SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio candidates - Moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Uncle Frank who wrote (2826)5/11/2011 1:45:52 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 2955
 
For Microsoft, Skype Opens Vast New Market in Telecom

By STEVE LOHR
New York Times
May 10, 2011
tinyurl.com

Microsoft has peered into the future, and placed a bet that people the world over want to stay in touch with someone anytime and anywhere — preferably at no cost.

In agreeing Tuesday to pay $8.5 billion to buy Skype, the pioneer in Internet phone calls, Microsoft is embracing a technology that is transforming the way people communicate at home and at work. And by stitching Skype technology into Microsoft products, used by hundreds of millions of people, the software giant could hasten the mainstream adoption of video communications, especially in businesses.

Microsoft, although rich and powerful, lags in new fields like smartphone software. Skype could help it better compete with the new giants of technology, like Google and Apple.

“Skype has been a forerunner, and this deal is Microsoft trying to become relevant in this new age of Internet communications,” said Berge Ayvazian, a telecommunications consultant. “It could really change things for Microsoft and accelerate the spread of this new technology.”

The future of communications, industry analysts and executives say, will be animated by Internet technology and rests increasingly on video calls, as well as voice and text messages. Skype started on personal computers less than a decade ago, but is now beginning to make its way onto smartphones. As it heads for living rooms with applications like at-home videoconferencing on digital televisions, it could change the way people make even the most routine calls.

This next generation of communications is both a threat and an opportunity to telecommunications and technology companies — a focus of energy, investment and anxiety for corporations including AT&T, Verizon, Apple, Google and Facebook.

Microsoft is betting that Skype can help change its fortunes. Skype is a leader in Internet voice and video communications, with 170 million users each month connected for more than 100 minutes on average. In the last year or two, video use has surged, now accounting for 40 percent of Skype’s traffic.

That large and active community of users represents a major asset, said Steven A. Ballmer, Microsoft’s chief executive. “It’s an amazing customer footprint,” Mr. Ballmer said in an interview. “And Skype is a verb, as they say.”

Mr. Ballmer never mentioned Google, Microsoft’s archrival whose name is used as a verb for Internet search. In that market, Microsoft is spending heavily to try to catch Google, and making some progress with its Bing engine, but at great financial cost.

Google, like Skype, has a free Internet phone call and video messaging service. So Microsoft, analysts say, is taking a bold step to grab a leadership position instead of risking falling behind Google in a crucial market and then facing the difficult task of trying to catch up.

“Skype gives Microsoft instant size and scale in this emerging market,” said Howard Anderson, a senior lecturer at the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The merger with Skype, if successful, could give Microsoft a leading consumer Internet service — something it has lacked — and help lift its other businesses, like smartphone software, Office productivity programs and Xbox video game consoles, analysts say.

In doing so, Microsoft aims to keep people seamlessly connected at work or at home. “We want to enable communications across people’s lives,” Mr. Ballmer said in a press conference in San Francisco.

Skype, founded in 2003, is a creation of the new technology that is transforming telecommunications. “For some time, it has been clear that telecommunications is going to move to all-digital Internet technology,” said Kevin Werbach, an associate professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and a former official at the Federal Communications Commission. “Skype shows what can be done.”

Skype was founded by two entrepreneurs, one Swedish and one Danish, with software developed by a small team of programmers in Estonia. They deployed a version of peer-to-peer software, initially associated with illegal file-sharing of pirated music and movies. The voice and video travel over the Internet rather than dedicated phone landlines or cell tower networks.

Skype has had a bumpy ride as a business. EBay bought it for $2.6 billion in 2005, and then sold most of it to a private investors’ group in 2009, after eBay could not figure out how to make money on Skype.

Despite changes in ownership and management, Skype was a hit with users, offering mostly free calling between Skype users, while charging for some services to corporate users and for calls to traditional phone numbers. It also now sells advertisements.

Skype, based in Luxembourg, has recently made steady progress as a business. Its revenue rose 20 percent last year, to $860 million, and operating profit climbed to $264 million, though it had a net loss of $7 million after making its debt payments.

Skype also has built a formidable technical prowess. Most of its software programmers are in Tallinn, Estonia. “The secret sauce of Skype is its engineering team,” said Marc Andreessen, a founder of Netscape, which made the first commercial Internet browser, and one of the private investors in Skype. “These are world-class guys, every bit as good as anyone in Silicon Valley.”

Mr. Ballmer emphasized that Microsoft planned to expand Skype’s offerings and increase investment, and not cut back free offerings. Skype technology, he added, will help enhance Microsoft products. Mr. Ballmer said the Xbox Kinect, a game device with gesture-recognition features, could add Skype to become an at-home videoconferencing system. And Skype can also be linked to Microsoft’s business software including Office productivity programs and Lync, multimedia software for workers collaborating on projects.

Microsoft, whose growth has been lagging, could find a lucrative revenue stream in selling the service to companies. It might also benefit from placing advertisements on Skype. “There are a lot of great opportunities to optimize Skype services in Microsoft products,” Mr. Ballmer said.

Skype, analysts say, is evidence of the recent pattern of innovations coming first to the freewheeling consumer market — like instant messaging, social networks and video chat — and then cascading to businesses. “This deal is another sign of the consumerization of information technology,” said Ted Schadler, an analyst at Forrester Research.

The Microsoft-Skype deal, analysts suggest, also points to a rising wave of digital disruption in the telecommunications industry, as low-cost Internet-based communications put pressure on traditional carriers, especially their landline phone service. Says Mark R. Anderson, chief executive of the Strategic News Service, a technology newsletter, “The computer guys are going to teach the telecom carriers about the future of communications.”



To: Uncle Frank who wrote (2826)5/11/2011 3:12:02 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 2955
 
Skype Gets 40% Markup as Microsoft Surprised Owners: Real M&A

By Tara Lachapelle and Dina Bass

May 11 (Bloomberg) -- Microsoft Corp. is paying a dot-com era price for Skype Technologies SA, almost 40 percent more than the world’s most popular Internet calling service itself says the business is worth.

Microsoft, the world’s largest software company, agreed to pay $8.5 billion for Luxembourg-based Skype, which lost money in four of the past five years even as it quadrupled sales. The takeover, the largest for an Internet company since May 2000, is 32 times Skype’s adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That’s 39 percent more than the multiple Skype used to value its own equity in an April regulatory filing.

Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer is betting the biggest acquisition since the company was founded in 1975 will help reverse past failures and enrich owners who lost out as shares of Google Inc. and Apple Inc. quadrupled Microsoft’s gain in the past five years. By buying Skype, Microsoft may lure more users to its mobile-phone platform and narrow Google’s lead in Internet advertising after reporting its worst two-year stretch of sales growth. Shareholder Hank Smith of Haverford Trust Co. says the investment isn’t worth the price.

“I just thought, ‘You’ve got to be kidding me,’” said Smith, chief investment officer at Haverford Trust, which oversees $6.5 billion in Radnor, Pennsylvania, and owns about 1.96 million Microsoft shares. “They don’t have a great track record of ‘investments.’ It almost brings you back to those crazy valuation metrics in the late ‘90s.”

‘Frittered Away’

You can make a case that Microsoft has “frittered away capital,” said Smith, who wants Microsoft to use its $50.2 billion cash pile on dividends and buybacks. “It’s definitely because of the competition with Apple and with Google.”

“It’s not low for sure,” Ballmer, 55, said of Skype’s acquisition price in a telephone interview yesterday. “It requires we do good work both within the Skype division and in creating value elsewhere in the company.”

Ballmer added that Microsoft didn’t overpay and the transaction values Skype at “not a lot higher” than some publicly traded companies. He expects the deal will add to Microsoft’s profit in the year after it closes.

Jennifer Caukin, a spokeswoman at Skype, didn’t respond to an e-mail requesting comment.

Microsoft’s reserves give it the ability to pay for what it needs and Skype offers a way for Microsoft to diversify its products to compete with Apple and Google, according to Matt McCormick, a money manager at Cincinnati-based Bahl & Gaynor Inc., which oversees $3.6 billion including Microsoft shares.

‘Another Hamburger’

“$8.5 billion in cash for a Microsoft is like you and I paying five bucks for another hamburger,” McCormick said. “Microsoft right now is trying to do things to keep up with other faster growing technology companies. This is the way to do it. I will give them the benefit of doubt.”

Microsoft, based in Redmond, Washington, is buying Skype from investors including private-equity firm Silver Lake and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, which took a controlling stake in November 2009 that valued the company at $2.75 billion.

Microsoft’s offer is more than twice that amount and includes the assumption of Skype’s debt. Skype had about $725 million in borrowings and a revolving credit line of $30 million, a Securities and Exchange Commission filing in April showed. Skype had planned to raise money in a U.S. initial public offering this year, according to the prospectus.

Fair Value

The acquisition values Skype at about 32 times its $264 million in adjusted Ebitda in 2010, a 39 percent markup to the company’s own assumptions. At the start of the year, Skype used a trailing 12-month Ebitda multiple of 23.2 times to determine the “fair value” of its common stock, its filing showed.

While Skype had a total of 663 million users, it has only converted 8.8 million users of its free PC-to-PC phone services into paying customers, according to the filing.

Skype reported a net loss of $6.9 million last year, its fourth money-losing year since 2006, its filing showed.

“Well it’s certainly an amazing amount of money for a strategy that looks like a long shot,” said Eric Johnson, a professor at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire. “Microsoft is desperate to become relevant. They’re so far behind that they need something significant to jumpstart themselves.”

“Skype’s a cool company, but putting this together into something that’s actually going to be generating significant revenue is going to take work on their part,” he said.

Takeover Price

Skype’s owners refused to entertain offers of less than $7 billion, the value they expected to get from the planned IPO, according to people with knowledge of the discussions, who asked not to be identified because the talks were private.

Microsoft paid a premium in part because it expected Skype to increase in value after going public, meaning a deal would cost more down the road, two of the people said.

Ballmer offered more than $7 billion to cover Skype’s debt and keep a competitor from gaining a business that would add calling features to games, e-mail and software on computers and mobile phones. While Google expressed interest, neither it nor other bidders made formal offers, the people said.

The size of the deal surpasses Microsoft’s $5.5 billion takeover of AQuantive Inc. including net cash in May 2007 as the company’s largest. In May 2008, Microsoft abandoned an effort to buy Sunnyvale, California-based Yahoo! Inc. for $47.5 billion.

Internet Acquisitions

Skype would also be the biggest Internet takeover since the height of the dot-com bubble 11 years ago, when Spain’s Terra Networks SA agreed to buy Internet search service Lycos Inc. for $13.8 billion in May 2000, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

The all-cash agreement for Skype, which Ballmer sealed after his initial overture to New York-based Silver Lake just over a month ago, comes after Microsoft was unseated by Apple as the world’s most valuable technology company.

In the past five years through yesterday, shares of Microsoft have gained 8 percent, versus a 395 percent surge for Apple of Cupertino, California. Google, based in Mountain View, California, has advanced 35 percent. Today, Microsoft declined 0.6 percent to $25.52 as of 10:19 a.m. in New York. Apple slipped 0.1 percent, while Google rose 0.1 percent.

Revenue growth at Microsoft, which dominates the personal computer operating system and office applications software markets, has also lagged behind its competitors. Sales increased 6.9 percent last year after dropping 3.3 percent in 2009, the worst two-year span since at least 1987, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Apple’s sales jumped 52 percent in its last fiscal year, while Google reported a 24 percent increase.

Deal Rationale

“It’s clearly the laggard,” said Philip Orlando, the New York-based chief equity market strategist at Federated Investors Inc., which oversees $358.2 billion. “One of the reasons that the stock has lagged in this rally that we’ve seen over the last couple of years is the fact that you don’t have the underlying organic growth.”

Microsoft is buying Skype, which has 170 million active users, to connect the service to its Outlook e-mail, Xbox game console, Windows mobile phone and corporate-phone software.

Ballmer is aiming to revive Microsoft’s Internet advertising revenue. The company’s online services division had an operating loss of almost $2.6 billion in the 12 months ended March. Losses at the unit have widened in each of its past four fiscal years, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

Microsoft plans to add Skype to its Windows-based mobile phones to lure more customers after losing ground to Apple’s iPhone and Google’s Android devices.

Product Appeal

Skype can help boost the popularity of Windows-powered devices such as tablet computers, according to Colin Gillis, an analyst with BGC Partners LP in New York.

Apple has increased its share of the global phone market and is the biggest seller of tablets. Last quarter, Apple’s net income surpassed Microsoft’s for the first time in 20 years.

“Apple, for the last five or 10 years, has had the sexiest new product development story in technology,” said Federated’s Orlando. “You look at Google, which has some cache in the Internet space. Then, you look at someone like Microsoft. They are post the rapid growth phase of their development.”

The company also trails Google in Web search and related advertising, while Skype, which has a lead on late-entrant Google Voice, announced in March that it would start showcasing advertising on its website.

Google had 66 percent of the U.S. online-search market in March, according to Reston, Virginia-based researcher ComScore Inc. Microsoft’s Bing search engine had about 14 percent.

Squandered Opportunities

Not all of Microsoft’s acquisitions have propelled growth as much as it forecast. In 2001 and 2002, Microsoft spent more than $2 billion to acquire small-business software makers Great Plains Software Inc. and Navision A/S, predicting the businesses would generate $10 billion a year in revenue by 2010.

At the end of last year, the efforts were bringing more than $1 billion in sales a year, still short of Microsoft’s initial estimates.

The Skype deal is “just a continuation of basically squandering a lot of opportunities with the cash and not doing very good things with it,” said Donald Yacktman, president of Yacktman Asset Management Co., which manages about $10 billion in Austin, Texas, and owns more than 21 million Microsoft shares. “I can’t believe he can continue to strike out every time he goes to the plate,” he said, referring to Ballmer.

Instead, Microsoft should focus on returning more money to its shareholders, according to Yacktman.

“‘Expensive’ is putting it mildly,” Yacktman said of Skype. “This is a very poor use of cash. The kingdom’s bigger, but the residents are poorer. It just kind of boggles my mind.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Tara Lachapelle in New York at tlachapelle@bloomberg.net; Dina Bass in Seattle at dbass2@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Daniel Hauck at dhauck1@bloomberg.net; Katherine Snyder at ksnyder@bloomberg.net; Tom Giles at tgiles5@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: May 11, 2011 10:27 EDT



To: Uncle Frank who wrote (2826)5/11/2011 4:54:46 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 2955
 
Cisco Posts Quarterly Profit That Exceeds Analysts’ Estimates

By Joseph Galante

May 11 (Bloomberg) -- Cisco Systems Inc., the largest maker of networking equipment, reported quarterly profit and sales that topped analysts’ estimates after it exited lower-margin products and took moves to shore up sales of routers and switches.

Profit excluding some costs was 42 a share, San Jose, California-based Cisco said today in a statement. Analysts surveyed by Bloomberg predicted profit, on average, of 37 cents.

Cisco, which has lost about $50 billion in market value in the last year, is revamping management and scaling back some businesses after losing share amid price pressure from rivals such as Hewlett-Packard Co., Huawei Technologies Co. and Juniper Networks Inc. Chief Executive Officer John Chambers is cutting jobs and refocusing the company on key markets in an effort to regain Cisco’s dominance in the networking industry.

“Investors are still hungry for more changes at Cisco,” Brian White, an analyst at Ticonderoga Securities LLC, said in a research note. “These are steps in the right direction.”

Sales rose 4.8 percent to $10.87 billion in the quarter that ended April 30. Analysts expected sales of $10.86 billion.

Cisco gained in extended trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market after slipping 1 cent to $17.78 at 4 p.m. Cisco typically gives investors a forecast for the current quarter on a conference call after the results are released.

To contact the reporter on this story: Joseph Galante in San Francisco at jgalante3@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Tom Giles at tgiles5@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: May 11, 2011 16:13 EDT



To: Uncle Frank who wrote (2826)5/12/2011 5:14:25 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 2955
 
Cisco’s Chambers Ditches Sales Target Amid Strategy Change

By Joseph Galante

May 12 (Bloomberg) -- Cisco Systems Inc. Chief Executive Officer John Chambers abandoned a four-year-old forecast for annual sales growth of 12 percent to 17 percent as weak demand and price pressure force him to cut jobs and exit businesses.

Revenue at San Jose, California-based Cisco, the largest maker of networking equipment, will grow no more than 2 percent this quarter, the company said yesterday on a conference call. Analysts on average expected 7 percent sales growth, according to a Bloomberg survey.

Chambers addressed investors on a conference call for the first time since beginning a retrenchment that has included scrapping the Flip video-camera unit, firing 550 people and overhauling a management structure that slowed decision making. Chambers said he’ll eliminate more jobs this year and cut low- margin businesses. While applauding his candor, analysts said they were left in the dark about the company’s growth prospects.

“It’s great that they acknowledged the elephant in the room,” said Joanna Makris, an analyst at Mizuho Securities USA Inc. “We all knew 12 to 17 percent wasn’t valid. But what is it -- 8 percent, 10 percent? It’s hard for us to know until they tell us which product lines they’re going to exit.”

Cisco fell 85 cents, or 4.8 percent, to $16.93 at 4 p.m. New York time in Nasdaq Stock Market trading.

Technology Bellwether

In the fiscal fourth quarter, which ends in July, profit excluding some costs will be 37 cents to 39 cents a share, and sales will be $10.8 billion to $11.1 billion, Cisco said. Analysts on average had predicted profit of 41 cents and sales of $11.6 billion.

“We’re clearly getting hammered in the public sector, but that’s an area where we need to realign our resources and focus on cloud and collaboration,” Chambers said today in an interview on Bloomberg Television with Betty Liu.

Investors view Cisco as a bellwether for the technology industry because it dominates the market for routers and switches, which direct Internet traffic. Companies buy its switches for corporate networks, while phone and Web-service providers typically purchase Cisco’s more-expensive routers.

As part of a management restructuring announced this month, Cisco began taking apart a bureaucracy that investors and former employees said slowed decisions, fueled market-share losses and led to an exodus of senior executives. Cisco said it reduced the number of councils, which were responsible for management, to three from nine, and the number of boards that reported to them to 15 from 42.

It also said it would eliminate $1 billion in costs in the next fiscal year, aiming to improve profitability.

‘Completely Committed’

“We do not underestimate the transition in front of us,” Chambers said yesterday on the call. “We are completely committed as a leadership team to make the required fundamental changes to our operating model.”

Still, the changes have yet to reassure investors that Cisco is back on track, said Bill Kreher, an analyst at Edward Jones & Co.

“It appears that this turnaround may take a little bit longer than previously expected,” Kreher said in an interview on Bloomberg Television with Pimm Fox.

Cisco’s shares have declined 37 percent in the past year, compared with a 15 percent gain in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. The company struggled to maintain historic levels of profitability amid an expansion into more than 30 side businesses such as smart grids, home networking and digital music hosting.

Rivals Move In

The broadened ambitions let rivals such as Hewlett-Packard Co., Huawei Technologies Co. and Juniper Networks Inc. encroach on key markets. In ethernet switches, Cisco’s share dropped to 67 percent last year from 69 percent in 2006, according to IDC, a market-research firm in Framingham, Massachusetts. In routers, Cisco’s share dropped to 55 percent last year from 66 percent.

“Cisco took advantage of some utopian conditions in the last decade,” said Mark Fabbi, an analyst at Gartner Inc. Now, “companies are getting smart and forcing Cisco to earn their business again.”

Chambers first said in August 2007 that revenue would rise 12 percent to 17 percent a year amid rising demand for Cisco’s products. He said yesterday that the forecast is “off the table.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Joseph Galante in San Francisco at jgalante3@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Tom Giles at tgiles5@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: May 12, 2011 16:40 EDT



To: Uncle Frank who wrote (2826)5/13/2011 11:44:47 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 2955
 
Why Microsoft Is Buying Skype for $8.5 Billion
______________________________________________________________

By Om Malik
GigaOM
05/10/11

REDMOND, Wash. -- (GigaOM) -- Microsoft(MSFT) has bought Skype for $8.5 billion, in an all-cash deal. The deal closed a few hours ago. The Wall Street Journal confirmed the news after we had first reported it yesterday. Steve Ballmer, chief executive officer of Microsoft is said to be a big champion of the deal, the largest in the history of the company.

Skype has been up for sale for some time, thanks to some very antsy investors. My sources indicated that eBay(EBAY) and Silver Lake Partners have been getting nervous about the delayed initial public offering and have been pushing for a sale of Skype. Facebook and Google(GOOG) were said to be earlier dance partners for Skype, and Microsoft was a late entrant and is now close to walking away with the prize.

It won't surprise me if Microsoft comes in for major heat on this decision to buy Skype -- and the software company could always botch this purchase, as it often does when it buys a company. The Skype team is also full of hired guns who are likely to move on to the next opportunity rather than dealing with the famed Microsoft bureaucracy.

I also don't believe that Facebook and Google were serious buyers. Google, with its Google Voice offering, doesn't really need Skype. In essence, I feel that Microsoft was bidding against itself. Even then, I personally think this is a bet worth taking, especially for a company that has been left out in the cold for so long.

•Skype gives Microsoft a boost in the enterprise collaboration market, thanks to Skype's voice, video and sharing capabilities, especially when competing with Cisco(CISCO) and Google.

•It gives Microsoft a working relationship with carriers, many of them looking to partner with Skype as they start to transition to LTE-based networks.

•It would give them a must-have application/service that can help with the adoption of the future versions of Windows Mobile operating system.

•However, the biggest reason for Microsoft to buy Skype is Windows Phone 7 (Mobile OS) and Nokia. The software giant needs a competitive offering to Google Voice and Apple's emerging communication platform, Facetime.

Guess Who's The Big Winner

The biggest winner of this deal could actually be Facebook. The Palo Alto-based social networking giant had little or no chance of buying Skype. Had it been public, it would have been a different story. With Microsoft, it gets the best of both worlds -- it gets access to Skype assets (Microsoft is an investor in Facebook) and it gets to keep Skype away from Google.

Facebook needs Skype badly. Among other things, it needs to use Skype's peer-to-peer network to offer video and voice services to the users of Facebook Chat. If the company had to use conventional methods and offer voice and video service to its 600 million plus customers, the cost and overhead of operating the infrastructure would be prohibitive.

Facebook can also help Skype get more customers for its SkypeOut service, and it can have folks use Facebook Credits to pay for Skype minutes. Skype and Facebook are working on a joint announcement and you can expect it shortly.

Why Did Skype Want to Sell?

Skype had filed for an IPO and was going to do about a billion dollars in revenues and was on its way to becoming profitable. So why sell? Silver Lake and eBay were both getting impatient and wanted to lock in their profits. Some sources also believe that Skype's revenues had stalled.

The company had bet heavily on is video sharing service. The premium version of video calling and sharing was a way for Skype to increase its average revenue per user and move into the enterprise market. However, given Skype's DNA is that of a consumer Internet company, the challenges are not a surprise.

So Who Made What?

Using the $8.5 billion price as the likely sale price, eBay gets $2.55 billion for its 30% stake in Skype. So in the end, eBay did make money on the Skype deal.

Niklas Zennström and Janus Friis, the co-founders with their 14% stake, take home about $1.19 billion. Damn, these guys know how to double dip! Silver Lake, Andreessen Horowitz and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) own 56% of the company and that stake is worth $4.76 billion.

Andreessen Horowitz had 3% of the deal and made $205 million profit on their $50 million initial investment.

-- Written by Om Malik of the technology news website GigaOM.

Original story: gigaom.com



To: Uncle Frank who wrote (2826)5/13/2011 3:05:11 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 2955
 
Cisco and a Cautionary Tale about Teams
______________________________________________________________

By Rosabeth Moss Kanter

2011-05-09

The news that Cisco is dismantling its unique structure of councils and boards to reduce bureaucracy presents a cautionary tale and an insight into the true meaning of teamwork and collaboration in organizations.

Cisco's councils and boards — a language that already suggests committees rather than goal-oriented projects — were supposed to speed things up and stimulate more innovation by creating cross-functional groups that could generate ideas about market-facing, solutions-oriented projects and organize across the organization to get them done. An early win came from a sports and entertainment council that drove the contract to wire the new Yankees stadium in New York and seeded a promising new way for Cisco to integrate its offerings to create holistic solutions.

But rather than reorganize to move from a functional structure to solutions groups, or implement a matrix organization, Cisco created overlays on top of the same organization structure. Councils and boards had their own hierarchy — boards reported to councils, projects emanated from boards, and they all drew resources from the functional groups. Until a charter was created with guidelines about participation, some managers sat on as many as 14 boards and councils. For organizations that think in centuries (like, say, a well-known American university), this kind of overlay might work, but for a technology company that must be nimble and responsive, this became a drag not an accelerator.

With buzz about self-organizing social networks increasingly dominating the world, and organizations of all sizes in all fields seeking more collaboration, it is worth pausing to revisit exactly what teamwork means. Yes, command-and-control structures are being shaken up in favor of more empowered people who are treated as part of the team and included in communication and decisions. Yes, hierarchies are being flattened and the vertical dimension of organizations de-emphasized in favor of the horizontal. Yes, crowds can possess wisdom above and beyond the intelligence or perspective of individuals. But no, that does not mean the end of a division of labor, identification of decision-making authority, and individual accountability.

A small work group I observed recently heard the word teamwork and thought it meant that everyone should be in on everything, and everyone should discuss everything before anyone did anything. This produced wasted time, lack of clear accountability, and balls dropped all over the place, as some people shifted work to others because "it's a team effort" or simply assumed someone else was doing something. The group got back on track when the division of labor was clearly established — who performed what role and why; there was a mechanism for dealing with the overlaps; and the number of meetings was reduced. As each successive project was undertaken, differentiated roles and responsibilities were elaborated again.

"Leaderless groups," a phrase I heard stated with pride at Cisco in the early days of councils and boards, are a myth if taken literally. No group is actually leaderless, although it might be highly collaborative. The group might distribute and rotate leadership roles and responsibilities. There might be open discussion of decisions, even if there is a person who declares when it's time to decided and breaks ties — in short, has the authority. But when everyone is responsible, no one is responsible.

I love sports and have studied and written about actual sports teams, not just used sports analogies. The best teams are not a monolith in which everyone does a bit of everything, and they are not organized into dozens of entities reflecting every possible combination of plays. Winning teams combine specialized roles, in which players have deep expertise that they continue to refine through practice, with knowledge of others' roles and how to support them. They have the flexibility to mobilize fast for particular plays, guided by a common strategy, but each person has clear accountability for his or her performance in the service of the team.

Copyright © 2010 Harvard Business School Publishing.



To: Uncle Frank who wrote (2826)5/16/2011 4:41:25 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 2955
 
A Tale of two CEOs

breakingviews.com



To: Uncle Frank who wrote (2826)5/17/2011 10:59:31 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 2955
 
07:38 HPQ Hewlett-Packard beats by $0.03, reports revs in-line; guides Q3 EPS, revs below consensus; lowers FY11 EPS, revs below consensus (39.80 )

Reports Q2 (Apr) earnings of $1.24 per share, excluding non-recurring items, $0.03 better than the Thomson Reuters consensus of $1.21; revenues rose 2.5% year/year to $31.63 bln vs the $31.53 bln consensus. Co issues downside guidance for Q3, sees EPS of ~$1.08, excluding non-recurring items, vs. $1.23 Thomson Reuters consensus; sees Q3 revs of $31.1-31.3 bln vs. $31.78 bln Thomson Reuters consensus. Co lowers guidance for FY11, sees EPS of at least $5.00, excluding non-recurring items, vs. $5.24 Thomson Reuters consensus, down from $5.20-5.28; sees FY11 revs of $129-130 bln vs. $130.22 bln Thomson Reuters consensus, down from $130-131.5 bln, reflecting an expected near-term impact from the Japan earthquake and related events, continued softness in sales of consumer PCs, and reduced operating profit expectations for Services. Results were largely driven by performance in the commercial sector as businesses continued to spend on technology. HP experienced uneven consumer performance across its product categories during the quarter with continued softness in consumer PCs across all geographies. Co cites continued strength in commercial businesses resulted in commercial revenue increasing 8% year over year, with Enterprise Servers, Storage and Networking revenue up 15%, Software revenue up 17%, and commercial PC Clients and Printers revenue up 13% and 7%, respectively.



To: Uncle Frank who wrote (2826)5/17/2011 8:26:33 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 2955
 
Dell Profit Tops Analysts’ Estimates on Corporate Spending

By Aaron Ricadela

May 17 (Bloomberg) -- Dell Inc., the world’s second-largest personal-computer maker, reported first-quarter profit that topped analysts’ estimates, bolstered by corporate technology spending. The shares jumped in extended trading.

Net income rose to $945 million, or 49 cents a share, from $341 million, or 17 cents, a year earlier, the company said today in a statement. Excluding certain costs, earnings were 55 cents in the period, which ended April 29. Analysts estimated 43 cents on average, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Dell’s emphasis on business customers, bolstered by an expansion into corporate data centers, is helping it withstand a slump in consumer technology. A slowdown in home-computer sales has roiled PC industry leader Hewlett-Packard Co., which cut its annual sales forecast earlier today. While Dell also saw its consumer revenue drop, the company said it was able to squeeze more profit out of each sale.

“They executed much better than expected despite strong headwinds,” said Shaw Wu, an analyst at Sterne Agee & Leach Inc. in San Francisco. Dell gets about 20 percent of sales from consumers, compared with about 30 percent at Hewlett-Packard, said Wu, who has a neutral rating on Dell shares.

Dell rose as much as 5.6 percent to $16.79 in late trading after the results were released. The shares, up 17 percent this year, had closed at $15.90 earlier on the Nasdaq Stock Market.

Hewlett-Packard Drops

That compares with a 7.3 percent plunge for Hewlett-Packard shares today. That company lopped $1 billion from its full-year sales forecast, predicting revenue of $129 billion to $130 billion. Excluding some costs, earnings will be at least $5 a share, Palo Alto, California-based Hewlett-Packard said. Analysts had estimated sales of $130.3 billion and earnings of $5.24 on average.

Dell said operating income will increase 12 percent to 18 percent this year. When the Round Rock, Texas-based company last reported its earnings in February, it predicted a range of 6 percent to 12 percent. Dell reiterated its full-year sales growth forecast of 5 percent to 9 percent, indicating revenue of at least $64.6 billion.

Sales last quarter rose less than 1 percent to $15 billion, Dell said. Analysts had estimated $15.4 billion on average. Consumer revenue declined 7.5 percent to $3 billion.

More Profitable

“Revenue’s light in general,” Chief Financial Officer Brian Gladden said in an interview. “Consumer demand was a bit weaker than expected. But we’ve dramatically improved the profitability of the consumer business.”

Dell also is seeking acquisitions in an effort to tap the market for cloud computing, which delivers software and data over the Internet. It bought data-storage company Compellent Technologies for about $800 million in February.

“We’re moving much more into the core of IT and the data center, increasingly with our own intellectual property,” Chief Executive Officer Michael Dell told analysts on a conference call today.

The company also has benefitted from businesses replacing older PCs with new ones running Microsoft Corp.’s Windows 7 operating system.

The broader PC market declined last quarter. Global shipments fell 3.2 percent, hurt in part by some consumers buying tablets instead, research firm IDC reported last month. In the U.S., shipments dropped 10.7 percent from a year earlier to 16.1 million.

Dell had 12.8 percent of the global PC market last quarter, ranking behind Hewlett-Packard and ahead of Acer Inc., according to Framingham, Massachusetts-based IDC.

To contact the reporters on this story: Aaron Ricadela in San Francisco at aricadela@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Tom Giles at tgiles5@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: May 17, 2011 17:46 EDT



To: Uncle Frank who wrote (2826)5/27/2011 10:10:08 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 2955
 
Einhorn Adds to Drumbeat for CEO Exits With Call to Oust Ballmer

By Dina Bass

May 27 (Bloomberg) -- David Einhorn’s call to replace Microsoft Corp. Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer adds to the drumbeat for change at the top of technology bellwethers.

Boards at increasingly large hardware and software makers are replacing CEOs to help their companies repel threats from upstarts such as Facebook Inc. and Apple Inc. The aim is to keep from getting left behind in emerging technologies including social networking, mobile computing and the delivery of software over the Internet, via the so-called cloud.

Hewlett-Packard Co., Google Inc. and Advanced Micro Devices Inc. lead technology companies with a combined $265 billion in market value on the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index that have changed CEOs since August. That’s up from companies worth $75 billion a year earlier. Privately held Twitter Inc. replaced its CEO in October, a month after Finland’s Nokia Oyj did the same.

Investors may clamor for new leadership at companies including Cisco Systems Inc. and Research In Motion Ltd., said Bill Coleman, a partner at venture capital firm Alsop Louie Partners in San Francisco.

“The companies that haven’t moved are under a lot of pressure, and one of the first places you look to change things is at the top,” said Coleman, the former CEO of BEA Systems Inc., which was acquired by Oracle Corp. “There are lots of companies like Nokia and RIM and AMD and Cisco that have fallen behind and lost at least some of their competitive edge.”

Ballmer is being criticized as Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft loses market share to Apple and Google in mobile phones and Apple’s iPad takes sales from personal computers running Microsoft’s Windows.

Ballmer Dinged

The board docked Ballmer some of his potential bonus last year for falling short in mobile and new forms of computers.

Einhorn, president of hedge fund Greenlight Capital Inc., said Ballmer has failed to seize on Microsoft’s opportunities and overspent on efforts to remedy shortcomings.

“He’s allowed competitors to beat Microsoft in huge areas, including search, mobile-communications software, tablet computing and social networking,” Einhorn said at a conference this week. “Even worse, his response to these failures has been to pour tremendous resources into efforts to develop his way out of these holes.”

During Ballmer’s 11-year reign as CEO, shares have declined more than 50 percent, even though sales have more than tripled and profit has risen 141 percent.

While investors’ patience with Ballmer is wearing thin, Microsoft’s board may not quickly agitate for change, said Pat Becker Jr., principal of Portland, Oregon-based Becker Capital Management, which holds Microsoft.

‘Losing the Tech World’

“He doesn’t have the investor base and my fear is he’s losing his customer base and losing the tech world in general,” said Becker, whose firm has about $2.5 billion in assets. “The investor base would welcome new leadership, but whether the board wants him to go is a different thing.”

Ballmer’s supporters could point to the company’s sales and profit growth on his watch, said Michael Cusumano, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Sloan School of Management in Cambridge.

“Financially Microsoft has really done quite well,” Cusumano said. “They are still printing money essentially.”

Frank Shaw, a spokesman for Microsoft, declined to comment.

Other boards have shown less resistance to change. Hewlett- Packard directors pushed out former CEO Mark Hurd in August after an investigation found he violated the company’s code of business ethics by concealing a personal relationship with a female contractor.

Hewlett-Packard, AMD, Google

Hurd’s successor, Leo Apotheker, said this month that he inherited a company ill-equipped to win business from companies that want to switch to cloud computing. AMD board members ousted CEO Dirk Meyer in January amid frustration with the company’s lack of progress in chips for tablets.

Google turned to one of its co-founders, Larry Page, 38, to succeed Eric Schmidt, 56, who ran the company for a decade. The move was aimed at helping Google bolster its defenses against Facebook and recapture the entrepreneurial ethos that fostered the creation of the most-used search engine.

Some companies aim for executives who, by dint of age or strategic vision, convey the sense they can cater to younger, technology-savvy consumers, said Paul Saffo, managing director at investment adviser Discern Analytics.

Under CEO Steve Jobs, Apple has gained share in the digital-music and mobile-phone industries with products that demonstrate his appreciation of customers’ preferences, says Saffo, whose firm is based in San Francisco.

Knowing Customers’ Needs

“There’s that notion that a younger perspective really matters,” he said. “It’s the difference between understanding new technologies intellectually versus intuitively. It’s not necessarily an age thing. Look at Steve Jobs -- he’s old enough to join AARP -- but he has an intuitive understanding.”

Cisco CEO John Chambers, who scrapped a longstanding target for annual sales increases of as much as 17 percent earlier this month after five straight quarters of disappointing earnings reports, “could be the next target,” Cusumano said.

Chambers is taking steps to revive growth by eliminating jobs, exiting lower-margin consumer businesses and dismantling a management structure that slowed decision making. Still, the shares have yet to reverse a slide that has left them 29 percent lower in the past 12 months, compared with a 24 percent gain in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index.

“People worry Cisco has lost their edge and John Chambers isn’t what he used to be,” said Dan Morgan, a fund manager at Synovus Securities Inc., which oversees $7.5 billion and cut its Cisco holdings this year, according to Bloomberg data.

Karen Tillman, a spokeswoman for San Jose, California-based Cisco, declined to comment.

CEO ‘Term Limits’

Some CEOs have spent too long in the job to be able to undertake the continual reinvention needed to keep pace, said Ed Zander, who served as CEO at the company then known as Motorola Inc. and chief operating officer at Sun Microsystems.

“I’ve always thought there ought to be some term limits on CEOs,” said Zander, who stepped down in 2008 as Motorola’s CEO. “There’s more questions and more focus on the management ranks, and do they have the wherewithal to keep reinventing. Some CEOs have been at it a while and it’s hard.”

Analysts from at least eight securities firms have cut their ratings on RIM after the Waterloo, Ontario-based company reduced profit forecasts late last month, adding to evidence that the maker of the BlackBerry is struggling to compete against Apple and Google in the smartphone market.

Lazaridis’ ‘Technological Brains’

Sameet Kanade, an analyst at Northern Securities Inc. in Toronto, has suggested the company should scrap its dual-CEO structure, elevating co-CEO Mike Lazaridis over Jim Balsillie.

“When the momentum was in their favor, not a lot of attention was paid to the disconnect of a co-CEO structure, but with it, accountability is divided, or is not focused on one person,” Kanade said. “Right now, they’re facing technological challenges and Lazaridis, the technological brains, should be running the whole show.”

RIM’s share of global smartphone sales fell to 13 percent in the first quarter, from 20 percent a year earlier, Gartner Inc. said. Share for Google’s Android more than tripled to 36 percent from 9.6 percent and Apple’s iOS rose to 17 percent from 15 percent. RIM stock has plummeted 27 percent in the past year.

Marisa Conway and Tenille Kennedy, spokeswomen for RIM, didn’t respond to requests for comment.

“There’s market impatience with anyone who is not No. 1 in their area,” Saffo said. “With all the technology shifts, the degree of uncertainty has increased dramatically. Executives have never had more pressure on them.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Dina Bass in Seattle at dbass2@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Tom Giles at tgiles5@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: May 27, 2011 00:01 EDT



To: Uncle Frank who wrote (2826)6/1/2011 6:14:53 PM
From: stockman_scott1 Recommendation  Respond to of 2955
 
Apple is not just the latest great tech company, it is historically great, and to maintain that level without the irreplaceable taste of Steve Jobs will be impossible...

huffingtonpost.com



To: Uncle Frank who wrote (2826)6/8/2011 11:37:00 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 2955
 
Apple’s iCloud Takes The Lead In Pursuit Of The $12 Billion Personal Cloud Opportunity

blogs.forbes.com



To: Uncle Frank who wrote (2826)6/15/2011 12:36:24 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 2955
 
Secrets From Apple's Genius Bar: Full Loyalty, No Negativity

online.wsj.com

By YUKARI IWATANI KANE And IAN SHERR
The Wall Street Journal
JUNE 15, 2011

Steve Jobs turned Apple Inc. into the world's most valuable technology company with high-tech products like the iPad and iPhone. But one anchor of Apple's success is surprisingly low tech: its chain of brick-and-mortar retail stores.

A look at confidential training manuals, a recording of a store meeting and interviews with more than a dozen current and former employees reveal some of Apple's store secrets. They include: intensive control of how employees interact with customers, scripted training for on-site tech support and consideration of every store detail down to the pre-loaded photos and music on demo devices.

More people now visit Apple's 326 stores in a single quarter than the 60 million who visited Walt Disney Co.'s four biggest theme parks last year, according to data from Apple and the Themed Entertainment Association. Apple's annual retail sales per square foot have soared to $4,406—excluding online sales, according to investment bank Needham & Co. Add in online sales, which include iTunes, and the number jumps to $5,914. That's far higher than the sales per square foot and online sales of jeweler Tiffany & Co. ($3,070), luxury retailer Coach Inc. ($1,776), and electronics retailer Best Buy Co. ($880), according to estimates.

With their airy interiors and attractive lighting, Apple's stores project a carefree and casual atmosphere. Yet Apple keeps a tight lid on how they operate. Employees are ordered to not discuss rumors about products, technicians are forbidden from prematurely acknowledging widespread glitches and anyone caught writing about the Cupertino, Calif., company on the Internet is fired, according to current and former employees.

Behind Apple stores is Ron Johnson, 52, who J.C. Penney Co. confirmed Tuesday would become its new CEO in November.

Apple's retail success is fueled to a large extent by demand for the company's products. Retail analysts say many of Apple's advantages over rivals such as Best Buy are technical: It sells a single brand, has far fewer products and has only a few hundred stores compared to Best Buy's more than 4,000. As the company continues to expand, some analysts expect it to face more pressure to consistently execute good customer service. Some former employees say they have already seen the quality of Apple retail staff decline as the retail network has expanded and has fewer enthusiastic fans to choose from.

An Apple spokesman declined to comment.

Still, Apple is considered a pioneer in many aspects of customer service and store design. According to several employees and training manuals, sales associates are taught an unusual sales philosophy: not to sell, but rather to help customers solve problems. "Your job is to understand all of your customers' needs—some of which they may not even realize they have," one training manual says. To that end, employees receive no sales commissions and have no sales quotas.

"You were never trying to close a sale. It was about finding solutions for a customer and finding their pain points," said David Ambrose, 26 years old, who worked at an Apple store in Arlington, Va., until 2007.

Apple lays its "steps of service" out in the acronym APPLE, according to a 2007 employee training manual reviewed by The Wall Street Journal that is still in use.

"Approach customers with a personalized warm welcome," "Probe politely to understand all the customer's needs," "Present a solution for the customer to take home today," "Listen for and resolve any issues or concerns," and "End with a fond farewell and an invitation to return."

Apple's control of the customer experience extends down to the minutest details. The store's confidential training manual tells in-store technicians exactly what to say to customers it describes as emotional: "Listen and limit your responses to simple reassurances that you are doing so. 'Uh-huh' 'I understand,' etc."

Apple employees who are six minutes late in their shifts three times in six months may be let go. While there are no sales quotas, employees must sell service packages with devices, according to former employees. Those who don't sell enough are re-trained or moved to another position, depending on the store.

Many retailers strive for good customer service and attractive store designs, analysts say, but few go to Apple's lengths in orchestrating every detail. Department store chain Nordstrom Inc., for example, provides little customer-service training and expects sales staff to learn on the job. With respect to store design, "most retailers take a prototype and roll it out," in contrast to Apple, which constantly evolves its stores' look and feel, said Brian Dyches, president of industry group Retail Design Institute.

Apple's success with its stores stands out at a time when many retailers have struggled. In 2009, when retail sales declined 2.4%—the first down year in several decades, according to retail consultancy Customer Growth Partners—Apple's retail sales rose roughly 7%. In 2010, Apple's retail sales, excluding online, jumped 70% to $11.7 billion, or about 15% of its revenues of $76.3 billion, handily exceeding the overall retail industry's sales growth of 4.5%.

Other retailers have tried to copy everything from Apple's in-house tech support to store layout. Best Buy acquired computer repair service Geek Squad in October 2002, a year after Apple opened its first store, but it has failed to reinvigorate its business. Best Buy's profit margin hovers at about 1% before taxes and excluding online sales, estimates Customer Growth Partners. In comparison, Needham & Co. puts Apple stores' profit margin at 26.9%.

When Microsoft Corp. opened its first branded store in Arizona in 2009, it took many of its architectural and customer-service cues from Apple, including hardwood floors, wide open spaces, free classes and one-on-one trainers. While Microsoft discloses few details about its retail business, analysts say profits are weak, in part because it is largely reselling computers by other companies whereas Apple sells its own devices.

Best Buy didn't respond to requests for comment. Microsoft declined to comment.

Though the stores are now one of Apple's offensive weapons, they were born as a defensive move. When Mr. Jobs returned to Apple in 1996 after being ousted 11 years earlier, the company was struggling. Its Macintosh computers were largely out of view at big box retailers like CompUSA, now owned by Systemax Inc.

Fixing Apple's retail strategy was a priority for Mr. Jobs because Apple's brand had become so weak that mass retailers refused to stock Macintoshes. While Apple was developing new products, Mr. Jobs knew they would have little impact if consumers couldn't find them, say people familiar with the situation at the time.

Apple soon experimented with having its own showroom inside mass retailers such as CompUSA. But Mr. Jobs realized it was impossible to control the experience at those retailers, these people say. Building Apple's own retail stores was a natural progression.

In 1999, Mr. Jobs recruited Millard Drexler, then president of Gap Inc., to join Apple's board and advise the company on retail strategy. With his input, Apple hired Mr. Johnson, Target's executive behind its signature line of designer household items, to run the retail business in 2000. Mr. Johnson is credited with developing the stores' in-house Genius Bar tech support and engineering their detailed customer service approach. Analysts said Tuesday that while his loss is significant, Apple's retail efforts likely have matured enough to succeed without him.

Many members of Apple's initial retail team came from Gap, which was viewed as a model because of its hip image and success with its branded stores—so many that people joked about working at "Gapple."

It was Mr. Drexler's idea to build a prototype store in a warehouse on Cupertino's Bubb Road, near Apple headquarters, say people familiar with the project. There, Apple masterminded a store layout that staged its products in a way that highlighted how they could be used, rather than the conventional retail method of stacking products by category.

People familiar with the planning say Mr. Johnson came up with the idea for an area dedicated for technical support called the Genius Bar. Apple's hottest products were placed in the front of the store while a dedicated section for kids was furnished with squishy balls they could sit on while playing with children's software programs loaded onto iMacs.

"People don't just want to buy personal computers anymore, they want to know what they can do with them," said Mr. Jobs in a video tour of the first Apple store.

Apple spent a year testing its concept before it opened its first two stores, in Virginia's high-end Tysons' Corner shopping mall and in Glendale Galleria in Glendale, Calif., in May 2001. A little over two years later, it had opened over 70 stores in locations such as Chicago, Honolulu and Tokyo.

At the time, electronics stores tended to resemble warehouses stuffed with accessories, pamphlets and cords. Apple, by contrast, chose an open plan with a clutter-free look, using natural materials like wood, glass, stone and stainless steel.

Wilhelm Oehl, a principal at San Francisco-based design firm Eight Inc., which has helped Apple with its retail designs, says Mr. Jobs taught them to constantly question themselves on whether their decisions make "the most sense."

Over the past decade, Apple's stores have become even more dramatic, from a location inside the Louvre in Paris to one located under a 40-foot-high glass cylinder in Shanghai.

Working for an Apple store can be a competitive process usually requiring at least two rounds of interviews. Applicants are questioned about their leadership and problem-solving skills, as well as their enthusiasm for Apple products, say several current and former Apple store employees. While most retailers have to seek out staff, retail experts say many Apple stores are flooded with applicants.

Once hired, employees are trained extensively. Recruits are drilled in classes that apply Apple's principles of customer service. Back on the sales floor, new hires must shadow more experienced colleagues and aren't allowed to interact with customers on their own until they're deemed ready. That can be a couple of weeks or even longer.

Harry Friedman, who runs retail consulting firm the Friedman Group, says it isn't unusual for specialty retailers that care about service to invest in similar levels of staff training. But Apple employees are typically fans of the company's products and are willing to learn, intrinsically making its training more effective than any others, he says.

Keith Bruce, 23, who worked at an Apple store in Virginia for three-and-a-half years until December 2009, says he was told the sales floor was a stage where he should focus on things he can do, rather than things he can't. If a customer mispronounced an item name, he was forbidden from correcting them because that would make them feel patronized.

Candidates for "Genius" tech support staff undergo more training in facilities world-wide, then are certified and regularly tested on their skills. Training extends even to language. Former Geniuses say they were told to say "as it turns out" rather than "unfortunately" to sound less negative when they are unable to solve a tech problem. People familiar with the matter say Genius appointments are often triple booked, so they are always swamped.

Apple store staffers are paid about $9 to $15 per hour at the sales level, and up to about $30 per hour as Geniuses, comparable to other retailers. Some Apple store employees, who aspired to move to a corporate position, say they left when they realized that such opportunities were rare. One employee in San Francisco is even trying to unionize and has set up a website and Facebook page demanding higher wages.

Apple now appears to be eyeing business customers at its stores. The company built specially designed "Briefing Rooms" into some stores and, earlier this year, rolled out a service called "Joint Venture" to provide a separate program for business customers. In a recent meeting for retail managers, Mr. Johnson called these services among the "pillars for retail for the next decade," according to a person who attended.

What hasn't changed is Mr. Jobs's interest in the stores. He has provided input on details down to the type of security cables used to keep products leashed to the tables, according to a person familiar with the matter. When the CEO grappled with a liver transplant two years ago, a person who visited him at the time said Mr. Jobs was poring over blueprints for future Apple stores.



To: Uncle Frank who wrote (2826)6/17/2011 11:13:24 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 2955
 
Oracle wants billions from Google over Android: And just might get it

zdnet.com

By Larry Dignan | June 17, 2011, 5:51am PDT

The ongoing volley of court filings between Oracle and Google continues and it’s clear that the software giant wants billions of dollars in Android damages. When you examine some of the moving parts Oracle looks like it just may get what it wants.

Google earlier this week in a court document ripped Oracle’s expert witness and maintained that the company shouldn’t get a piece of Android-related ad revenue. Oracle fired back with another filing saying that Google is redacting too much in a move to misrepresent the situation. The key element in Oracle’s latest filing is that Google was trying to hide “references to the fact that Oracle damages claims in this case are in the billions of dollars.”

Whatever the merits of Oracle’s lawsuit against Google it’s hard to not notice that the plaintiff has some key advantages. Given that Google has an ongoing revenue stream there’s a lot at stake in this upcoming trial to determine if Android violates Java patents. In the end, Oracle’s $1.3 billion in damages against SAP may look like chump change.

Among Oracle’s key advantages:

Patents. JMP Securities analyst Patrick Walravens noted that Oracle “carries a big stick in patent litigation.” Why? Oracle has a ton of patents—many acquired through the Sun acquisition. Walravens wrote:

We estimate that Oracle has over 20,000 patents. A review of the patent office’s database suggests that Oracle is the assignee for over 12,000 patents in its own name, along with over 7,000 for Sun Microsystems and over 1,000 for its various acquisitions (including PeopleSoft, Siebel and Agile, among others). In comparison, Google is the assignee for only 689 patents.

That Google disadvantage is why the company is trying to buy Nortel’s patent portfolio.

The legal team. Oracle is using David Boies of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP. That’s the legal team that won Oracle $1.3 billion from SAP. Oracle’s second law firm in the Oracle vs. Google case is Morrison & Foerster, which has Michael Jacobs as lead attorney. Jacobs helped Apple defeat a patent infringement lawsuit in summary judgment.

Oracle isn’t intimidated. One long-time tech watcher said yesterday that “Oracle thinks it can sue all of its competition into oblivion.” Given the SAP win, it’s only logical that Oracle would continue to run a winning play.

The return on investment motive. When Oracle bought Sun Microsystems, Java was one of the crown jewels—even though the software was never really monetized. At the time, Oracle’s acquisition of Sun’s Java looked like it was more a matter of controlling its own software destiny. Oracle’s middleware is largely Java based. But let’s say that Oracle gets a nice round number in damages out of Google like $2 billion and then ongoing payments for Android devices. Oracle paid $5.6 billion for Sun net of cash and debt. Simply put, if this Android lawsuit bounces Oracle’s way the company could recoup half its outlay for the Sun acquisition.

You’d think that Google and its nearly unlimited resources would win most lawsuits. The difference this time is Google is facing an equally well-heeled foe with a bit of an attitude.



To: Uncle Frank who wrote (2826)6/18/2011 5:08:33 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 2955
 
Apple vs. Wintel: t.co



To: Uncle Frank who wrote (2826)7/13/2011 7:31:14 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 2955
 
Amazon Plans iPad Rival

online.wsj.com

By STU WOO And YUKARI IWATANI KANE
Wall Street Journal
JULY 13, 2011, 5:35 P.M. ET

Amazon.com Inc. plans to introduce a tablet computer before October, said people familiar with the matter, in a move that will heighten the online retailer's rivalry with Apple Inc.

The Seattle-based company will also release two updated versions of its popular Kindle electronic reader in the third quarter of the year, the people said. One will be a touch-screen device. The other won't have a touch screen, but will be an improved and cheaper adaptation of the current Kindle, said people who have seen the device.

An Amazon spokesman didn't return requests for comment. The company's chief executive, Jeff Bezos, has hinted about a forthcoming tablet in recent media appearances.

The new tablet will intensify a growing clash between Amazon and Apple. The two tech-industry titans are already fighting for customers for their respective digital book, music and video businesses. Now Amazon will have a device that will compete closely against Apple's popular iPad, as well as other tablets such as Samsung Electronic Co.'s Galaxy Tab.

The Amazon tablet will have a roughly nine-inch screen, people familiar with the product said, and will run on Google Inc.'s Android operating system. The online retailer isn't designing the device itself, but is outsourcing production to an Asian manufacturer, these people said.

The device will not have a camera, said one person familiar with it.

The tablet will allow Amazon customers to easily watch videos, read electronic books and listen to digital music they purchase or rent from the online retailer.

The two new black-and-white Kindle electronic readers will use the same technology as in the previous Kindles, in which the screens mimic the appearance of ink on paper. The touch-screen version will compete against similar devices that two other e-reader makers, Barnes & Noble Inc. and Kobo Inc., released in May.

Amazon on Wednesday also lowered the price of its current Kindle. The version with 3G Internet access now costs $139, down from $164, but it comes with ads sponsored by AT&T Inc. The cost of the ad-free version remains at $189.

Amazon has said the Kindle is its best-selling product of all time, but it hasn't released sales figures. Forrester Research analyst James McQuivey said there are about 7.5 million Kindles in the U.S., which gives Amazon a two-thirds share of the $1 billion digital-book market.



To: Uncle Frank who wrote (2826)7/22/2011 4:20:16 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 2955
 

"iPad was a $6 billion business last quarter. That is twice as big as Dell’s entire consumer PC business." Whoa. http://nyti.ms/nElmEP



To: Uncle Frank who wrote (2826)7/24/2011 1:57:21 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 2955
 
Google Spending Millions to Find the Next Google

By CLAIRE CAIN MILLER
New York Times
July 19, 2011

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. — Google thinks it can be young and crazy again. And it is betting $200 million that it is right.

In the hottest market for technology start-up companies in over a decade, the Silicon Valley behemoth is playing venture capitalist in a rush to discover the next Facebook or Zynga.

Other pedigreed tech companies are doing the same, as venture capital dollars coming from corporations approach levels last seen in the dot-com bubble era of 2000.

To some, it is a telltale sign of an overheated industry, symptomatic of a late and ill-advised rush to invest during good times. But Google says it has a weapon to guide it in picking investments — a Google-y secret sauce, which means using data-driven algorithms to analyze the would-be next big thing.

Never mind that there often is very little data because the companies are so young, and that most venture capitalists say investing is more of an art than a science. At Google, even art is quantifiable.

“Investing is being in a dark room and trying to find the way out,” said Bill Maris, the managing partner of Google Ventures, the corporate investment arm. “If you have a match, you should light it.”

Corporate venture funds invested $583 million in start-ups in the first three months of the year, according to the National Venture Capital Association, up from $443 million in the same period last year and $245 million in 2009, before tech investing began its rapid turnaround. Today, 10 percent of venture capital dollars comes from corporations, nearing the previous bubble-era high of 15 percent in 2000.

Facebook, Zynga and Amazon.com are investing in social media start-ups. AOL Ventures restarted last year after three previous efforts, and Intel Capital expects to invest more this year than the $327 million it invested last year. Google Ventures says it has invested as much money in the first half of this year as in all of last, and Larry Page, the company’s co-founder, who became chief executive this spring, has promised to keep the coffers wide open.

Corporate venture arms have sprung into action before during boom times, like the early 1980s and the late 1990s, but they have had mixed records.

“When the corporate guys get involved, it usually means that we’re at the top of the market,” said Andrew S. Rachleff, who teaches venture capital at Stanford and was a founder of Benchmark Capital, the venture firm.

Mr. Rachleff also questioned Google’s reliance on its algorithms. “There’s no analysis to be done when you’re evaluating a company that’s creating a new market, because there’s no market to analyze,” he said. “You have to apply judgment.”

Although even Mr. Maris compares venture investing to “buying lottery tickets,” Google says it has faith in its algorithms. At the same time, it is taking the unusual step of providing the chosen start-ups with access to its 28,770 employees for engineering, recruiting and business advice, and offering office space at the Googleplex and classes on building a business.

Mr. Page, who declined a request for an interview, has already promised Google Ventures $200 million this year and says a virtually unlimited amount is available, Mr. Maris said, as Google reconnects with its start-up roots. “I’ve had conversations with Larry when he says, ‘Do as much as you can, as fast as you can in as big and disruptive a way as possible,’ ” he said.

Google says its approach is paying off. One of its investments, Ngmoco, was acquired by a Japanese gaming company, DeNA, for up to $400 million, and another, HomeAway, for renting vacation homes, received a warm welcome from investors when it went public last month. A third, Silver Spring Networks, a smart-grid company, filed to go public last week.

Google Ventures invests in various areas — the Web, biotechnology and clean technology. It puts large amounts of money into mature companies, but it is also investing small amounts in 100 new companies this year.

To make its picks, the company has built computer algorithms using data from past venture investments and academic literature. For example, for individual companies, Google enters data about how long the founders worked on start-ups before raising money and whether the founders successfully started companies in the past.

It runs similar information about potential investments through the get a red, yellow or green light.

Google says the algorithms have taught it valuable lessons, from obvious ones (entrepreneurs who have started successful companies are more likely to do it again) to less obvious ones (start-ups located far from the venture capitalist’s office are more likely to be successful, probably because the firm has to go out of its way to finance the start-up.)

Start-ups backed by Google Ventures can work in a 20,000-square-foot space at the Googleplex, supplied with a Ping-Pong table and a snack-filled kitchen. In exchange, they make a $5-a-month donation to the barbecue fund.

But the company offers a lot more than space, say the chosen entrepreneurs. Adimab, a biotech company, is using free space on Google’s enormous servers. EnglishCentral, an English-language education site, tested its coursework and accents for Japanese speakers with employees in Google’s Japan office. Google shared a contact list for airport chief information officers with Scvngr, a mobile gaming company, when it wanted to partner with airports.

Craig Walker, a serial entrepreneur who recently started Firespotter Labs, backed by Google Ventures, said a Google recruiter had helped him hire engineers.

“A lot of times V.C.’s will say, ‘We’re not just money, we’re value-add,’ and I’ve always been somewhat doubtful of those claims,” Mr. Walker said. “With Google Ventures, those claims are completely justified.”

Still, some entrepreneurs who have worked with Google Ventures say Google’s drive to analyze everything exhaustively, even for small investments in untried companies, slows the investment process when compared with other firms.

Google Ventures also turns to Google employees to find investment ideas. It offers $10,000 to anyone who suggests a start-up that results in an investment. And the company has invested in three of the ex-Google employees who have been leaving as the company grows.

Like the entrepreneurs, Mr. Maris has learned a lesson from Google: meet founders, even if their start-up idea sounds crazy.

Fifteen years ago, a friend of his, Anne Wojcicki, suggested he meet a couple of engineers who were working on a start-up in her sister’s garage, but he declined. The start-up was Google, which still makes him cringe.

“It’s ironic I’m running the venture business now,” Mr. Maris said, “because I missed the biggest venture idea of all time.”



To: Uncle Frank who wrote (2826)7/31/2011 5:02:16 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 2955
 
Creative destruction in action: Apple goes from 1% to 66% of mobile phone profits in 4 years, crushing competition

slashgear.com