Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘google’

Here is a report from SF Gate.

“The Android operating system moved into second place in sales for the first quarter, outpacing the iPhone OS for the first time while still falling short of the BlackBerry platform, according to the NPD Group.

According to NPD, Google’s Android took a 28 percent share of the U.S. smart phone market during the first quarter, behind Research In Motion’s 36 percent and ahead of iPhone OS at 21 percent.

The numbers are derived from monthly consumer surveys but don’t include corporate smart phone sales. What it suggests is that Android’s momentum is picking up, helped along by aggressive sales by carrier partners such as Verizon, which offers some smart phones for free with the purchase of another smart phone.

The fact that all the carriers offer Android phones also means that sales should always be pretty robust compared with the iPhone OS, which is still an exclusive on AT&T in the United States.”

Read Full Post »

Here is some interesting ideas from SF Chronicle.

“Founded in February 2004, Facebook, Inc., the company behind the social networking website of the same name, is a privately held company in Palo Alto, California. While you may think that only qualified investors who have a net worth of at least $1 million have an opportunity to buy private company shares, investing in companies and funds that are closely aligned with and/or associates of Facebook, is actually a viable option.

The Nielsen Company
As said by John Burbank, CEO of The Nielsen Company (online division), a successful research marketing business that offers trade information to global marketers, “Facebook is an increasingly vital link between consumers and brands.”

Thus, it was only natural for the two companies to form a strategic alliance in order to determine important statistics to meet business goals, such as increasing Facebook’s advertising profits.

While Nielsen is privately held, contact their Investor Relations team, easily accessible on their site, for information on their 2009 investment results and additional information.

Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT)
Not only does Microsoft have a 1.6% stake in Facebook ($240 million), they have also extended their relationship globally and are Facebook’s current ad-serving partner, having the right to sell advertising directly on Facebook, while providing full access to Bing search characteristics.

Bing’s search engine provides a substitute for Google’s (Nasdaq: GOOG) after Microsoft beat out Google to claim a stake in Facebook. According to Bing General Manager Jon Tinter, “Bing will continue to exclusively power the web search results on Facebook.” This partnership continues to aid in Facebook’s traffic growth.

Additionally, since the majority of Microsoft’s business is the development and sale of unrelated software products, if Facebook’s market value results in a drastic change, it would have only a modest impact on Microsoft’s share price. Investing in Microsoft shares might be a safe option to play.

Retail Companies
Retail companies have successfully marketed and advertised through Facebook. According to a 2008 Rosetta study, 59% of 100 popular retailers developed Facebook pages to advertise their brands. Facebook pages bring customers that may not have been aware of the companies without it. Additionally, it is easy to update, appears in search engines, and accepts live feeds from blog pages.

Well-reputed retail companies that use Facebook to advertise and also have public stock options include Saks Fifth Avenue (NYSE: SKS), Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT), J.Crew (NYSE: JCG), Gymboree (Nasdaq: GYMB), Nordstrom (NYSE: JWN) and many others. (What people buy and where they shop can provide valuable information about the economy. Lear more in Using Consumer Spending As A Market Indicator.)

SharesPost
SharesPost is a private equity market; it shows available company stock and completed deals, gives estimates on the worth of private companies, spots which companies are backed by venture capital, and promotes trading.

Chief Executive Greg Brogger says SharesPost “…facilitat[es] the sale of equities in companies that have not been able to unlock their stock value because the initial public offering (IPO) market has virtually shut down.” SharesPost boasts private shares and currently values Facebook at almost $12 billion.

Invest in Facebook’s Competitors
Although Facebook is reportedly the number one social media service, competition still exists presently and possibly in the future. Similar companies, such as Myspace.com, are publicly owned.

Buying a share in a competitor follows the logic that an increase in the social media market could quite potentially raise the market for all competitors in the industry. When investing in social media, pick those with a known record of increasing sales and profit.

Look Out for a Facebook IPO
There is the possibility that Facebook might have a future IPO, which would make it one of the biggest in recent memory. The current value of Facebook has been estimated at $11.5 billion, but if it goes public, the company is projected to be worth more than twice that. As Zuckerberg told The Wall Street Journal: “We’re going to go public eventually, because that’s the contract that we have with our investors and our employees.”

Some say Facebook’s postponement of an IPO helps to evade the associated hassles, including investor analysts, shareholders and stakeholders, and the media. But Facebook does not need the money. According to Zuckerberg, “if you don’t need that capital, then all the pressures are different, and the motivations [to go public] are not there in the same way.””
Read more here.

Read Full Post »

Here is some interresting news from Bloomberg.

“Silicon Valley companies looking to put their cash to work may drive a wave of mergers this year, bankers and venture capitalists say.

Companies are eager to make acquisitions because many of them have cut research budgets, says Robert Ackerman, founder and managing director of Allegis Capital in Palo Alto, California. That means they’re not as able to fall back on their own ingenuity to fuel growth. More businesses are relying on acquisitions to find their next new product or service, he says.

“The product cabinet is bare, but the market continues to move forward,” Ackerman said. “Wherever you see innovation sprint ahead, companies will have a product deficit, and will look to fill it.”

Google Inc., based in Mountain View, is currently one of California’s most acquisitive companies, buying at least five businesses in 2010. It agreed to buy Picnik Inc. last month, acquiring online photo-editing tools. Its purchase of DocVerse provided it with software that lets people share documents over the Internet. The value of the deals wasn’t disclosed.

The state’s largest single deal this year was Shiseido Co.’s purchase of San Francisco-based Bare Escentuals Inc. for about $1.7 billion.

California deal-making plummeted after 2007, when more than 2,670 transactions totaled almost $254 billion. So far this year, there have been about 530, worth $16.7 billion. That’s a higher number than in the first three months of 2009, although the value was greater in that year-ago period, at about $30 billion.

McAfee, Tibco

Local acquisition targets include Santa Clara’s McAfee Inc., Tibco Software Inc. in Palo Alto and Cupertino-based ArcSight Inc., according to Brent Thill, an analyst at UBS AG in San Francisco. McAfee and ArcSight both make programs that protect data, which could be more valuable as cyber threats mount. Tibco’s software helps programs of all kinds share information.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. also cited San Francisco’s Salesforce.com Inc. and Palo Alto-based VMware Inc. as possibilities — though those companies aren’t the most likely targets, the firm says. Salesforce.com makes online customer- relationship software, while VMware sells so-called virtualization programs, which help computers run more than one operating system. Representatives from all the targets declined to comment or didn’t respond to messages.

Deal Volume

In Northern California, there were 45 deals involving venture-backed startups during the first three months of 2010, according to the National Venture Capital Association. That was the highest number in any quarter in at least five years.

More than 50 companies in California have at least $1 billion in cash and equivalents, which they could use for acquisitions. They’re led by a Bay area trio: San Francisco’s Wells Fargo & Co., with $68 billion; Cisco Systems Inc. in San Jose, with $39.6 billion; and Cupertino-based Apple Inc., with $24.8 billion, according to Bloomberg data.

“There’s a lot of cash on people’s balance sheets, so I think it’s a great time for startups,” said Kate Mitchell, managing director at Scale Venture Partners in Foster City, California. “They see that the faster, better, cheaper venture- backed companies are still growing, and they’re not spending on R&D, so they can be accretive.”

The value of deals in California topped out at $378.1 billion in 2000 during the Internet bubble, when there were more than 2,200 transactions. It took five years for the number of deals to surpass that earlier peak, and the dollar amount has never come close to recapturing the dot-com era’s glory.

Internet Bust

While the latest recession was the worst economic slump since the Great Depression, it actually wasn’t as devastating to California deal-making as the dot-com collapse. After having easy access to venture money and initial public offerings in the late-1990s and 2000, money dried up. The M&A industry hit bottom in 2002, when just 1,505 transactions accounted for $95.3 billion.

The deals crept back up over the next four years, peaking again in 2006 and early 2007. There were 665 in the first quarter of 2007, valued at $59.8 billion. That’s more than three times the number reported last quarter.

Tor Braham, head of technology mergers and acquisitions for Deutsche Bank AG in San Francisco, says mergers are ready to surge again for two reasons.

Pressure’s On?

“Private-equity funds have raised a lot of money before the financial crisis and there’s pressure on them to spend it before those commitments expire,” he said. Also: “Sellers want to get their deals done this year, before the expected increase in capital gains tax rate.”

Private-equity firms raised $538 billion in 2006 and $587 billion in 2007, just before the recession, according to the Private Equity Council in Washington. Capital-gains taxes, meanwhile, could rise above 20 percent for people earning more than $250,000 under budget proposals before Congress.

In the first quarter, Deutsche Bank advised Techwell Inc. in its $370 million takeover by Intersil Corp. The bank also worked with Nimsoft Inc. in its $350 million acquisition by CA Inc., and Francisco Partners on its sale of Numonyx BV to Micron Technology Inc. for about $1.3 billion.”

Read the full article here.

Read Full Post »

Here is a very thought provoking article in regards to Yahoo and its future. Very readworthy.

“A source close to Yahoo’s strategic planning recently complained to us that Yahoo has “a fundamental innovator’s dilemma.”

What he meant is that while Yahoo has flat traffic, flat revenues, and increasingly limited growth opportunities, it can’t innovate it’s way out of the problem with bold new products because it has to fund, protect, and iterate on “a big existing business that is, let’s face it, very profitable” — display advertising on Yahoo.com and the company’s other media sites.

So while there is, at Yahoo, “a core group of people who still want [and] believe that Yahoo can change things,” these product directors and line engineers increasingly find themselves working not for a tech company, but for a media company content to serve ad impressions against an already huge Web audience.

Right now, this “innovator’s dilemma” is mostly a mild inconvenience that makes Yahoo a less fun place for Silicon Valley engineers and executives to work (which is why so many are quitting). But someday soon, it could kill the company.

That’s because Yahoo’s entire big, existing, profitable business is dependent on consumers continuing to use the Internet and the “Web” the way they are right now for the foreseeable future. That may be a bad bet.

Just ask Google, which is cranking out $25 billion a year on desktop search, but is scrambling to develop a mobile business anyway. Ask Apple, which used to just make Macs, but now calls itself a mobile devices maker. Or ask our source close to Yahoo who believes “the Web is on a verge of a tectonic shift” and that “the [Web] page as a dominate paradigm is going away.”

Our source believes this upcoming “tectonic shift” presents an opportunity for Yahoo to “leverage and benefit from the next disruption.” We agree. But first Yahoo has to solve its “innovator’s dilemma.”

Here are four possible solutions Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz and Yahoo’s historically inept board of directors could pursue:

Seek a leveraged buyout lead by a large private equity firm such as KKR or Blackstone. In theory, this would allow Yahoo to ignore the quarter-by-quarter scrutiny that forces it to protect its display business above all else and re-invest in innovation. To do it it, a PE firm would have to borrow about $30 billion. The problem is PE firms typically buy a company because they believe they can “strip mine” it down to a single, healthy business and then sell it back to the public as a more efficient machine. That doesn’t sound a like a recipe for innovation to us. Finally, remember when Terra Firma acquired record label EMI in hopes of figuring out the Internet? That was a big nasty old bust.

Sell 20% or more of the company to a mid-stage private equity firm, such as Digital Sky Technologies, Elevation Partners, or whomever else Quincy Smith and CODE Advisers could con into the gig. The new part-owners could kick Carol upstairs into the chairmanship and bring in a product-oriented chief executive, who, unlike the last one (cofounder Jerry Yang) is also able to make decisions. The problem with this option is that it requires co-operation from Carol and the board. Also, it assumes shareholders will provide Yahoo some leash after the deal. The other problem is that the model to follow here is Palm, which brought on a ton of Apple execs after Elevation Partners invested. That experiment failed.

Read Full Post »

Here is an interresting article from SF gate´s tech section.

“As companies such as Google, Facebook and Twitter push their technologies around the world, recent events show that they’re not just exporting the latest in online tools, but a basic tenet of the American way of life – freedom of speech.

That has led to Google defying the government of China over censorship issues, to Facebook and Twitter playing a role in fueling opposition protests in Iran and to a Nigerian court banning a civil rights group from using social media to debate amputations for convicted thieves.

“It highlights the fact that technology has political impacts beyond its business model,” said Eddan Katz, international affairs director for San Francisco’s Electronic Frontier Foundation. “It’s not just a form of communication, but a political opportunity in terms of freedom of expression.”

The United States has in the past used media such as movies and radio broadcasts to help spread a view of American life and values around the world.

Avoiding state control

But new technologies such as social networks, text messaging, YouTube, Wikipedia and search engines can now be delivered at lightening speed directly into the hands of ordinary people, providing an end-run around government-controlled media or corporations.

It’s ingrained into Silicon Valley culture, where “there’s still kind of a romanticized view of information technologies being by nature open and free and equalizing,” said Steven Weber, a professor of political science at UC Berkeley. “But to be perfectly honest, there’s an enormous amount of evidence to say that most of that is wishful thinking.”

Nevertheless, the U.S. government has recognized that those tools are to the age of digital technology what sledgehammers were when the Iron Curtain divided Europe.

Last year, the State Department asked San Francisco’s Twitter Inc. to delay scheduled maintenance to let people in Iran continue to use the microblogging network to coordinate protests after the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. At the time, a State Department spokesman said the request was “about giving their voices a chance to be heard.”

Earlier this month, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control relaxed sanctions against Iran, Sudan and Cuba to allow the export of some software, freely available elsewhere, for Web browsing, blogging, e-mail, instant messaging, chat, social networking, and sharing photos and movies.

Those applications make it easier for citizens of those countries to “exercise their most basic human rights” and “communicate with each other and the outside world,” Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin said in a statement.”

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »