Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Here is an article from Washington Examiner.

“SUNDAY REFLECTIONS CONTRIBUTOR — It’s a story of an industry that may sound familiar.

The buyers think what they’re buying will appreciate in value, making them rich in the future. The product grows more and more elaborate, and more and more expensive, but the expense is offset by cheap credit provided by sellers eager to encourage buyers to buy.

Buyers see that everyone else is taking on mounds of debt, and so are more comfortable when they do so themselves; besides, for a generation, the value of what they’re buying has gone up steadily. What could go wrong? Everything continues smoothly until, at some point, it doesn’t.

Yes, this sounds like the housing bubble, but I’m afraid it’s also sounding a lot like a still-inflating higher education bubble. And despite (or because of) the fact that my day job involves higher education, I think it’s better for us to face up to what’s going on before the bubble bursts messily.

College has gotten a lot more expensive. A recent Money magazine report notes: “After adjusting for financial aid, the amount families pay for college has skyrocketed 439 percent since 1982. … Normal supply and demand can’t begin to explain cost increases of this magnitude.”

Consumers would balk, except for two things.

First — as with the housing bubble — cheap and readily available credit has let people borrow to finance education. They’re willing to do so because of (1) consumer ignorance, as students (and, often, their parents) don’t fully grasp just how harsh the impact of student loan payments will be after graduation; and (2) a belief that, whatever the cost, a college education is a necessary ticket to future prosperity.

Bubbles burst when there are no longer enough excessively optimistic and ignorant folks to fuel them. And there are signs that this is beginning to happen already.

A New York Times profile last week described Courtney Munna, a 26-year-old graduate of New York University with nearly $100,000 in student loan debt — debt that her degree in Religious and Women’s Studies did not equip her to repay. Payments on the debt are about $700 per month, equivalent to a respectable house payment, and a major bite on her monthly income of $2,300 as a photographer’s assistant earning an hourly wage.

And, unlike a bad mortgage on an underwater house, Munna can’t simply walk away from her student loans, which cannot be expunged in a bankruptcy. She’s stuck in a financial trap.

Some might say that she deserves it — who borrows $100,000 to finance a degree in women’s and religious studies that won’t make you any money? She should have wised up, and others should learn from her mistake, instead of learning too late, as she did: “I don’t want to spend the rest of my life slaving away to pay for an education I got for four years and would happily give back.”

But bubbles burst when people catch on, and there’s some evidence that people are beginning to catch on. Student loan demand, according to a recent report in the Washington Post, is going soft, and students are expressing a willingness to go to a cheaper school rather than run up debt. Things haven’t collapsed yet, but they’re looking shakier — kind of like the housing market looked in 2007.

So what happens if the bubble collapses? Will it be a tragedy, with millions of Americans losing their path to higher-paying jobs?

Maybe not. College is often described as a path to prosperity, but is it? A college education can help people make more money in three different ways.

First, it may actually make them more economically productive by teaching them skills valued in the workplace: Computer programming, nursing or engineering, say. (Religious and women’s studies, not so much.)

Second, it may provide a credential that employers want, not because it represents actual skills, but because it’s a weeding tool that doesn’t produce civil-rights suits as, say, IQ tests might. A four-year college degree, even if its holder acquired no actual skills, at least indicates some ability to show up on time and perform as instructed.”
Read more here.

Read Full Post »

Update to the Bidding Process – Procedures for the sale of certain assets of Teranode Corporation

Further to Gerbsman Partners e-mail of May 19, 2010 regarding the sale of certain assets of Teranode Corporation, I attach the legal documents and wire transfer information that we will be requesting of bidders for certain assets of Teranode Corporation. All parties bidding on the assets are encouraged, to the greatest extent possible, to conform the terms of their bids to the terms and form of the attached agreements. Any and all of the assets of Teranode Corporation will be sold on an “as is, where is” basis. I would also encourage all interested parties to have their counsel speak with Stephen O’Neill, Esq., counsel to Teranode Corporation.

For additional information please contact Stephen O’Neill, Esq., of Murray & Murray counsel to Teranode Corporation He can be reached at 408 907 9200 and/or at soneill@murraylaw.com

Following an initial round of due diligence, interested parties will be invited to participate with a sealed bid, for the acquisition of the Teranode Assets. Sealed bids must be submitted so that the bid is actually received by Gerbsman Partners no later than Wednesday, June 23, 2010 at 3:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time (the “Bid Deadline”) at Teranodes’ office, located 411 First Avenue S, Suite 700, Seattle WA 98104. Please also email steve@gerbsmanpartners.com with any bid.

For your convenience, I have restated the description of the Updated Bidding Process.

The key dates and terms include:

The Bidding Process for Interested Buyers

The Bidding Process for interested buyers Interested and qualified parties will be required to sign a nondisclosure agreement (attached hereto as Exhibit A) to have access to key members of the management and intellectual capital teams and the due diligence “war room” documentation (the “Due Diligence Access”). Each interested party, as a consequence of the Due Diligence Access granted to it, shall be deemed to acknowledge and represent (i) that it is bound by the bidding procedures described herein; (ii) that it has an opportunity to inspect and examine the Teranode Corporation’s Assets and to review all pertinent documents and information with respect thereto; (iii) that it is not relying upon any written or oral statements, representations, or warranties of Gerbsman Partners, or their respective staff, agents, or attorneys; and (iv) all such documents and reports have been provided solely for the convenience of the interested party, and Gerbsman Partners (and their respective, staff, agents, or attorneys) do not make any representations as to the accuracy or completeness of the same.

Following an initial round of due diligence, interested parties will be invited to participate with a sealed bid, for the acquisition of the Teranode Corporation’s Assets. A sealed bid must be submitted so that it is actually received by Gerbsman Partners no later than Wednesday June 23, 2010 at 3 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time (the “Bid Deadline”) at Teranode Corporation’s office, located at 411 First Avenue S, Suite 700, Seattle WA 98104 . Please also send an email to steve@gerbsmanpartner.com with your bid.

Bids should identify those assets being tendered for in a specific and identifiable way. The attached fixed asset list may not be complete and Bidders interested in any fixed assets must submit a separate bid for such assets, be specific as to the assets and any sale of the fixed assets or Intellectual Property of Teranode Corporation.

Any person or other entity making a bid must be prepared to provide independent confirmation that they possess the financial resources to complete the purchase where applicable. All bids must be accompanied by a refundable deposit check in the amount of $200,000 (payable to Teranode Corporation). The deposit should be wired to Teranode’s attorneys Murray & Murray, A Professional Corporation. The winning bidder will be notified within 3 business days of the Bid Deadline. The deposit will be held in trust by Company’s counsel. Unsuccessful bidders will have their deposit returned to them within three business days of notification that they are an unsuccessful bidder . Teranode Corporation reserves the right to, in its sole discretion, accept or reject any bid, or withdraw any or all assets from sale. Interested parties should understand that it is expected that the highest and best bid submitted will be chosen as the winning bidder and bidders may not have the opportunity to improve their bids after submission.

Teranode Corporation will require the successful bidder to close within a 7 day period. Any or all of the assets of Teranode Corporation will be sold on an “as is, where is” basis, with no representation or warranties whatsoever. All sales, transfer, and recording taxes, stamp taxes, or similar taxes, if any, relating to the sale of the Teranode Corporation’s Assets shall be the sole responsibility of the successful bidder and shall be paid to Teranode Corporation at the closing of each transaction.

For additional information, please do not contact the company directly, please contact:

Stephen O’Neill, Esq
(408) 907-9200
soneill@murraylaw.com

Steven R. Gerbsman
(415) 456-0628
steve@gerbsmanpartners.com

Dennis Sholl
(415) 457-9596
dennis@gerbsmanpartners.com

Merle McCreery
(303) 929-7628
mmgolf100@msn.com

Kenneth Hardesty
(408) 591-7528
ken@gerbsmanpartners.com

Read Full Post »

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=hkGzqpGx1KU – On this Memorial Day – please take pride and watch – you will enjoy!

Read Full Post »

By Tony Fish, Principal of AMF Ventures and a member of Gerbsman Partners Board of Intellectual Capital.

Internet players wrestling for control of your footprint
Whatever the personal reason for joining and participating in social networking, the debate has moved from being fashionable to how the key social networking players can unwittingly extend their influence and control of you.   Facebook wants to move from the confines of their own social networking cloud and be able to monitise property outside of their immediate control; hence the introduction by Facebook of opengraph and ‘Like’. The understanding of these new tools is, however, being over shadowed by the privacy setting debate which is also critical to the new Facebook model and its new utility.  The privacy setting allows Facebook to gain relationship data (digital footprint) and together with the tools change the internet from a Google ad centric world, into a relationship dependant Facebook ad centric world.

Issue 101. Control of Privacy settings
It has become evident that social networks will live or die by their privacy policy. Most users appear capable of providing their own interpretation of what privacy controls they would like.  Good tools will enable users to control the level of inclusion or exclusion of information about themselves and thereby control how much they reveal of themselves selectively, with tools that they understand and control.  However, whilst privacy is about the change of control, private is what you have elected or selected not to make public and a company should not be able to elect to change this default or set it open so you have to close it.

Private to Public is not a binary setting
However, when the private/ public issues is represented using a simplistic model such as a straight line, as above, it shows them as a binary choice, with an area of cross over, in the same way good/ evil can be represented and both of these models highlight the inadequacies of the straight line of choice, and specifically with private/public it does not provide enough context or insight to the real issues.  In philosophy, Aristotle presented the idea of a Golden Mean as the desirable middle between two extremes, one of excess and the other of deficiency. For example courage, a virtue, if taken to excess would manifest as recklessness and if deficient as cowardice.

Applying the analogy from this philosophy to the private/ public debate removes the simple binary judgment and provides are two possible models.  Public is two extremes with private in the middle or vice-versa.  I “like” the public at either end approach as at one end public could mean broadcast TV, newspapers, open, contextual, edited and time bounded.  The other public could be internet public, closed, non-contextual, raw and timeless.  This removes the binary extremes and grey area of public vs private debate moving the debate away from privacy policy towards how we define and articulate public as two extremes.

To subtle to notice
When you consider what is private within these boundaries, it highlights some common assumptions.  Public tends to mean to the general population the broadcast TV model, where we instinctively know how little we should trust headlines but also how rapidly its value can be eroded.  However if this is the only understanding of public we hold, it is inevitable that users will miss the subtlety of the internet public model and the critical issues such as timeless (never deleted) and lack of context (provision of historical context when looking at past materials)

And the Problem is?
For social networking to remain free it needs a business model.  An attractive model is to take your digital footprint, analyse it and sell adverts based on your preferences and relationships.  However, to demand that users continually update their information is hard, therefore when they are out and about in the internet make it possible to “Like” things that automatically updates their profile (and attractiveness for advertising).  However to deliver this, users must change their privacy settings so that social networking site can exploit their data.  Therefore social networking site need to achieve several things.  First, make everything public, but users don’t understand what public means for Internet data.  Second, make it easy for users to deliver new information from outside their bounded network, but users don’t understand the implications.  Three, analyse and sell relationship data, but are users getting a fair trade?

Is there a trade fair?
Applying the understanding of the eight business model built in “My Digital Footprint” there should be a trade for opting for a more public use of your data.  In one direction towards broadcast the trade for your privacy may be for fame and fortune, in the other direction towards trading your privacy on the internet it should be for services.

An interesting question becomes, in the trade for your Internet privacy, is there sufficient utility offered by the free application providers?  With Google you provide only public data (search key words, nothing is private) and you receive relevant search results.  With Facebook and social networking you provide relationship and private data for a free utility, but what is the utility?  Is it a tribe, is it communication, is it sharing platform, it is a representation of the physical you in a digital world, is it organisation or a new state or a new country, is it connection or is it a channel?   With such an unclear utility, why will users continue to provide more personal data?

Will Facebook survive?
Overall I have no doubt it will survive but in what form is a more difficult judgement call as Facebook has highlighted that the value of our relationships is sufficiently high that they need them and are willing to risk their Brand to get  more of our digital footprint.  The utility question, trade for our information and implementation of its privacy setting, however, does open up the possibility for new entrants.  It is naïve to say that inertia; my grandma and friends will not change, is enough to keep the social networking market closed. It is possible to your export data, difficult but this will happen.  It is not impossible to see that a new social media company will offer 50% of its equity to users as a trade for moving and privacy.  It also possible to see that your generic login becomes the mechanism to find unique discounts for you, all these open up the market and trade they I hope will provide a more even value balance for users.

So What!
Internet business models are predicated on the user being the provider of the data and the consumer of the data, with the business focussed on sitting between the two and adding value.  There is a battle for your data and relationships and therefore one of the implications of “my digital footprint” thinking is about the alignment of Brand values and the how the company protects and uses digital footprint data.

If you would like to chat about the opportunities that digital footprint data brings, especially from the perspective of mobile and real time feedback, please contact me at tony.fish@amfventures.com.  The book is free on line at http://www.mydigitalfootprint.com/ or you can buy it direct from the publisher at the web site. There is also a summary and a eReader/ Kindle version.

We hope that our Viewpoint improves awareness, raises questions and promotes deliberation over coffee. We will respond to e-mail, text, twitter or blog comments. http://blog.mydigitalfootprint.com

Kind regards,

Tony Fish

Read Full Post »

Here is a report from SF Gate.

“Apple, long the scrappy but innovative challenger to dominant Microsoft, has passed its rival in market capitalization, becoming the most valued technology company in the world.

The shift in fortunes became official at the close of the stock market Wednesday, when Apple’s market capitalization – the sum of its outstanding shares multiplied by its stock price – finished at $222.07 billion, ahead of Microsoft’s at $219.18 billion.

Though the distinction is merely a milestone, it culminates an amazing turnaround for Apple, which was given up for dead in 1997, when Apple founder Steve Jobs returned as CEO. Apple is now the second most valuable company in the United States after Exxon Mobil.

“This has got to be not only one of the greatest comeback stories, but success stories of the last 20 years,” said analyst Tim Bajarin, president of Creative Strategies. “You see companies coming back from the dead, but not to the point where they achieve this staggering financial position.”

Since September 16, 1997, when Jobs returned as CEO and Apple shares traded at $5.49 per share, the stock has surged 4,346 percent and now trades at $244.11 per share. Over the last five years, Apple’s stock has grown about 600 percent while Microsoft’s managed a modest 5 percent growth.

The shift validates Apple’s strategy of focusing on smart phone and tablet technology, which is on track to eventually outgrow the traditional PC business.

Michael Mace, who worked at Apple for 10 years prior to Jobs’ return, said Apple held the upper hand in the rivalry with Microsoft before being passed in the early 1990s. He said after that point, most employees gave up any hope of rivaling Microsoft financially.

“When a company runs away from you, you usually don’t get a chance to run them back down,” said Mace, a consultant with Rubicon Consulting. “But what Steve (Jobs) has managed to do is produce a series of seminal, meaningful, market-changing products.”

Apple found new life by remaking itself as a mobile company. While it continues to snag more PC market share from Microsoft’s Windows operating system, it is setting the pace of innovation in mobile devices.

Starting with its iPod media players in 2001 and more recently with the iPhone in 2007, Apple has become a leader in building the kind of portable devices that appeal to users. Apple’s iPods command more than 70 percent of the digital-player market, while the iPhone represents a quarter of the smart phones in the United States.

Now, with the iPad tablet selling a million units in its first month, Apple is leading that market as well.

“Apple is sitting on a gigantic business that’s just taking off,” said Leander Kahney, editor of the Cult of Mac blog, who’s written several books on Apple.

Meanwhile, Microsoft has struggled to grow beyond its roots in PC operating systems and applications. Its Zune media player and Windows Mobile operating system are not clicking with consumers. On Tuesday, the company announced a management shakeup in its gadgets and games division.”

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »