

The real fact here is that RIM may not be that attractive as a complete purchase from a single entity. Anyone who can afford to buy RIM — even at a $7 a share mark, which it reached on Friday — probably wouldn’t want to buy the company flat out.
Having said that, there is a chance a major player could swoop in and buy the company in full. With that, as part of the transaction, we could see assets being divested to third-parties at the same time, such as what we saw with Novell.
The Canadian and U.S. governments in coalition could buy the data network because both still operate BlackBerry devices in the field, while Microsoft might want to chip in a bit so it can operate secure and encrypted email from its Office 365 service.
The Chinese may want the manufacturing and design portfolio, Apple may want the patents, while Nokia — despite its own problems — may want to expand its hardware range with the BlackBerry smartphone ’shell’ devices.
Image credit: Research in Motion, CNET.

'via Blog this'

Sex Tech: Facebook’s “not so fresh” feeling, Google Glass porn | ZDNet

Sex Tech: Facebook’s “not so fresh” feeling, Google Glass porn

Sex Tech: Facebook’s “not so fresh” feeling, Google Glass porn

By  | June 29, 2012, 12:48am PDT
Summary: Google Glass porn plans, Facebook and Femfresh face off, OkCupid privacy report, reactions to Lara Croft’s rape-tinged reboot, Zynga’s new game might have sex in it, and more.
Facebook’s agony over vaginal nicknames, Google Glasses already sized up for porn, OkCupid on trial for privacy and tested for fun, reactions to Lara Croft’s potential rape and more.
Google Glasses destined to be pornified
When Google announced its “Project Glass” eyeglasses were about to be made available to developers at Google I/O this week, Pink Visual spokesman Quentin Boyer said his company will be first in line to develop and innovate with them for porn once as soon as Pink Visual can get a set.
Facebook fight over vaginal pet names
Femfresh, the brand specialising in feminine hygiene is facing an escalating social media storm about its terms for female genitalia.
Things got worse when it updated its cover photo on its Facebook page claiming that Femfresh is ‘one of the kindest ways to care for your kitty, nooni, lala, vagina, froo froo!’.
UK ISP porn block idea worsened, wrapped in double-speak
You’ve already heard that the UK government wants to implement porn and “unsuitable material” blocks at the ISP level for all residents of the country.
The UK government is to consider putting (even more) extra pressure on computer users to filter out pornography when setting up internet accounts, suggesting that people should automatically be barred from accessing adult material (and other types of material considered “unsuitable”) in order “to protect children.”
The latest proposed system proposed is called “active choice-plus.”
Chuild porn made legal, then made illegal in New York
Gov. Andrew Cuomo and leaders of the Senate and Assembly reached agreement on legislation making all viewing of child pornography online illegal.
It is in response to a Court of Appeals ruling in May that said New York’s law was outdated, technologically, because it required a viewer to download or otherwise directly access child porn for it to be considered possession.
Reaction hostile to Lara Croft as “sympathetic rape victim”
After it was announced at E3 that Lara Croft would be rebooted as a sympathetic character because she is weaker and rapey-er, lots of people were furious.
An op-ed in the New Statesman said,
(…) let’s talk about the sh*t storm broiling over the pre-release material for the next Tomb Raider game, in which the protagonist, Lara Croft, is retconned as a survivor of sexual and physical assault.
(…) Industry mandarins seem to have assumed that gamers, by which they mean male gamers, can only carry on loving cold, powerful, beautiful Lara Croft if someone “break[s] her down”.
Tomb Raider game makers go on damage control after Lara Croft PR disaster
Eidos life president Ian Livingstone says the upcoming reboot of Tomb Raider still features a strong, capable heroine and believes reaction to the game’s controversial trailer - and the, you know, interview with stuff about rape and Lara Croft - have been blown out of proportion.
Spammers trade porn for CAPTCHA crackers
Spammers – not hackers, as the title states – are wooing patsys with free porn or games in exchange for help cracking CAPTCHAs on targeted websites, security researchers say.
New Zynga game doesn’t really have “virtual sex” in it
Zynga, makers of the groundbreaking social network games “FarmVille” and “CityVille,” launched today “The Ville,” a “house-and-people” themed game that people are saying includes virtual sex, but in truth only has level-unlock scene where hearts float over a bed.
OkCupid tested with fake profiles
Data analyst Jon Millward published the results of ten fake OkCupid profiles to asess the male-female dynamic in online dating.
…But OkCupid still has privacy issues
A new report shows that privacy on OkCupid, which was acquired by Match.com last year, is all but nonexistent.
New best practices on gender in tech forthcoming
The Commission on Science and Technology (CSTD), in collaboration with the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), plans to publish a series of case studies highlighting best practice in gender equality policies in science, technology and innovation (STI) of governments around the world.
Crazy porn file-sharing lawsuit would make everyone guilty
Liberty Media Holdings (LMH) is suing two roommates in New York, alleging the illegal downloading of a pornographic film, even though LMH argues that only one made the infringing copy.
Remarkably, LMH claims that the non-downloading roommate is also responsible for copyright infringement, simply because the Internet subscription is in his name and he might have known his roommate sometimes made illegal downloads.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

'via Blog this'

Thursday, April 12, 2012

How To Scale A $1 Billion Startup: A Guide From Instagram Co-Founder Mike Krieger | TechCrunch

How To Scale A $1 Billion Startup: A Guide From Instagram Co-Founder Mike Krieger | TechCrunch:




Instagram’s co-founders Kevin Systrom and Mike Krieger have been noticeably silent since their photo-sharing app Instagram was bought by Facebook earlier this week for $1 billion.
In the meantime there has been a lot written about that deal, from praise to backlash, parsing what it meansand why.
But if you’d like to hear a little (actually, a lot) about how Instagram got to where it did, read on.
Last night, Krieger gave a presentation at an Airbnb event for employees and members of the network, part of a regular series called the Tech Talk. The subject was “Scaling Instagram.”
Considering his company was just bought for $1 billion, it’s a pretty remarkable effort, 185 slides in all.
The talk, as the name of the event would suggest, is mainly about engineering and back-end work. It goes through some of the obstacles and solutions that Krieger and team faced as Instagram instantly picked up millions of users. Some notable points:
  • It’s true that Instagram never had to create a “fail whale” but they had some clear 404′s early on and “tons of errors.”
  • Possibly the truest test of scaling: “replacing all components of a car while driving it at 100mph”. Also: Don’t try to reinvent the wheel in your work. And be open to getting knowledge from others (“awesome advisors”) — without passing the buck (“don’t think ‘someone else will join and take care of this’”).
  • In Krieger’s view, that Android launch it had earlier this month ranks right up there with some of the most important aspects of running Instagram smoothly. (One slide notes “scaling for Android” as just as essential as choosing the right database and technology and staying nimble.) Figuring out how they could get that right was one reason why it took so long to bring that Android app to market.
And simplicity, one of the things that makes Instagram so attractive, appears to be a philosophy and approach that Krieger & Co. follow right through to the most back-end parts of the site.
“The cleanest solution with the fewest moving parts as possible,” he says is the goal. We look forward to seeing how that evolves with Instagram’s next chapter.

Google’s Page, Founders’ Letter: 2-for-1 Stock Split An Investment For The Long Term, Not Big Acquisitions | TechCrunch

Google’s Page, Founders’ Letter: 2-for-1 Stock Split An Investment For The Long Term, Not Big Acquisitions | TechCrunch:

Larry Page kicked off Google’s earnings call today with a run-down of his statements in the Founders’ Letter and some broad brushstrokes around the company’s new stock structure, which will see Google create a new class of shares, effectively a two-for-one stock split for existing shareholders.
As with the company’s original two-class voting structure, Page today reiterated that this new structure is a sign of the company’s long-term investment in its future, but not a signal that it is planning “any big acquisitions.” It is also something of a bold statement on the part of Google — possibly to show the company’s confidence in its business in the run-up to Facebook’s IPO, and to give its founders more control over how Google develops in the future.
Some points on the new structure, which is explained in more detail below, and will be further laid out next week in a proxy statement that Google will file with the SEC:
The new class, Class C, will have many of the same existing rights as Class A and B but no voting rights, Page said. “Everyone will retain the same voting interests.”
If Larry Page, Sergey Bring and Eric Schmidt sell shares in the Class C stock in the future, their voting rights will also diminish proportionately via a “stapling” provision.
What to make of this? One take we have seen: this could essentially give a lot more power to Google founders. Effectively the new class will not have voting rights while the Class A shares, held by Page, Brin and Schmidt will continue to hold voting rights. Currently, the three control 66 percent of voting power over the company’s shares.
 This is an aggressive move but considering that Mark Zuckerberg will essentially be in control of Facebook (per his shareholding as outlined in the S-1) it is perhaps natural that Google’s leaders want that level of control as well.
Page explains it otherwise in the Founders’ letter: First he explains how many the products that Google builds require years of commitment. But “the day-to-day dilution from routine equity-based employee compensation and other possible dilution, such as stock-based acquisitions, will likely undermine [Google's current] dual-class structure and our aspirations for Google over the very long term. We have put our hearts into Google and hope to do so for many more years to come. So we want to ensure that our corporate structure can sustain these efforts and our desire to improve the world.”
Google will be filing a proxy statement with the SEC next week with more detail on how the stock split will work.
The full Founders’ Letter below.

2012 Founders’ Letter

INTRODUCTION

Throughout our evolution, from privately held start-up to large, publicly listed company, we have managed Google for the long term—enjoying tremendous success as a result, especially since our IPO in 2004. Sergey and I hoped, though we did not expect, that Google would have such significant impact, and this progress has made us even more impatient to do important things that matter in the world. Our enduring love for Google comes from a strong desire to create technology products that enrich millions of people’s lives in deep and meaningful ways. To fulfill these dreams, we need to ensure that Google remains a successful, growing business that can generate significant returns for everyone involved.

CORPORATE STRUCTURE

When we went public, we created a dual-class voting structure. Our goal was to maintain the freedom to focus on the long term by ensuring that the management team, in particular Eric, Sergey and I, retained control over Google’s destiny. As we explained in our first founders’ letter:“We are creating a corporate structure that is designed for stability over long time horizons. By investing in Google, you are placing an unusual long term bet on the team, especially Sergey and me, and on our innovative approach…
We want Google to become an important and significant institution. That takes time, stability and independence…
In the transition to public ownership, we have set up a corporate structure that will make it harder for outside parties to take over or influence Google. This structure will also make it easier for our management team to follow the long term, innovative approach emphasized earlier…
The main effect of this structure is likely to leave our team, especially Sergey and me, with increasingly significant control over the company’s decisions and fate, as Google shares change hands…
New investors will fully share in Google’s long term economic future but will have little ability to influence its strategic decisions through their voting rights…
Our colleagues will be able to trust that they themselves and their labors of hard work, love and creativity will be well cared for by a company focused on stability and the long term…
As an investor, you are placing a potentially risky long term bet on the team, especially Sergey and me. …. Sergey and I are committed to Google for the long term.”
I wanted to quote all that because these were the clear, well-publicized expectations we established for investors in 2004. While this decision was controversial at the time, we believe with hindsight it was absolutely the right thing to do. Eight years later, these statements are still remarkably accurate, and everyone involved has realized tremendous benefits as a result. Given Google’s success, it’s unsurprising that this type of dual-class governance structure is now somewhat standard among newer technology companies.In our experience, success is more likely if you concentrate on the long term. Technology products often require significant investment over many years to fulfill their potential. For example, it took over three years just to ship our first Android handset, and then another three years on top of that before the operating system truly reached critical mass. These kinds of investments are not for the faint-hearted.We have protected Google from outside pressures and the temptation to sacrifice future opportunities to meet short-term demands. Long-term product investments, like Chrome and YouTube, which now enjoy phenomenal usage, were made with a significant degree of independence.We have a structure that prevents outside parties from taking over or unduly influencing our management decisions. However, day-to-day dilution from routine equity-based employee compensation and other possible dilution, such as stock-based acquisitions, will likely undermine this dual-class structure and our aspirations for Google over the very long term. We have put our hearts into Google and hope to do so for many more years to come. So we want to ensure that our corporate structure can sustain these efforts and our desire to improve the world.

EFFECTIVELY A STOCK SPLIT: AND A NEW CLASS OF STOCK

Today we announced plans to create a new class of non-voting capital stock, which will be listed on NASDAQ. These shares will be distributed via a stock dividend to all existing stockholders: the owner of each existing share will receive one new share of the non-voting stock, giving investors twice the number of shares they had before. It’s effectively a two-for-one stock split—something many of our investors have long asked us for. These non-voting shares will be available for corporate uses, like equity-based employee compensation, that might otherwise dilute our governance structure.We recognize that some people, particularly those who opposed this structure at the start, won’t support this change—and we understand that other companies have been very successful with more traditional governance models. But after careful consideration with our board of directors, we have decided that maintaining this founder-led approach is in the best interests of Google, our shareholders and our users. Having the flexibility to use stock without diluting our structure will help ensure we are set up for success for decades to come.In November 2009, Sergey and I published plans to sell a modest percentage of our overall stock, ending in 2015. We are currently halfway through those plans and we don’t expect any changes to that, certainly not as the result of this new potential class. We both remain very much committed to Google for the long term.It’s important to bear in mind that this proposal will only have an effect on governance over the very long term. In fact, there’s no particular urgency to make these changes now—we don’t have an unusually big acquisition planned, in case you were wondering. It’s just that since we know what we want to do, there’s no reason to delay the decision. Also note that there will be no immediate change in votes, because everyone will still have the same number. In addition, Eric, Sergey and I have all agreed to “stapling” arrangements so that, above set thresholds, if our economic interest in Google were to decline, our votes would as well. We also have provisions to ensure all shareholders are treated fairly from an economic perspective.For more details on all of this, please see the postscript below from our Chief Legal Officer, David Drummond, and the preliminary proxy statement we will file with the SEC next week.

CONCLUSION

We have always managed Google for the long term, investing heavily in the big bets we hope will make a significant difference in the world. Some of these bets have been tremendous, funding our activities and generating significant gains for our shareholders. Others have been less successful. But the ability to take these kinds of risks has been crucial to Google’s overall success and we aim to maintain this pioneering culture going forward.The proposal we announced today is consistent with the governance philosophy we articulated when we took the company public, as well as the trend for newer technology companies to adopt strong dual-class structures. We believe that it will provide great competitive strength—insulating Google from short-term pressures, whatever the source, for a long time to come, while also giving us more flexibility around equity grants.Investors and others have always taken a big bet on us, the founders, and that bet will likely last longer as a result of these changes. We are honored that so many of you have put your trust in us and we recognize the tremendous responsibility that rests on our shoulders. We think this is a good thing because users rely on Google to produce and operate amazing technology products and to safely and responsibly store their data. This is our passion.Sergey and I share a profound belief in the potential for technology to improve people’s lives and we are enormously excited about what lies ahead. I couldn’t write a better conclusion to this founder’s letter than what we wrote in 2004… so here goes: “We have a strong commitment to our users worldwide, their communities, the web sites in our network, our advertisers, our investors, and of course our employees. Sergey and I, and the team will do our best to make Google a long term success and the world a better place.”Larry PageLarry Page CEO and Co-founderSergey BrinSergey Brin Co-founderApril 2012

Postscript from David Drummond, Chief Legal Officer, Google Inc.

This is not the usual yada yada… so please read on.Although we’ll be filing a comprehensive proxy statement soon, I wanted to share some details about today’s proposal to create a new class of stock and the process our board of directors followed to approve it.As Larry and Sergey note above, the stock dividend we are announcing today will have the basic effect of a two-for-one stock split. Each holder of a share of Class A or Class B common stock will receive one share of the new non-voting Class C capital stock. So after the dividend, a stockholder who currently owns one Class A share with a single vote will continue to own that share plus one Class C share without a vote.The Class A shares will continue to trade under the “GOOG” ticker symbol, while the Class C shares will trade under a different ticker symbol, so stockholders will be able to trade these shares, just as they can with Class A shares today. Except for voting rights, the Class C shares will have the same rights as the existing Class A and Class B shares. As is typically the case with stock splits, the Class C stock dividend will be tax-free.One thing to keep in mind is that immediately after the Class C dividend, all stockholders, including Larry, Sergey and Eric, will retain the same voting interest they hold prior to the dividend. In addition, Larry, Sergey and Eric have agreed to subject their shares to a Transfer Restriction Agreement. This agreement will maintain the same link between their voting and economic interests that exists today, even if they sell some of their non-voting Class C shares. If the founders or Eric wish to sell or transfer their non-voting Class C shares, a “stapling” provision in the agreement requires them to either sell an equal number of Class B shares, or convert an equal number of Class B shares into Class A shares. No other stockholders will be subject to these restrictions upon the transfer or sale of their shares. The stapling requirement will terminate as to the founders when their collective ownership falls below a certain threshold, and as to Eric when his ownership falls below a certain threshold. Further details of the Transfer Restriction Agreement will be included in our proxy, but it’s important to note that the stapling provision is designed so that, subject to the thresholds, the votes held by the founders and Eric will be reduced proportionally as their economic interest in the company declines.Our board of directors carefully considered this proposal to create a new class of stock before reaching a decision. In January 2011, the board established a special committee, comprised of independent, non-management board members to consider a new class of stock, or other alternatives. This committee retained its own financial and legal advisers to assist with its deliberations, and met on numerous occasions over the 15 months that the special committee considered the proposal separately from the board. The committee recommended, and the board unanimously approved, today’s proposal.The proposal is subject to the approval of a majority of the voting power of Google’s common stock, voting together as a single class, at our annual meeting on June 21, 2012. Given that Larry, Sergey, and Eric control the majority of voting power and support this proposal, we expect it to pass. The Board of Directors has not set a record date for the issuance of the Class C dividend and currently expects to set the date following the annual meeting.Next week, we’ll file a preliminary proxy statement with the SEC, which will contain further details regarding today’s proposal.David Drummond Chief Legal Officer, Google Inc.April 2012

Windows Phone Better Than iPhone - Business Insider

Windows Phone Better Than iPhone - Business Insider:
Despite its flaws, there's still a lot to like about Windows Phone 7
It's a unique take on a mobile operating system. 
Unlike Android, which is in many ways a copycat of the iPhone, Windows Phone stands out as a fresh take on mobile.
And in some ways, it's actually better than iPhone, the top-selling smartphone at the moment. We've been playing around with Windows Phone 7 a lot since the launch of the Nokia Lumia 900 and put together a few features that make it better than the iPhone.
WARNING: Before you go nuts in the comments, let's be clear. We're not saying Windows Phone is better overall. We're not saying iPhone is better overall. These are just individual things we think Windows Phone does better than the iPhone. That's it.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/windows-phone-better-than-iphone-2012-4#ixzz1rrlt8zKH