Google-Branded Tablet to Land in April

Google's Nexus tablet could be the company's next hardware device. Jon Snyder/Wired.com
The long-awaited Android-running, Google-branded tablet reportedly arrives in April.

The device is aimed squarely at the dominant, and cheap, Amazon Kindle Fire, which is the world’s leading 7-inch Android device. The tablet, which former CEO Eric Schmidt first mentioned in December, also would advance Google’s plan to create a unified software and hardware ecosystem — just like that company in Cupertino.

Richard Shim, an analyst with DisplaySearch, told CNET the Google tablet is on track for production in April and is expected to cost $199. It will sport a 7-inch, 1280×800 display and run Ice Cream Sandwich (Android 4.0). Those specs, if they pan out, one-up the Kindle Fire, which also costs $199 but has a 1024×600 display and runs on a modified version of Gingerbread (Android 2.3).

Should the tablet actually materialize, it would be yet another entry in Google’s sweeping hardware initiative. Google’s acquisition of Motorola Mobility will give the search company a ready-to-go hardware division. The tablet also would follow the rumored music-streaming entertainment device that would take advantage of the proposed Android@Home initiative announced at Google I/O.

This week The New York Times reported that Google is working on HUD glasses that could be formally announced by the end of the year.

Beyond its internal hardware initiatives, Google has partnered with HTC and Samsung for its Nexus-branded smartphones. The current crop of Nexus flagship phones were the first Android phones powered by Ice Cream Sandwich.

Indeed, all the rumored hardware and the Motorola Mobility acquisition suggest Google is positioning itself as a company that owns the entire “product stack,” from operating system to app ecosystem to hardware. This, of course, is the strategy employed by Google’s main rival in the mobile market, Apple.

Should Google continue down this path, it may be the next company, to “own the whole widget,” as Steve Jobs would say.

BBC News - Facebook 'to go public with $10bn share offering'

Facebook 'to go public with $10bn share offering'

Continue reading the main story

Facebook will begin the process of becoming a publicly-listed company this week, valuing the social networking site at between $75bn and $100bn, reports suggest.

Facebook makes most of its money through advertising

The company plans to file papers with the US financial watchdog on Wednesday, according to the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal.

The flotation later this year would raise about $10bn, they reported.

This would be one of the biggest share sales seen on Wall Street.

It would dwarf the $1.9bn raised by Google when it went public in 2004.

It would still, however, be some way short of the $20bn raised by carmaker General Motors in November 2010.

'Brilliant achievement'

The reports suggest that Morgan Stanley will be the lead underwriter for the sale, with Goldman Sachs also expected to be heavily involved.

Rumours of Facebook's so-called initial public offering (IPO) have circulated for many months, and the company has maintained it will not comment on the subject.

The reported valuation would make Facebook one of the world's biggest companies by market capitalisation.

"Facebook a brilliant achievement, but $75-$100bn? Would make Apple look really cheap," said Rupert Murdoch on Twitter.

The company was started by Mark Zuckerberg and fellow students at Harvard University in 2004 and has quickly grown to become one of the world's most popular websites.

It makes most of its money through advertising.

As a private company, Facebook does not have to publish its accounts, but reports in January last year suggested a document sent by Goldman Sachs to its clients showed the firm made a net profit of $355m on revenues of $1.2bn in the first nine months of 2010.

4 Things RIM’s New CEO Can Do to Fix the Company

Link

Peter Pachal

Research in Motion, better known as RIM, used to be one of the most dominating smartphone makers in the world. But it’s seen its market share — and reputation — flounder of late. So it wasn’t that surprising that the company finally did what many investors were asking for: get rid of its co-CEOs and replace them with a new leader, former COO Thorsten Heins.

Some are already saying that it’s too late for RIM, that mobile competitors Apple and Google are too far ahead, and that the company should essentially quit trying to market its own BlackBerry ecosystem and make some kind of soul-selling deal along the lines of Nokia‘s partnership with Microsoft. While that might be the best course of action, Heins has already said that getting the BlackBerry 10 (BB10) software and the next generation of phones out of the gate is his top priority. Short of some kind of surprise merger (Samsung? Microsoft?), it’s BB10 or bust for RIM.

Heins’ strategy is very risky considering the head-start RIM’s competitors have had, but it has the biggest long-term potential payoff. Make no mistake, though: RIM will have its work more than cut out for it when the first BB10 phones arrive later this year. Not only will it have to show that it has a platform as good as iOS orAndroid — it’ll also have to show that it has actual advantages over those other choices.

But RIM can’t do that if it continues to stumble like it has in recent years. Here are four things the company should do right the ship and and start sailing toward success.

---

1. Narrow Your Focus

---

RIM has had the mixed blessing of being both a go-to platform for enterprise customers, thanks to its devices’ utility and security, and a popular choice for many younger people because of the text- and tweet-friendly keyboard — not to mention that easy-on-the-cellphone-bill href=”http://mashable.com/follow/topics/blackberry-messenger/”>BlackBerry Messenger service. While having your products appeal to more than one demographic isn’t directly a problem per se, it appears to have dulled RIM’s focus somewhat.

This was seen most clearly in the PlayBook tablet, whose design and marketing was all over the map. It debuted without a native email client, requiring the user to pair it with his BlackBerry smartphone to use email. This, of course, presupposed that the person was a BlackBerry owner, and therefore likely a business user. Yet the marketing, advertising and even the name itself implied a tablet for “play,” putting things like gaming and video playback top priority. What?

I think that at some point RIM, tempted by the lure of being cool to “the kids,” started to push heavily in marketing to younger demographics, but the company has dulled its focus on its greatest strength: services and devices for enterprise and business. RIM should get back to emphasizing its roots by targeting business. If others recognize that those same products work for them personally as well, great. But first things first.

---

2. Build a Better PlayBook

---

I think it’s safe to say at this point that the BlackBerry PlayBook is a bona fide turkey in the history of tablet launches, and RIM needs to shift its attention to PlayBook 2 (not to be confused with PlayBook 2.0, the software update that will supposedly “fix” the original PlayBook). The second version of the company’s tablet must be in the works somewhere, even if it’s probably going to wait until BB10 is out before it has its debut.

PlayBook 2 needs to capitalize on RIM’s key strengths and be a true enterprise tablet. Ever since the AmazonKindle Fire launch there’s been a lot of pressure in the tablet market to take prices down to heretofore unseen lows. But RIM shouldn’t just go cheap — it needs to offer a tablet that will actually be useful for business.

RIM already has its back-end enterprise services to offer, but that’s a crutch. Heins needs to put himself in the mind of a business that isn’t all about BlackBerry already. What do RIM’s devices offer that business?

A new PlayBook could differentiate itself with something like near-field communication (NFC) to accept mobile payments. NFC actually has multiple uses, and so far no tablet has it. But that’s just one idea. More broadly, RIM needs to put aside the J Lo videos and Angry Birds and pack the hardware with features that businesses will actually use.

---

3. Invest in Apps

---

It will be a Herculean feat to attract significant developer interest in BlackBerry 10, and RIM’s going to need help. The recent move toward platform-agnostic HTML5 apps is helpful, but that helps everyone to some extent, so RIM can’t rely on it. And the stopgap measure of having the PlayBook run Android apps is a bad idea — it serves more to undermine RIM’s platform than help it. More direct action is called for.

App revenue sharing has largely settled on a 70/30 split between developers and OS makers, respectively. I’m not an economist, but it seems fairly arbitrary to me — what’s stopping RIM from giving an 80/20 cut? Or maybe a 100/0 cut for a limited time (say, the first 10,000 downloads)?

RIM also needs to hammer on the developer community that, while its market share may be dropping, it’s still significant. Add in some incentives like better revenue sharing, subsidies and better support than its competitors (and certainly less of a fragmented platform than Android) — developers will have a potentially great ROI on BB10.

---

4. Resist Temptation to Fast-Track

---

Probably the most egregious thing RIM’s done in recent years to shoot itself in the foot in recent years is push out products before they’re ready. This was most clear with the PlayBook, but the touchscreen BlackBerry Storm was a buggy mess when it was first released. Rumors abound of many more BlackBerry devices coming to carriers before they’re ready.

Ever since RIM announced that the first BB10 phones would be delayed until late 2012, the criticism has been unending, and there will be tremendous pressure on Heins to fast-track the devices for an earlier launch. But he shouldn’t. BlackBerry 10 and its accompanying devices need to be a hit right out of the gate if RIM is to have any hope of growing market share again. Heins has said he’ll abolish the practice of putting out half-baked products, and he should stick to it. If he accomplishes that at least, he’ll be well on his way to putting RIM’s shaky past behind it.

By Buying Motorola, Google Can Now Do Whatever The Heck They Want With Android | TechCrunch

Greg Kumparak

With the announcement of their planned $12.5B Motorola Mobility acquisition this morning, Google is buying a lot of stuff. They’re buying 20,000 employees (almost doubling their headcount.) They’re buying an absurdly daunting armory of over 24,000 patents (I mean, come on: Motorola has the patent on the cell phone.) But there’s one more thing that Google’s buying, and it’s one that shifts up the Android game all together: nearly 30% of Android’s existing marketshare in the U.S.

After years of owning next to none of the hardware marketshare for their own software platform (even the so-called “Google phone” Nexus devices are made by HTC and Samsung), Google has just become Android’s 2nd biggest manufacturer.

At 29%, Googorola sits in the second place seat, just behind HTC (35%) and ahead of Samsung (25%). That stat comes from numbers pulled fresh this morning by mobile analytics firm Localytics.

Some of the things this could mean:

• Updates For Everyone! Now under the Google umbrella, the pressure on Motorola to keep their Android handsets updated will be stronger than ever… which in turns ups the pressure for everyone else. If Motorola maintains their share and Google keeps a fire lit under them (as they should), nearly 30% of the devices flying off the shelves will be quickly upgraded to each new software release. Other manufacturers will feel the heat to support upgrades as often and as quickly possible, or risk being known as the manufacturer thatdoesnt.
• The death of the skin? So far, any of the devices that Google has had a direct role in launching run what they call a “pure Google Experience” — that is, it’s Android, straight-up, without any of the custom interface replacements/overhauls that the manufacturers insist on strapping to their own Android devices. HTC has Sense. Sony Ericsson has UXP. Samsung has TouchWiz. Motorola had Motoblur.

  Motorola recently announced that they would be tapering off the development of Motoblur, and now we know why. Google doesn’t want their own handset manufacturer changing up Android — that would imply that something is wrong with Android. While Moto might have one or two more devices in the pipeline with BLUR on deck, expect all of their new stuff to run vanilla Android sooner than later.

  It’ll be interesting to see how this affects other manufacturer’s skinning efforts. Will they fall back to vanilla Android because that’s what most users will come to expect, or will they strengthen their UI tweaking efforts to differentiate their wares?

• Google could tackle Android’s “fragmentation” by bullying for standard hardware specs Though they tend to be overblown, Android does have fragmentation issues. Among the most annoying, from a development/testing perspective, is the hugely varied selection of screen resolutions used by different manufacturers. How easy would it be for Googorola to say “So, hey guys, we’re only going to use 800×480 displays on our own devices for the next year or so. You don’t have to, but, you know, you probably should.”?

Google just instantly shot from zero to 60 (well, zero to 30% — but you get what I mean) in a race they long pretended to have no interest in. They stood aside and let the major manufacturers raise Android to the top — and now that it’s there, they’re swooping in and taking a commanding control of the hardware side of things. Is it evil? Perhaps a bit. But it’s also downright genius. Marketshare maintained, Google will have final say over what happens to thirty percent of the hardware sitting in pockets, and be able to sway the other manufacturers accordingly.

Expect Android to do nothing but improve, and fast.

Eric Schmidt On Google’s Acquisition Strategy | TechCrunch

Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt sat down and talked to reporters at the Sun Valley conference in Idaho last week, dropping all sorts of science about Google +, Google China and whether or not we are in a tech bubble, among other things. One of the most interesting nuggets of info relayed was the fact that Schmidt could envision startups wanting to build on top of the Google+ platform, which now has 10 million users in its beta but no API in sight.

“You could image the scenario where the social platform is so successful that you’ve got startups that are building on top of Google + that are so incredibly sexy and exciting that we would pay top dollar very fast … That’s a great scenario because then you know you’re winning,” he said.

According to Schmidt, Google M&A made the decision last year to accelerate the acquisitions of companies below the HSR threshold, or the amount that is subject to FTC notification requirements and a waiting period (currently $66 million). Companies like Punchd are being acquired for $10 million, $20 million and $30 million (versus AdMeld’s $400 million) in order to fill out gaps in Google’s strategy, which now includes social.

Earlier in the talk Schmidt also outlined how Google calculated the amount of money it was willing to pay for the company; Namely, the value of a deal equals the value of the team plus the value of the year it would spend a Google team to create the same product. He emphasized that M&A at Google was very bottoms up, “A product manager that has a problem and [needs to] solve that problem” is the raison d’être of a potential acquisition.

You can listen to all of Schmidt’s commentary on Google M&A during the interview in the sound bites clipped together above.

Eric Schmidt: You Don’t Know It’s A Bubble Until The Bubble Ends

Earlier this week, Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt gave an over 70 minute long talk to press at the Sun Valley conference here in Idaho. Towards the end of the talk, a reporter asked the former Google CEO whether he, like many in the media world, thinks we are presently in a tech bubble and what Google’s $1.67 billion 2004 IPO at a $23 billion valuation (Google’s current valuation is 171.43 billion) means in light of today’s IPO valuations.

“Oh we were underpriced,” Schmidt joked, before remarking that he didn’t actually know whether or not we are presently in a bubble.

“On the general question of bubble, in the first place you don’t know it’s a bubble until the bubble ends, by definition. The rule I set for myself 10 years ago was that if the press calls it a bubble then I’d pay attention, and let me report that the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Economist have all written articles saying that it’s a bubble.

So you have a couple choices A) The revenue growth possibility on these platforms is so large that you could get the kind of revenue acceleration that justifies the valuations. B) You have a liquidity squeeze where you don’t have enough shares, and they’re artificially high.”

When a journalist pointed out that it sounded like Schmidt was “unconvinced either way,” he said that it’s difficult to know whether the valuations are fair until a significant amount of shares hit the market, usually when employee lockups expire, typically after six months, “You won’t really know the answers until 2012,” he said.

The only clear thing at the moment, Schmidt said, was that real estate values will go up. “Young people who need houses will go into areas of scarce housing resources and there will be competition for houses and housing prices will go up. So for them it’s not a bubble it’s actually a house.”

On what effect if any the seven years of market experience have had on his perspective on Google’s IPO, Schmidt said, “Google went public at a very different time, at what people thought was an unbelievably high valuation, and let me point out that we’ve never traded below our opening price.”

When pressed again by a reporter for a yes or no answer, Schmidt gave the following humble reply, ” I don’t think it’s my job to call the market. It’s a mistake for me to say what the market should think … I’m not a brilliant investor. If I were a brilliant investor then maybe I’d have some status. I’m a computer scientist.” … A computer scientist with a $7 billion net worth.

Are We In A Tech Bubble? Here’s The History [INFOGRAPHIC]

We’ve spent the past year wondering whether we’re currently in a tech bubble akin to the last decade’s dotcom boom.

Mashable has offered facts and opinions on both sides of the question. We’ve heard that the current boom is much different from the heyday of the late 1990s and that we have cause for confidence.

But we’ve also heard (from the likes of legendary investor Warren Buffet, no less) that the newest crop of tech darlings are highly overvalued at worst and unpredictable at best.

And we’ve even asked you, our readers, what you thought about current startup valuations and funding amounts. (Most of you responded that you were not optimistic about the future of the tech startup ecosystem.)

Now here are a few straightforward graphs and charts (created by KISSmetrics and FeeFighters) to help you get some better perspective on the issue. Clearly, the dotcom era was a different beast. But looking back on that insanity should help temper our excitement about new technologies with realistic revenue expectations.

Top image courtesy of iStockphoto, patrickheagney

Los 5 ‘pecados mortales’ de BlackBerry - Tecnología - CNNExpansion.com

¿Quieres tener éxito? Ve lo que ha hecho el fabricante del teléfono inteligente…y haz lo contrario; RIM ha caído en una espiral descendente ante la competencia de Apple y Google.

Las acciones de RIM han perdido más del 50% de su valor desde febrero. (Foto: AP)

Por: Kevin Kelleher

En el ultracompetitivo mundo de la tecnología móvil, vales tanto como tu última innovación. De allí que las marcas se encumbren y caigan a una velocidad vertiginosa. Pero aun bajo esos estándares acelerados, la caída de Research in Motion (RIM) este año ha sido súbita y brutal.

Las acciones de RIM han perdido más del 50% de su valor desde febrero, y su cuota en el mercado estadounidense de los smartphones ha decrecido de 34% a 24% en los últimos ocho meses. El teléfono BlackBerry solía ser el celular más codiciado hasta la llegada del iPhone de Apple y de los teléfonos con software Android de Google. Competir contra estas compañías ya es bastante difícil, pero la gerencia de RIM, además, ha cometido este año varios errores graves que han convertido su declive en una completa crisis corporativa. Se trata de un caso de estudio para aquellos que quieren aprender cómo no se debe gestionar una crisis, comenzando por estas cinco lecciones:

No hagas promesas que no puedas cumplir. El 28 de abril, RIM dijo que en el actual año fiscal esperaba obtener una ganancia de 7.50 dólares por acción, citando los nuevos productos BlackBerry que serían lanzados más tarde en el año. Algunos analistas cuestionaron esta optimista previsión de beneficios, calculando que la ganancia por acción estaría más bien cercana a los 6 dólares. Y efectivamente, RIM publicó los resultados financieros del primer trimestre y ajustó a la baja su previsión de beneficios, entre el rango de los 5.25 dls y los 6 dólares por acción.

¿Qué sucedió? RIM había depositado sus esperanzas alcistas en los proyectos que la compañía preparaba, pero luego tuvo que retrasar los lanzamientos. Las actualizaciones de los modelos BlackBerry Torch y Storm aparecieron a finales del verano, después de lo esperado. Y en 2011, un smartphone tardío es un smartphone muerto. Ante la noticia de la demora, las acciones de RIM cayeron 27%, su nivel mínimo en casi cinco años.

No lances productos a medio hacer. Los retrasos en lossmartphones coincidieron con el accidentado lanzamiento de la tablet de RIM, la PlayBook. Las reseñas que recibió la pizarra fueron mixtas, la crítica más preocupante fue que la PlayBook no contaba con el servicio de correo electrónico que hace tan atractivos los teléfonos BlackBerry para los usuarios. En consecuencia, las ventas iniciales comenzaron bien pero cayeron pronto. La PlayBook se sentía como un producto que se lanzó precipitadamente al mercado para competir con la iPad.

Es mejor atraer a los desarrolladores, no alejarlos. A fin de cuentas, una plataforma móvil es tan buena en la medida en que lo son los desarrollares que escriben para ella. Antes incluso de que HP comprara Palm, WebOS era un buen sistema operativo, pero no logró atraer a una importante cantidad de desarrolladores. Pese a la fortaleza de RIM en el mercado empresarial, los desarrolladores han preferido hacer aplicaciones para iOS y Android. RIM intentó remediar este abandono anunciando que sus dispositivos podrán ejecutar aplicaciones de Android, pero esto puede resultarle contraproducente. Hay señales de que esta decisión ha alejado a los desarrolladores de la nueva plataforma de RIM, la QNX, que alimenta a la PlayBook.

No mates al mensajero. Luego de que el sitio de noticias tecnológicas Boy Genius Report publicara una carta anónima pero auténtica de un ejecutivo de RIM, la compañía respondió con su propio comentario anónimo. RIM hizo bien en responder la carta, pero erró en la forma de hacerlo. La carta tenía ideas sensatas, aún si eran difíciles de digerir para la cúpula de RIM: admitir que Apple "borda"smartphones, centrarse en los consumidores y no en los operadores de telefonía y considerar un presidente ejecutivo con "experiencia e ideas innovadoras".

La respuesta de RIM fue una de las acciones más torpes en materia de relaciones públicas en los últimos tiempos. Desestimó campantemente las sugerencias de la carta con una declaración de rechazo. ("RIM está totalmente consciente tanto de los retos como de las oportunidades que encara la compañía, y los aborda de forma agresiva"). Peor, se puso a atacar al autor, sugiriendo que era un "fraude" o que tenía "motivaciones ocultas." Esta respuesta inspiró una docena de críticas, a cada cual más apasionada, de los empleados de RIM, actuales y antiguos.

Hacer oídos sordos hubiera sido una mejor respuesta: RIM se vio arrogante y altiva.

La lealtad no se da por sentado. Esta lección pone de manifiesto al resto. Hace tan sólo un par de años, RIM había construido un envidiable grado de lealtad entre sus consumidores, empleados e inversionistas. También estaba en condiciones de ganarse la fidelidad de los desarrolladores. Pero sus errores en los últimos meses han erosionado toda esa buena voluntad.

Zuckerberg Surprised That People Are Surprised He’s On Google+

Alexia Tsotsis

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg joining Google+ was a major media event, with everyone from Forbes to The Daily Mail covering the fact that the founder established a Google+ profile, building Circles that include former Facebooker Dustin Moskovitz and current Facebook CTO Bret Taylor.

While many were doubtful that the real Zuckerberg would join a competing social service, tech blogger Robert Scoble texted Zuckerberg himself to confirm, tweeting out “Name drop moment. Zuckerberg just texted me back. Says “Why are people so surprised that I’d have a Google account?”

In case anyone is still doubting that it is the real Zuck on there, Scoble tells me that Zuckerberg indeed meant Google+ account when he referred to Google account. But the real question is, why are people so surprised that Zuckerberg would chose to be on Google+?

Perhaps the answer lies in the precedent set by Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, who seem to have shied away from interacting on Facebook as themselves. (According to Steven Levy, Brin is actually on Facebook as a pseudonym. Google Chairman Eric Schmidt is also rumored to be on the service, independently of when Mike impersonated him).

Page’s and Brin’s behavior aside, plenty of other founders (Myspace Tom for example) have shown that it’s perfectly normal to partake and enjoy competitive services, and that it shouldn’t necessarily be considered an act of espionage. I for one just hope Zuckerberg is more prolific on Google+ than he is on Twitter.

http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/03/zuckerberg-surprised-that-people-are-surprised-hes-on-google/

Apple ‘asedia’ el feudo de BlackBerry - Tecnología - CNNExpansion.com

El mundo corporativo, dominado por el teléfono de RIM, comienza a verse conquistado por el iPhone; Google también empieza a seducir al público que antes sólo confiaba en la canadiense

Una encuesta informal de Reuters mostró que sólo Exxon y

Boeing usan en exclusivateléfonos BlackBerry. (Foto: Reuters)

NUEVA YORK (Reuters) — BlackBerry, antes omnipresente en los negocios, enfrenta duros desafíos en ese mercado, porque más compañías están permitiendo que sus empleados elijan sus propios teléfonos inteligentes e incluyan aplicaciones de seguridad de otros proveedores.

Uno de los principales argumentos de Research in Motion (RIM) para la venta de BlackBerry han sido sus características de administración y de seguridad, que atraen a gerentes de tecnología de la información ansiosos por controlar lo que hacen los trabajadores y por proteger los sistemas de ataques informáticos.

Pero con compañías como Good Technology y MobileIron ofreciendo aplicaciones que pueden alejar a los gerentes de tecnología de la información de las BlackBerry, los analistas afirman que las presiones que sufre RIM en el mercado de consumo pueden llegar a su negocio principal: el corporativo.

Sólo dos de nueve grandes compañías estadounidense consultadas por Reuters dijeron que usan exclusivamente el BlackBerry: Boeing y Exxon Mobil.

Las otras siete (Alcoa, Caterpillar, DuPont, Kraft Foods, PepsiCo, Microsoft y Verizon Communications) apoyan al menos a otra marca, como los iPhone de Apple o teléfonos que usan el software Android de Google o Windows de Microsoft.

"Diría que su base empresarial ha sido realmente asediada, primero por Apple, después por Android", dijo sobre RIM John Jackson, analista de dispositivos móviles de CCS Insight.

"Lo que está pasando en el mercado de consumo está repitiéndose en el mercado de las empresas. Han sido considerablemente afectados en su mercado central corporativo", añadió.

La participación de RIM en el mercado de teléfonos inteligentes en Estados Unidos se mantuvo en 25% durante abril, desde el 35% de octubre del año pasado, empujando a BlackBerry al tercer lugar desde el primer puesto en el mercado, según la firma de investigación comScore.

La mayor parte de los problemas de RIM, según los analistas, puede encontrarse en su demora para presentar nuevos teléfonos para competir contra los iPhone o los aparatos que usan Android y que fabrican Samsung, HTC y Motorola.

La compañía química DuPont, que tiene 67,000 empleados, empezó a darles a algunos trabajadores la opción de usar el iPhone en el cuarto trimestre del año pasado. En unos pocos meses, aumentaron hasta llegar a un cuarto de los teléfonos inteligentes de Dupont, según Eric Smith, gerente de telecomunicaciones de la compañía.

"La tecnología que la gente tiene disponible en sus vidas diarias y personales la quieren usar en el trabajo. La gente tenía sus propios iPhone y iPad, y dijeron: ¿por qué no podemos usarlos para el trabajo?'", añadió Smith.

BlackBerry pierde ‘seguridad'

Para ayudar a los gerentes de tecnología de la información hay un número creciente de opciones de seguridad, como correos electrónicos y tecnología encriptada, que les permiten a los administradores de la información controlar a distancia los datos en los teléfonos personales.

Además, la influencia de los gerentes de tecnología de la información en la selección de celulares está disminuyendo. Los teléfonos inteligentes adquiridos por las compañías bajaron a 7% del mercado en 2010 desde el 15% en 2009, según la firma de investigación y contabilidad Strategy Analytics.

Otro sondeo realizado por la firma de investigación Yankee Group encontró que 55% de los administradores de tecnología mencionaban a RIM como su sistema operativo favorito, pero que ese porcentaje caía a 34% cuando se les preguntaba que preferirían en dos años.

Boeing no ha encontrado una opción de seguridad en la que confiar además de BlackBerry, dijo el portavoz del fabricante de aviones, Kenn Johnson, pero agregó que sentían la presión para permitir más opciones en los celulares.

"Siempre sabemos que hay un deseo por ese aspecto 'cool' (a la moda), pero no puede ser a expensas de la seguridad", dijo.

Google’s “Pi” In The Face

MG Siegler

As we’re all well aware by now, Google did not win the rights to the 6,000+ Nortel wireless and mobile patents. Instead, a consortium featuring many of their main rivals did. That has to sting. But as more details emerge about the auction itself, it sure looks as if Google wasn’t taking the entire thing too seriously. And that’s too bad. Because Android may be royally screwed without those patents.

Specifically, Nadia Damouni of Reuters reportstoday that following their initial “stalking horse” bid to get the ball rolling, Google put forth bids of $1,902,160,540, $2,614,972,128 — and $3.14159 billion. If those numbers look familiar, it’s because you’re a nerd. Brun’s constant, Meissel-Mertens constant, and yes, Pi. That’s how Google was bidding on perhaps the most important auction they’ve ever been involved in.

Not surprisingly, those on the other end of the auction had no clue what Google was doing. And found their behavior erratic and odd.

“Google was bidding with numbers that were not even numbers,” sources told Reuters. “Either they were supremely confident or they were bored,” the same source said. This led Reuters to report:

It was not clear what strategy Google was employing, whether it wanted to confuse rival bidders, intimidate them, or simply express the irreverence that is part and parcel of its corporate persona. Whatever its reasons, Google’s shenanigans did not work.

No, they did not. And now the company looks like huge asses in retrospect.

It would have been one thing if Google had done this during the Spectrum auction in 2008 — which they never intended to win. They simply wanted to push the bidding high enough to ensure that the government would enforce the open rules on the sold spectrum (whichVerizon ended up winning the biggest chunk of). But with the Nortel patents, Google absolutely did want to win. And many within the company expected to. Perhaps that led to this over-confidence and jackassery.

Sure, in hindsight you could say that Google wasn’t going to win anyway — Reuters also reports that Google was only willing to go as high as $4 billion and the winning bid ended up being $4.5 billion. But again, they did not know that at the time. They thought they were going to win and apparently thought they could have some fun in the process. Meanwhile, according to Reuters’ sources, they found this behavior aloof and off-putting. It certainly did not help Google’s case.

Nortel was undoubtedly happy to declare the consortium featuring Apple, Microsoft, RIM, and others as the winner — even though they had to know this result will come under much more scrutiny (and as such, take much more time to close) than if Google had won.

Sadly, this behavior seems to follow the recent M.O. of Google. They walk into situations with extreme confidence when they shouldn’t, then they seem surprised when things unravel. Where are those music deals promised over a year ago? How about the television content deals for Google TV? The list goes on. As I wrote over six months ago, Google appears to be living in a dream world — and they’re edging dangerously close to limbo.

You can’t overstate how important these patents would have been to Google. In the patent space, Google is a very weak player. This has allowed others like Microsoft and Oracle to go after them and/or their partners (for Android). While no one expected Google to go after other companies with these patents, they would have served as a huge deterrent. As in, don’t sue me for this, because I can sue you for that. Instead, their enemies have more nuclear weapons pointed at them now.

Well, presumably. Google’s next course of action is undoubtedly going to be to lobby the governments in both the U.S. and Canada to reject this deal. Or at the very least, they’ll want a lot of restrictions in place. In other words, Google is going to have to get serious. You know, like how they should have been acting during the auction itself.