For all the technological advances we've made over the past few decades, dealing with email remains a horrible, heinous, please-stop-making-me-do-this experience. But email is far too ingrained in our lives to be disregarded entirely. So we cope.
The new Mailbox app for the iPhone cleverly lets Gmail users manage their inbox with simple gestures
The latest tool to help us navigate through email hell is Mailbox, an iPhone app that brings a shiny new interface to Gmail accounts that speeds up the email organizing / prioritizing / management process.
It turns out this free little app is actually quite good.
To cut through swaths of unwanted noise, Mailbox takes its inspiration from any to-do app you'd find on a smartphone or computer. Your inbox behaves like a list and every email is treated like a task.
By swiping to the left or the right on any email sitting in your inbox, you can schedule an email to resurface at the top of your list at a later time, check it off and archive it, file it away to a secondary list, or delete it entirely.
When you open an email, those same four actions can be carried out by tapping one of the four icons running across the top of the screen. And like any other good email app, you have the option to reply, forward and star emails.
Related story: Google's iPhone Gmail app is finally pretty good
The scheduling action is especially useful as it allows you to put off something you either can't or don't want to deal with now -- but it doesn't let you forget about it. And if you establish the habit of filing away emails to sub-lists and routinely check them, Mailbox becomes a handy tool for planning things you want to do in the future.
In my case, it helped me stay on top of email announcements for concerts and movies, and I could easily revisit the random assortment of links I receive from friends.
It's a well-executed design. Once you get the hang of it, the vast majority of your email management (replies notwithstanding) can be accomplished with a swipe and a single tap. No other app on the iPhone lets you organize your inbox as quickly and efficiently.
New iPhone app vows to fix e-mail clutter
If you use Gmail on other devices, don't worry: Mailbox doesn't actually mess with much in your actual Gmail account. When a scheduled message pops up at the top of your feed in Mailbox, it's really just sitting in a folder when you look it up in Gmail. When you archive a message in Mailbox, it is simply marked as read. The benefits of Mailbox are almost exclusively felt while using the app: It doesn't derail your email if you use another Gmail app.
Mailbox certainly has its limitations. Mailbox only stores a limited amount of mail locally -- which is the norm for most apps -- but it doesn't yet have a function to search Gmail's servers. That means anything you haven't filed away or read disappears after a few days (give or take, depending on how busy your inbox is).
Advanced Gmail features like labeling and priority inboxes are absent in Mailbox.
Mailbox plans to add premium paid features in the future, but the company hasn't yet said what those will be.
The biggest drawback, of course, is you can only use it with Gmail. Hopefully, Mailbox will add more email services as it gains more users. For now, those hoping to use this with their Exchange accounts are out of luck.
The app will start rolling out to a small subset of existing users starting Thursday, but you can get it by signing up on Mailbox's website.
There's no silver e-mail bullet, but if you're someone who's constantly overwhelmed by their Gmail inbox or prone losing track of important messages, you'll likely find Mailbox to be a welcome, refreshing change.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/07/technology/mobile/mailbox-email-app-review/index.html?iid=SF_T_River
วันเสาร์ที่ 9 กุมภาพันธ์ พ.ศ. 2556
Report: Apple is ringing up iPhone sales in India
Has Apple finally found a way to crack the Indian market?
FORTUNE -- Two data points from the subcontinent, where Apple's (AAPL) iPhone sales have been notoriously slow to take off.
At Asymconf: California last week, Paul Brody, IBM (IBM) vice president for electronic global business services, told attendees that he had just come back from India where mobile carriers are activating iPhones at the rate of 2,000 per day.
The Times of India reported Friday that sales of Apple devices -- especially iPhones -- have increased three or four fold in the past three months.
"Apple is doing what it did in China three or four years ago," Jayanth Kolla, founder of the research firm Convergence Catalyst, told the Times. "They studied the market, learned consumer needs and suddenly went aggressive. From having about 30 people here six months ago, Apple India is now about 150-people strong."
The Times cites analysts who say Apple is pivoting away from its traditional reliance on local carriers and has begun aggressively marketing the iPhone directly to high-end consumers.
See also: Is India getting Apple fever?
keyword : Apple, India, iPhone
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/02/08/apple-iphone-india/?iid=A_T_News
Google's Schmidt selling $2.5 billion in stock
Google (GOOG, Fortune 500) executive chairman Eric Schmidt plans to sell a big chunk of his stake in the Web search company.
Schmidt, who was Google's CEO from 2001-2011, will sell up to 3.2 million shares of Google stock, worth about $2.5 billion, according to a filing with the SEC late Friday.
That would leave him with 4.4 million shares, or a 1.3% stake, and 5% voting power. That's a little more than half of what he owned at the end of last year.
Schmidt owned 7.6 million shares, which gave him 8.2% of the voting power, as of Dec. 31. This sale is part of a pre-arranged stock trading plan the company approved in November that allowed Schmidt to begin selling his stock this month.
"Using this trading plan, Eric can diversify his investment portfolio and can spread stock trades out over a period of one year to reduce market impact," said Google in the filing.
Just last week, Google's stock soared to an all-time high on hope that the company was nearing a settlement with European regulators over an antitrust probe. Turns out the European Commission says it's still reviewing proposals submitted by Google. But the hint of a settlement was enough for investors to jump in.
Related: 5 reasons why Google has its mojo back
Google's stock has been on a tear over the past six months as the company continues to activate a million Android devices a day, has successfully expanded into the broadband, cable and wireless arenas, and remains the dominant search engine.
Despite more competition from Microsoft (MSFT, Fortune 500) and Facebook (FB), neither has yet threatened Google's top spot.
Shares of Google edged lower in after-hours trading.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/08/investing/google-schmidt-stock/index.html?iid=A_T_News
How would Steve Jobs return cash to his shareholders?
Simply and transparently? Or through a complex scheme designed by a hedge fund?
FORTUNE -- After Thursday's Wall Street drama -- in which a media blitz orchestrated by hedge fund billionaire David Einhorn got a rise out of Apple (AAPL) management and a pop in the stock price -- I have a few thoughts about what's going on.
First, I take the company at its word (see statement) that it's got way more cash than it needs and is serious about returning more of it to Apple's shareholders. $137 billion is a lot of money, especially for a company that doesn't go in for big, transformative acquisitions.
Apple also says it welcomes Einhorn's views and promises to "thoroughly evaluate" his proposals for reallocating its capital. Here I have my doubts.
For starters, let's look at the lawsuit Einhorn filed and the proxy fight he launched.
Einhorn told Reuters Thursday that he felt "blindsided" when he received Apple's proxy statement in January. He had tried to talk Apple management into issuing a 4% dividend to existing shareholders, like him, in the form of a so-called perpetual preferred stock. He claims that an amendment in Apple's proxy would close off that option. But what the amendment actually proposes to eliminate is "blank check" preferred stock -- shares with special rights issued by management without shareholder approval. Einhorn is lobbying ordinary investors to vote against transparency and shareholder rights!
Second, the more I look at Einhorn's preferred stock option, the less I like it. To get a feel for its complexity and the effect it might have on the value of Apple's common stock, I encourage you to read through the e-mail exchange between Einhorn and Business Insider's Henry Blodget -- a guy who knows a bit about financial finagling.
I have to ask myself, if Steve Jobs were going to return cash to his shareholders, would he use a complicated scheme designed by a hedge fund manager and pushed through without shareholder approval?
Or would he simply increase the dividend that Apple is already paying?
Tim Cook is scheduled to speak at a Goldman Sachs investor summit next Tuesday, Feb. 12, and Apple will hold its annual shareholder meeting on Feb. 27. This could get interesting.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/02/08/apple-einhorn-cash-steve-jobs/?iid=A_T_News
White House details pending budget cuts
Some 600,000 poor women and children will no longer get free milk and cheese, and some 2,100 fewer food inspections will take place if federal budget cuts expected to kick in March 1 actually take place.
The White House warned Friday that some $85 billion in budget cuts coming as a part of the "sequester" will end up carving some 9% from non-defense programs and 13% from defense programs, because the cuts take place over 7 months instead of 12.
The cuts are a part of a larger effort to trim $1.2 trillion from federal deficits over ten years.
"These are large and arbitrary cuts, and will have severe impacts across government," said Danny Werfel, federal controller of the Office of Management and Budget.
The White House budget office had been mum on how the cuts would fall. But last week, federal agencies notified hundreds of thousands of federal workers that furloughs could be around the corner, Werfel said.
The memo wasn't the official 30-day notice required by federal law, but Werfel suggested that could be coming.
Related: Calendar of fiscal crazy: Congress and the budget
President Obama this week started pushing Congress to delay the cuts by a few months, allowing time to pass a more comprehensive new budget that both cuts expenses and hikes taxes.
House Republicans say they also don't want the sequester to happen, but they note they've passed legislation that would replace it "with common sense cuts and reforms," specifically to mandatory spending programs like Social Security and Medicare.
Agencies have been providing the White House different tallies of how they'd carry out budget cuts, which the administration is using to push for what it calls a "more balanced" approach.
Other program cuts the White House budget office detailed include:
-- 70,000 children would get kicked out of early childhood intervention programs that help poorer children catch up to middle-class peers, heading into kindergarten.
-- 1,000 fewer criminals would be prosecuted due to furloughed federal prosecutors.
-- 4 million fewer "Meals on Wheels" would be delivered to the elderly.
-- 1,000 fewer research grants would be awarded, cutting research and laboratories for some 12,000 scientists and students.
If the sequester takes effect, economic growth will slow. By some estimates, up to 1 million jobs will be lost. Federal workers will be furloughed, and a bevy of programs and services across the government will be curtailed.
House Republicans want to replace the defense cuts with more nondefense cuts, something Democrats reject. Democrats want to replace the cuts with a mix of more targeted cuts and tax increases; Republicans reject the tax hikes.
"We're glad they're laying out the devastating consequences of the president's sequester, but the question remains: What are they willing to do to prevent it?" said Brendan Buck, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner.
Though lawmakers agree the sequester is a terrible idea, many think it might be preferable to cutting a new deal they like even less.
Entitlements such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, which fall under mandatory spending, would be largely protected from the cuts
The White House warned Friday that some $85 billion in budget cuts coming as a part of the "sequester" will end up carving some 9% from non-defense programs and 13% from defense programs, because the cuts take place over 7 months instead of 12.
The cuts are a part of a larger effort to trim $1.2 trillion from federal deficits over ten years.
"These are large and arbitrary cuts, and will have severe impacts across government," said Danny Werfel, federal controller of the Office of Management and Budget.
The White House budget office had been mum on how the cuts would fall. But last week, federal agencies notified hundreds of thousands of federal workers that furloughs could be around the corner, Werfel said.
The memo wasn't the official 30-day notice required by federal law, but Werfel suggested that could be coming.
Related: Calendar of fiscal crazy: Congress and the budget
President Obama this week started pushing Congress to delay the cuts by a few months, allowing time to pass a more comprehensive new budget that both cuts expenses and hikes taxes.
House Republicans say they also don't want the sequester to happen, but they note they've passed legislation that would replace it "with common sense cuts and reforms," specifically to mandatory spending programs like Social Security and Medicare.
Agencies have been providing the White House different tallies of how they'd carry out budget cuts, which the administration is using to push for what it calls a "more balanced" approach.
Other program cuts the White House budget office detailed include:
-- 70,000 children would get kicked out of early childhood intervention programs that help poorer children catch up to middle-class peers, heading into kindergarten.
-- 1,000 fewer criminals would be prosecuted due to furloughed federal prosecutors.
-- 4 million fewer "Meals on Wheels" would be delivered to the elderly.
-- 1,000 fewer research grants would be awarded, cutting research and laboratories for some 12,000 scientists and students.
If the sequester takes effect, economic growth will slow. By some estimates, up to 1 million jobs will be lost. Federal workers will be furloughed, and a bevy of programs and services across the government will be curtailed.
House Republicans want to replace the defense cuts with more nondefense cuts, something Democrats reject. Democrats want to replace the cuts with a mix of more targeted cuts and tax increases; Republicans reject the tax hikes.
"We're glad they're laying out the devastating consequences of the president's sequester, but the question remains: What are they willing to do to prevent it?" said Brendan Buck, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner.
Though lawmakers agree the sequester is a terrible idea, many think it might be preferable to cutting a new deal they like even less.
Entitlements such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, which fall under mandatory spending, would be largely protected from the cuts
LinkedIn proves it's no Facebook (in a good way)
Post-IPO life hasn't been kind to Facebook and other newly public social startups, whose plummeting shares have left investors downtrodden. But LinkedIn, the first of the big social network upstarts to go public, continues to prove it can be a money-making machine.
Wall Street analysts had high expectations for LinkedIn's (LNKD) fourth quarter, and the company still beat on both counts. LInkedIn netted $40.2 million, or 35 cents per share -- more than three times as much as the $13 million it made a year earlier.
Sales came in at $303.6 million during the past quarter, up 81% over the year.
Shares rose 19% in morning trading, reaching an all-time high of $147.43.
As a business networking site, LinkedIn might not be as sexy as Facebook (FB) and other buzzy startups. But from the start, LinkedIn stood out from the newly public pack. The likes of Yelp (YELP), Pandora (P) and Groupon (GRPN) weren't profitable when they decided to go public, but LinkedIn was earning money and had a solid business model to boot.
The company has touted its multiple-revenue-stream approach, and all three money-making sectors were strong last quarter.
Sales from job-recruitment tools rose 90% over the year, accounting for more than half of the company's overall revenue.
Ads and other marketing revenue increased by more than two-thirds over the year. Advertising represents just a quarter of LinkedIn's revenue -- at Facebook, by contrast, ad sales account for 84% of revenue, and they were up only 41% last quarter.
The final fifth of LinkedIn's sales comes from subscribers who pay for premium accounts.
The company didn't shed much light on mobile, however, a continued pressure point for social networks like Facebook. Facebook shares are finally turning around now that the company is beginning to serve ads to mobile users, and Zynga posted a surprise profit on Tuesday as its mobile userbase expanded.
On a conference call with analysts, CEO Jeff Weiner said about 27% of the site's visitors last quarter came from mobile apps, a 15% jump from a year ago, and about one-third of people looking at job postings came from mobile devices.
One analyst on the call asked about LinkedIn's ongoing testing of mobile ads, and Weiner stressed it's "still early." Because of the limited space on smartphones in particular, the company wants to "be thoughtful" about its mobile ad rollout, Weiner said.
Meanwhile, LinkedIn's overall userbase is growing. The company passed the 200 million member mark during the fourth quarter, representing a nearly 40% increase from the same quarter last year. It's adding about two members per second, and the international market is especially hot: More than 64% of LinkedIn members live outside the United States.
The company also touted its fourth-quarter redesign of LinkedIn profiles, saying that nearly twice as many members updated their pages versus the fourth quarter of 2011. LinkedIn did not provide specific numbers on that point.
LinkedIn expects sales of about $307 million for the first quarter, and about $1.43 billion for the full year. Both figures were in line with the outlook analysts expected.
The social network continues to outperform more traditional job search competitors as well. Monster Worldwide (MWW) Thursday morning reported a $73 million loss last quarter, and the company decided to exit some foreign markets to focus on its U.S. business.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/07/technology/social/linkedin-earnings/index.html
Wall Street analysts had high expectations for LinkedIn's (LNKD) fourth quarter, and the company still beat on both counts. LInkedIn netted $40.2 million, or 35 cents per share -- more than three times as much as the $13 million it made a year earlier.
Sales came in at $303.6 million during the past quarter, up 81% over the year.
Shares rose 19% in morning trading, reaching an all-time high of $147.43.
As a business networking site, LinkedIn might not be as sexy as Facebook (FB) and other buzzy startups. But from the start, LinkedIn stood out from the newly public pack. The likes of Yelp (YELP), Pandora (P) and Groupon (GRPN) weren't profitable when they decided to go public, but LinkedIn was earning money and had a solid business model to boot.
The company has touted its multiple-revenue-stream approach, and all three money-making sectors were strong last quarter.
Sales from job-recruitment tools rose 90% over the year, accounting for more than half of the company's overall revenue.
Ads and other marketing revenue increased by more than two-thirds over the year. Advertising represents just a quarter of LinkedIn's revenue -- at Facebook, by contrast, ad sales account for 84% of revenue, and they were up only 41% last quarter.
The final fifth of LinkedIn's sales comes from subscribers who pay for premium accounts.
The company didn't shed much light on mobile, however, a continued pressure point for social networks like Facebook. Facebook shares are finally turning around now that the company is beginning to serve ads to mobile users, and Zynga posted a surprise profit on Tuesday as its mobile userbase expanded.
On a conference call with analysts, CEO Jeff Weiner said about 27% of the site's visitors last quarter came from mobile apps, a 15% jump from a year ago, and about one-third of people looking at job postings came from mobile devices.
One analyst on the call asked about LinkedIn's ongoing testing of mobile ads, and Weiner stressed it's "still early." Because of the limited space on smartphones in particular, the company wants to "be thoughtful" about its mobile ad rollout, Weiner said.
Meanwhile, LinkedIn's overall userbase is growing. The company passed the 200 million member mark during the fourth quarter, representing a nearly 40% increase from the same quarter last year. It's adding about two members per second, and the international market is especially hot: More than 64% of LinkedIn members live outside the United States.
The company also touted its fourth-quarter redesign of LinkedIn profiles, saying that nearly twice as many members updated their pages versus the fourth quarter of 2011. LinkedIn did not provide specific numbers on that point.
LinkedIn expects sales of about $307 million for the first quarter, and about $1.43 billion for the full year. Both figures were in line with the outlook analysts expected.
The social network continues to outperform more traditional job search competitors as well. Monster Worldwide (MWW) Thursday morning reported a $73 million loss last quarter, and the company decided to exit some foreign markets to focus on its U.S. business.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/07/technology/social/linkedin-earnings/index.html
Mecca redevelopment sparks heritage concerns
An Ottoman-era portico in Mecca's Grand Mosque has become the latest battleground in a conflict between those who want to preserve the city's architectural heritage and Saudi authorities pushing for redevelopment.
The 17th century portico -- one of the oldest parts of the Grand Mosque, Islam's holiest -- is being removed by Mecca authorities as part of an expansion project to create more space for soaring numbers of pilgrims.
Millions of people visit Mecca and Medina annually (two million of them during the Hajj pilgrimage alone), a number that is only expected to grow rapidly in the coming years.
However, one UK-based Saudi historian says what Saudi authorities are doing in Mecca amounts to "cultural vandalism."
(The authorities) want to offer more space to the pilgrims to avoid crowds
Mohammed Jom'a, Saudi Binladin Group
Irfan Al Alawi, executive director of the Islamic Heritage Research Foundation, which seeks to preserve historical sites in Saudi Arabia, says significant features of Mecca and Medina's architectural history are being lost on account of the renovations.
He has called on the Muslim world to voice its disapproval at the demolitions, which he likened to the torching of ancient manuscripts by Islamists in Timbuktu, Mali.
Every follower must carry out the Hajj once in their lives, if physically and financially able to do so. Overcrowding at the Hajj has resulted in fatal stampedes on a number of occasions, with 1,426 pilgrims killed in 1990 and more than 350 killed in 2006.
Saudi Binladin Group's Mohammed Jom'a, the supervisor of the project at Mecca's Grand Mosque, told CNN the expansion would triple the amount of space there.
"(The authorities) want to offer more space to the pilgrims to avoid crowds," he said.
But Al Alawi says there's a better way.
"I'm not against expanding the mosques at all, but there are ways you can go about it without destroying the historical aspects of these sites," he said. "Rather than engaging with heritage concerns, the Saudis are simply not interested."
Clashes with Turkey
Turkey says it is alarmed by the loss of the Ottoman portico and its Foreign Affairs Ministry has been in correspondence with the Saudis over the matter since 2010.
More from Inside the Middle East: Can Iraq's geeks save the country?
"It is very important to preserve the Kaaba porches as the legacy of the Ottoman Empire where they stand," Turkey's Directorate for Cultural Properties and Museums said in a statement to CNN.
Rather than engaging with heritage concerns, the Saudis are simply not interested
Irfan Al Alawi, executive director of the Islamic Heritage Research Foundation
CNN contacted the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs, local officials in Saudi Arabia, including the Mayor and Municipality of Mecca and the Saudi Embassy in London. But we were unsuccessful in getting a response to our request for comment.
Al Alawi said the authorities were inclined not to value aspects of Mecca's heritage that dated from before Saudi control over the city -- such as the portico, going back centuries to Ottoman sovereignty over the city -- because that evidence of a pre-Saudi Mecca undermined the kingdom's important position in the Islamic world as guardians of the city.
This is not the first time Saudi authorities have clashed with Turkey over the destruction of Ottoman-era buildings in Mecca, which Turkey views as in important part of a shared Islamic heritage.
In 2002, Ankara made a heated protest about the destruction of Mecca's Al Ajyad fortress, built on a hill overlooking the Kaaba in the late 18th century.
Both the citadel and the hill it sat on were demolished to make way for the skyscraper city that today looms over the Grand Mosque, prompting Turkey's then Minister of Culture, Istemihan Talay, to accuse the Saudis of an "act of barbarism."
Mecca's changing face
Over the past 10 years, Mecca's skyline has transformed.
Lavish skyscrapers now tower over devotees circling the Kaaba in the Grand Mosque.
Most imposing is the Royal Mecca Clock Tower, a 120-floor hotel that resembles London's Big Ben and which, at 601 meters, is the world's second tallest building.
The U.S.-based Institute for Gulf Affairs estimates that 95% of Mecca's millennium-old buildings have been demolished in the past two decades.
Saudi authorities say the changes are part of a push to modernize offerings to pilgrims, who have traditionally stayed in austere lodgings.
The Saudi government is also pushing forward with major redevelopments at Medina's Mosque of the Prophet -- where the Prophet is believed to be buried.
More from Inside the Middle East: Palestinian women change motor racing up a gear
Al Alawi claims the threat to the heritage of the mosques adds to a wider pattern of destruction of historic sites in Saudi Arabia. He says it reflects an ideological agenda stemming from the kingdom's ultraconservative Wahhabist brand of Islam.
He added that the Wahhabis place great emphasis on avoiding the sin of "shirq" -- idolatry, or polytheism -- which they believe is encouraged by shrines, tombs or anything that could promote alternative forms of worship, or the veneration of an entity other than Allah.
The Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice says it plans to close or eradicate 14 historic sites around Mecca, so that pilgrims from other countries cannot engage in idolatrous rituals there, the Saudi Gazette reported last month.
If the Saudi government decided to expand then this is because they care about Islam more than the heritage
Sheikh Ahmed Yousef, leader of Egypt's Ansar Al Sunna Al Muhammadyeh
As a consequence of their Wahhabist beliefs, said Al Alawi, the Saudis had systematically destroyed such sites since the early days of the kingdom.
Demolitions over the decades
In 1925, the year the first Saudi king, Ibn Saud, captured Medina, the Saudis demolished the mausoleums in al-Baqi cemetery attached to the Mosque of the Prophet.
More from Inside the Middle East: Who will win battle for the new Tunisia?
The raids at al-Baqi -- which is believed to house the remains of number of the prophet's wives, children and other relatives -- and at the Mualla cemetery in Mecca, caused an outcry from the international Muslim community. Some still mourn the destruction as a "day of sorrow."
Separately, the site of the house said to belong to the prophet's first wife, Khadijah, which Al Alawi was involved in excavating in the 1980s, today contains a toilet block for pilgrims, while the site believed to be the prophet's birthplace was a cattle market before being turned into a library.
Some Salafist groups abroad, such as Egypt's Ansar Al Sunna Al Muhammadyeh, support the renovations around the Grand Mosque.
"We do not sanctify places or people, but we go according to what the Quran said and what the Prophet said," the group's secretary general, Sheikh Ahmed Yousef, told CNN.
"There is no place that is holier than the Kaaba, so if the Saudi government decided to expand then this is because they care about Islam more than the heritage."
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/07/world/meast/saudi-heritage-destruction-mecca/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
Obama's Parting Gift to Hillary Clinton
Last week campaign disclosure reports revealed that Hillary Clinton had finally retired the debt from her 2008 presidential campaign—with a little help from the guy who beat her, Barack Obama. Clinton’s debt once totaled more than $20 million, although it had dwindled to about $250,000 by last year. That’s when a team of top Obama donors decided to surprise Clinton, and thank her for her loyal service, by raising enough money to pay off her bills. As secretary of state, she was forbidden from political fundraising.
President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton board Air Force One as they leave Myanmar at Yangon International airport in 2012.
According to a person involved in the effort who did not want to be named talking about internal fundraising strategy, the effort was launched last April by Steve Spinner, a California finance chairman for the Obama campaign; Jane Stetson, the former Democratic National Committee finance chairwoman; and Henry Munoz, the incoming DNC finance chairman. The challenge was tougher than it may appear, since it required a particular kind of donor. In order not to run afoul of campaign finance laws, the Obama team had to find people who had not already given Clinton the 2008 maximum primary donation of $2,300 or maxed out their total federal candidate donations during the 2012 cycle ($46,200). And of course, those people also had to be warmly disposed toward Clinton and still have plenty of free cash on hand.
The team found them by assigning an intern to comb through the records at OpenSecrets.org and see who still had room to give. In the end, it took the checkbooks of about 120 people and several months to retire the debt—I’m told the last check arrived in early July. And as it turned out, the Obama folks substantially overshot the mark. Clinton’s campaign, which has not yet formally been shut down, now shows a surplus of about $205,000.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-28/obamas-parting-gift-to-hillary-clinton#r=read
President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton board Air Force One as they leave Myanmar at Yangon International airport in 2012.
According to a person involved in the effort who did not want to be named talking about internal fundraising strategy, the effort was launched last April by Steve Spinner, a California finance chairman for the Obama campaign; Jane Stetson, the former Democratic National Committee finance chairwoman; and Henry Munoz, the incoming DNC finance chairman. The challenge was tougher than it may appear, since it required a particular kind of donor. In order not to run afoul of campaign finance laws, the Obama team had to find people who had not already given Clinton the 2008 maximum primary donation of $2,300 or maxed out their total federal candidate donations during the 2012 cycle ($46,200). And of course, those people also had to be warmly disposed toward Clinton and still have plenty of free cash on hand.
The team found them by assigning an intern to comb through the records at OpenSecrets.org and see who still had room to give. In the end, it took the checkbooks of about 120 people and several months to retire the debt—I’m told the last check arrived in early July. And as it turned out, the Obama folks substantially overshot the mark. Clinton’s campaign, which has not yet formally been shut down, now shows a surplus of about $205,000.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-28/obamas-parting-gift-to-hillary-clinton#r=read
Killing Nemo: Weather Channel's Storm Name Irks Some
Ready for Winter Storm Nemo? New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is, not to mention New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, publisher of Bloomberg Businessweek). But at least one area of government isn’t taking the bait: the National Weather Service.
The nation’s weather agency has actively fought Nemo, Athena, Brutus, and other catchy Greek names the Weather Channel has used to brand winter storms this season. It just wishes others would do the same. “We don’t name winter storms,” says agency spokeswoman Susan Buchanan. The official reason is that a storm’s impact can vary from one location to another, making it difficult to define where one ends and another begins.
But the fact that a commercial network is behind the new monikers clearly irks folks at the nation’s weather authority, too. “There are a lot of private weather providers in the country,” Buchanan says. “The Weather Channel is just one of them.”
True, but none match the heft of the NBCUniversal (CMCSA) channel that started life in 1982 with the slogan “We Take The Weather Seriously, But Not Ourselves.” It has since moved on to more authoritative tag lines, but clearly hasn’t abandoned its knack for branding. Nemo, far from being pulled from the annals of Pixar Animation Studios’ (DIS) popular fish film, is the brainchild of morning show producer Pete Schwartz, who suggested using Greek or Roman names when the initiative began last fall.
And what inspired it? Twitter. More specifically, the network noticed how the hashtag #snowtober resonated on Twitter when someone in the Weather Channel’s social media department attached it to a nor’easter that came through in the fall of 2011, says Bryan Norcross, a meteorologist and hurricane specialist. He decided it was time to get more names ready to launch for fall 2012. “Everything needs a hashtag to get noticed,” he says.
The motive for getting buzz is less about branding than it is about public service, Norcross insists. He and his colleagues decided that, like hurricanes, some storms need names to get noticed. The practice is common in Europe, though BMW (BMW) discovered last year that its success in lobbying for “the Cooper” backfired when the cold wave claimed more than 100 lives.
But Norcross, who took on the project of coming up with this year’s list, says the sole purpose of the names is to draw attention to severe weather. There’s no trademark, no profit to be had—other than the ripple effects of attention like, say, er, media coverage. After dismissing popular baby names as too pedestrian, Norcross opted for his colleague’s idea. He even sent the press release to the National Weather Service before it went public. “We wanted them to know,” he says. “We didn’t expect them to use our names. The government moves at a different speed.”
Despite evidence to the contrary, Norcross says his conversations with senior staff at the federal agency have left him feeling optimistic. “They understand why we’re doing it, but they’re not sure it fits them at this point,” he says. “Their mind is open.” For now, at least, the service would love to #snowbliterate Nemo and whatever other storm god the Weather Channel folks happen to dream up.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-02-08/killing-nemo-weather-channels-storm-name-irks-some#r=read
The nation’s weather agency has actively fought Nemo, Athena, Brutus, and other catchy Greek names the Weather Channel has used to brand winter storms this season. It just wishes others would do the same. “We don’t name winter storms,” says agency spokeswoman Susan Buchanan. The official reason is that a storm’s impact can vary from one location to another, making it difficult to define where one ends and another begins.
But the fact that a commercial network is behind the new monikers clearly irks folks at the nation’s weather authority, too. “There are a lot of private weather providers in the country,” Buchanan says. “The Weather Channel is just one of them.”
True, but none match the heft of the NBCUniversal (CMCSA) channel that started life in 1982 with the slogan “We Take The Weather Seriously, But Not Ourselves.” It has since moved on to more authoritative tag lines, but clearly hasn’t abandoned its knack for branding. Nemo, far from being pulled from the annals of Pixar Animation Studios’ (DIS) popular fish film, is the brainchild of morning show producer Pete Schwartz, who suggested using Greek or Roman names when the initiative began last fall.
And what inspired it? Twitter. More specifically, the network noticed how the hashtag #snowtober resonated on Twitter when someone in the Weather Channel’s social media department attached it to a nor’easter that came through in the fall of 2011, says Bryan Norcross, a meteorologist and hurricane specialist. He decided it was time to get more names ready to launch for fall 2012. “Everything needs a hashtag to get noticed,” he says.
The motive for getting buzz is less about branding than it is about public service, Norcross insists. He and his colleagues decided that, like hurricanes, some storms need names to get noticed. The practice is common in Europe, though BMW (BMW) discovered last year that its success in lobbying for “the Cooper” backfired when the cold wave claimed more than 100 lives.
But Norcross, who took on the project of coming up with this year’s list, says the sole purpose of the names is to draw attention to severe weather. There’s no trademark, no profit to be had—other than the ripple effects of attention like, say, er, media coverage. After dismissing popular baby names as too pedestrian, Norcross opted for his colleague’s idea. He even sent the press release to the National Weather Service before it went public. “We wanted them to know,” he says. “We didn’t expect them to use our names. The government moves at a different speed.”
Despite evidence to the contrary, Norcross says his conversations with senior staff at the federal agency have left him feeling optimistic. “They understand why we’re doing it, but they’re not sure it fits them at this point,” he says. “Their mind is open.” For now, at least, the service would love to #snowbliterate Nemo and whatever other storm god the Weather Channel folks happen to dream up.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-02-08/killing-nemo-weather-channels-storm-name-irks-some#r=read
The Worst CEOs of 2012
Who are the absolute worst chief executives of 2012? Sydney Finkelstein thinks he knows. The longtime professor at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business is the author of 11 books with such titles as Why Smart Executives Fail and Think Again: Why Good Leaders Make Bad Decisions, so he knows a thing or two about utter failure. He’s been putting out his list for three years now, and last year it included the chief executives ofNetflix (NFLX), Research in Motion (RIM), and Hewlett-Packard (HPQ). Here’s the list (except where noted the companies didn’t respond to a request for comment):
1. Brian Dunn, who resigned as chief executive of Best Buy (BBY) in April after allegations surfaced that he had an inappropriate relationship with a much younger subordinate. That’s not why he’s on the list, though. Declining stock price, cratering same-store sales, loss of market share to more nimble competitors, and an addiction to share buybacks that cost the company $6.4 billion with little to show for it—that’s why he’s on the list.
2. Aubrey McClendon, the CEO of Chesapeake Energy (CHK) who apparently has trouble keeping his company’s finances and his own apart. According to Reuters, McClendon borrowed as much as $1.1 billion over three years in undisclosed loans against his stake in thousands of company wells and ran a $200 million oil-and-gas hedge fund on the side, an “obvious conflict of interest,” Finkelstein says. Use of the company jet (and company employees) for personal purposes and a corporate sponsorship deal for Oklahoma City Thunder while McClendon was an owner of the basketball team also didn’t help. Jim Gipson, a spokesman for Chesapeake Energy, declined to comment.
3. Andrea Jung, who stepped down as chief executive of Avon (AVP) in April but remains as chairman through the end of this year. Jung has been unable to fix the company’s operational problems, failed to groom a successor, and turned down a $10.7 billion offer from the beauty-care company Coty that, in retrospect, it should have leaped at. Since 2004, the company’s market value has fallen under her watch from $21 billion to $6 billion. And the company has had to spend $300 million in legal expenses related to allegations that it violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which bars bribery of foreign officials.
4. Mark Pincus, the CEO of Zynga (ZNGA), the mobile gaming company that brought the world Farmville,among other online distractions. Zynga stock is down 75 percent so far this year, and the company is losing top executive talent. Pincus has a fairly illustrious pedigree—he got a bachelor’s degree in economics from Wharton in 1988 and his MBA from Harvard Business School in 1993. But Finkelstein says he’s made some rookie mistakes, including hitching his company’s wagon much too securely to Facebook (FB), which Zynga relies on for a big chunk of revenue. And he hardly expressed confidence in the company’s prospects with his move to unload 16 million shares after the IPO lockup period ended. Joe Libonati, a spokesperson for Zynga, declined to comment.
5. Rodrigo Rato, who resigned as chairman of the Spanish lender Bankia (BKIA) in July. Rato is one of Spain’s former finance ministers and a former managing director of the IMF. He’s under investigation for fraud, price-fixing, and embezzlement in connection with Bankia’s spectacular collapse and bailout by the Spanish government. Rato has an MBA from the UC-BerkeleyHaas School of Business. In 2011, Bankia announced profit of €309 million; after Rato resigned, it was restated to a €3 billion loss. Carmen de Miguel Hombria, a spokesperson for Bankia, declined to comment.
Two other executives—Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook and Andrew Mason at Groupon (GRPN)—almost made the list. The rap on Zuckerberg is his “massive ego,” while both men get demerits for immaturity and shares that move in only one direction, and not the right one. Says Finkelstein: “There’s no reason to believe they have the management skills to run a major public company.”
And don’t get him started on the hoodie.
1. Brian Dunn, who resigned as chief executive of Best Buy (BBY) in April after allegations surfaced that he had an inappropriate relationship with a much younger subordinate. That’s not why he’s on the list, though. Declining stock price, cratering same-store sales, loss of market share to more nimble competitors, and an addiction to share buybacks that cost the company $6.4 billion with little to show for it—that’s why he’s on the list.
2. Aubrey McClendon, the CEO of Chesapeake Energy (CHK) who apparently has trouble keeping his company’s finances and his own apart. According to Reuters, McClendon borrowed as much as $1.1 billion over three years in undisclosed loans against his stake in thousands of company wells and ran a $200 million oil-and-gas hedge fund on the side, an “obvious conflict of interest,” Finkelstein says. Use of the company jet (and company employees) for personal purposes and a corporate sponsorship deal for Oklahoma City Thunder while McClendon was an owner of the basketball team also didn’t help. Jim Gipson, a spokesman for Chesapeake Energy, declined to comment.
3. Andrea Jung, who stepped down as chief executive of Avon (AVP) in April but remains as chairman through the end of this year. Jung has been unable to fix the company’s operational problems, failed to groom a successor, and turned down a $10.7 billion offer from the beauty-care company Coty that, in retrospect, it should have leaped at. Since 2004, the company’s market value has fallen under her watch from $21 billion to $6 billion. And the company has had to spend $300 million in legal expenses related to allegations that it violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which bars bribery of foreign officials.
4. Mark Pincus, the CEO of Zynga (ZNGA), the mobile gaming company that brought the world Farmville,among other online distractions. Zynga stock is down 75 percent so far this year, and the company is losing top executive talent. Pincus has a fairly illustrious pedigree—he got a bachelor’s degree in economics from Wharton in 1988 and his MBA from Harvard Business School in 1993. But Finkelstein says he’s made some rookie mistakes, including hitching his company’s wagon much too securely to Facebook (FB), which Zynga relies on for a big chunk of revenue. And he hardly expressed confidence in the company’s prospects with his move to unload 16 million shares after the IPO lockup period ended. Joe Libonati, a spokesperson for Zynga, declined to comment.
5. Rodrigo Rato, who resigned as chairman of the Spanish lender Bankia (BKIA) in July. Rato is one of Spain’s former finance ministers and a former managing director of the IMF. He’s under investigation for fraud, price-fixing, and embezzlement in connection with Bankia’s spectacular collapse and bailout by the Spanish government. Rato has an MBA from the UC-BerkeleyHaas School of Business. In 2011, Bankia announced profit of €309 million; after Rato resigned, it was restated to a €3 billion loss. Carmen de Miguel Hombria, a spokesperson for Bankia, declined to comment.
Two other executives—Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook and Andrew Mason at Groupon (GRPN)—almost made the list. The rap on Zuckerberg is his “massive ego,” while both men get demerits for immaturity and shares that move in only one direction, and not the right one. Says Finkelstein: “There’s no reason to believe they have the management skills to run a major public company.”
And don’t get him started on the hoodie.
Apple With $137 Billion in Cash Considers Preferred Stock: Tech
As Apple Inc. discusses ways to disburse some of its $137.1 billion in cash to shareholders, it will have to weigh the appeal of preferred shares against the higher dividends and buybacks favored by many investors.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-08/apple-with-137-billion-in-cash-considers-preferred-stock-tech.html
Each option has advantages. Greenlight Capital Inc.’s David Einhorn is pushing for preferred shares, saying they benefit investors. Some shareholders said they’d be satisfied with higher dividends and bigger buybacks.
Apple is considering Einhorn’s proposal, and the board andmanagement are actively discussing disbursing more cash, the company said in a statement. Directors have been working with Goldman Sachs Group Inc. to determine the best course, according to a person with knowledge of the plans, who asked not to be named because the talks are private. While many investors agree Apple should return more money, some say Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook should focus on higher dividends, share buybacks or a special dividend.
“I would like more of the cash returned,” said Michael Scanlon, senior investment analyst at Boston-based John Hancock Asset Management, whose team oversees $3.5 billion. “I am highly confident that the current dividend on the common is going to be raised very significantly in the coming years and that there will be a meaningful increase to the buyback.”
Apple said last month that it’s considering an increase in share buybacks and the quarterly dividend. Apple’s cash balance includes $16.2 billion of cash and $23.7 billion in short-term investments. The rest of the balance is invested in long-term marketable securities.
‘Ongoing Dialogue’
Einhorn is recommending that Apple issue $50 billion of preferred stock, to be traded alongside common shares and funded by operating cash flow. It would have a 4 percent annual cash dividend, paid quarterly, he said in a letter to shareholders. Preferred stock can have a higher yield and be issued without diluting the value of common shares.
Yesterday’s statement suggests Apple is softening its stance on the preferred shares, after previously saying in its annualproxy that there aren’t any plans to issue them. Apple also said it’s already committed to returning $45 billion over three years.
David Wells, a spokesman for Goldman Sachs, declined to comment.
Apple rose 1.4 percent to $474.98 at the close in New York. The shares are down 33 percent from a record in September.
“We remain committed to having an ongoing dialogue with our shareholders to get perspectives around return of capital and driving shareholder value,” Apple said in the statement.
Greenlight Sues
Preferred dividends entered the cash debate after Apple included a proposal to investors to do away with so-called blank check preferred stock offerings, which can be issued without shareholder approval, in a government filing in December. Apple said the company had no intention of issuing preferred shares and hasn’t activated any since 1997, the year the lateSteve Jobs returned to lead the company he co-founded.
Greenlight, which holds more than 1.3 million Apple shares, sued to block Apple management’s proposal, asking a federal court in Manhattan to bar Apple from certifying votes cast in its favor at Apple’s annual meeting on Feb. 27. Einhorn, who said he’s been in discussions with Apple’s management, said the cash hoard equates to about $145 a share.
“Several hundred dollars per share would be unlocked if Apple were to follow through on this suggestion,” Einhorn said in an interview on Bloomberg Television.
Preferred Shares
Preferred shares would be a way to reward investors without putting the company at risk or forcing it to incur taxes on cash brought to the U.S. from overseas, he said. In its discussions with Apple management, Greenlight suggested a preferred share distribution, with dividends funded by a small percentage of cash flow. Einhorn said Apple rejected the idea in September.
“I understand what Einhorn is trying to do, he’s trying to do it because he has such a big position,” said Colin Gillis, an analyst at BGC Partners LP in New York. He has a hold rating on Apple. “The stock is underperforming.”
A company bears more responsibility to pay dividends on preferred stock, potentially benefiting shareholders, John Hancock’s Scanlon said. He said he’s confident that Apple will boost its dividend and increase buybacks.
Institutional Shareholder Services Inc., which advises clients on how to vote on corporate proxy initiatives, recommended today that investors approve a proposal to eliminate preferred shares. Egan-Jones Proxy Services has recommended voting against the measure.
Steady Payout
Greenlight said it disagreed with ISS’s recommendation.
“We are disappointed that they did not recognize the unique circumstances surrounding a company with $137 billion of cash on its balance sheet and no realistic potential for being a takeover target,” Greenlight said in a statement.
Cupertino, California-based Apple reinstated dividends last year, part of a three-year, $45 billion plan to return cash, including buybacks. Before that, Apple last paid a dividend in 1995, before Jobs returned as CEO and led the introduction of top-selling products including the iPod, iPhone and iPad.
“As of next week we will have executed $10 billion of that plan,” Apple said.
“Investors want them to do both, really, repurchase stock and increase the dividend,” saidJames Ragan, an analyst at Crowell Weedon & Co. based in Los Angeles. He has a buy rating on Apple and owns shares. “I’d like to see Apple establish a long-term dividend increase.”
Special Dividend
Apple’s indicated dividend yield has climbed to 2.3 percent as the stock has fallen, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That compares with 1.7 percent for International Business Machines Corp and 5.1 percent for AT&T Inc., companies that offer investors slower sales growth, predictable earnings and a steady dividend. Erick Maronak, chief investment officer at Victory Capital Management Inc., said he would like to see Apple’s dividend yield at 3 percent to 4 percent. Victory Capital owns 370,000 shares of Apple stock.
A steady dividend payout would bolster the increasingly popular view among analysts that Apple is shifting to a value stock. At least 20 analysts lowered their price targets after Apple on Jan. 23 reported its slowest growth rates in years, and said the trend will continue.
Offering preferred shares with a higher dividend would ease some investors’ concerns about Apple’s slowing revenue growth and shrinking margins, according to Maronak. That would attract a new class of value investors, he said.
Another option that has been floated by analysts is a one- time special dividend, similar to the one Microsoft Corp. issued in 2004 in response to pressure from shareholders.
Apple refrained from paying a special one-time dividend in December, when dozens of companies were accelerating payouts ahead of a potential rise in the top federal tax rate.
“I don’t necessarily expect them to pay a large one-time dividend,” Ragan said. “But I think they could easily support a fairly significant dividend increase.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-08/apple-with-137-billion-in-cash-considers-preferred-stock-tech.html
สมัครสมาชิก:
บทความ (Atom)