Wednesday, May 03, 2006
A Microsoft, Yahoo Tie-Up?
One faction within Microsoft Corp. is promoting a bold strategy in the company's battle with Google Inc: Join forces with Yahoo Inc.
That would be a major departure for Microsoft, the software maker that is legendary for toiling on its own until it captures a new market. However, people familiar with the situation say that Microsoft has considered the idea of acquiring a stake in Yahoo, and that the two companies have discussed possible options over the course of the past year.
Currently, talks of an equity stake in Yahoo don't appear to be active, given that Microsoft is focusing on a reorganization that it hopes will re-energize its effort to compete with Google, the fast-growing provider of search services and advertising.
Two wild cards remain: Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer, who has historically shunned large acquisitions, and Yahoo co-founder Jerry Yang, whose support would be key to bringing the necessary Yahoo shareholders on board for a deal. Mr. Yang and others in Yahoo would be hard-pressed to sell to Microsoft, people close to the company say.
However, people familiar with Microsoft say its top management remains open to a deal with Yahoo as pressure grows to perform better against Google.
The increasing pressure on Microsoft -- not just from Google, but also from its own shareholders, as well as from advertisers that want an alternative to Google -- could help to justify the acquisition or some kind of business collaboration, these people say.
Since 2004, Microsoft has invested heavily to better compete with Google but it has yet to boost its share of search or online advertising. At the same time, Google has released products that some industry experts say could over time eat into Microsoft's core software businesses.
Microsoft executives say that they are investing for the long haul, and that the online-search market is still nascent and has much room for growth. A Microsoft spokesman declined to comment. A Yahoo spokeswoman declined to comment, saying the company doesn't discuss "rumors and speculation."
In one sign that Microsoft may be serious about major acquisitions, it has hired search-industry executive Steve Berkowitz to head MSN, the Internet unit that is building the Web-search business and is leading Microsoft's charge against Google, including Web search. Mr. Berkowitz, the former chief executive of search site Ask.com, is viewed as a likely deal maker at MSN, having completed more than 40 acquisitions in his career, according to a person close to the matter. He starts May 8. Mr. Berkowitz couldn't be reached for comment.
Microsoft's recent quarterly results provided a picture of the pressure it faces from Google. On Thursday, Microsoft said the MSN unit fell into the red and its revenue declined. Those numbers show it is failing to capture the same online-advertising tail wind that is helping Google. By contrast, Google's first-quarter net income rose 60% from a year earlier to $592 million. U.S. online advertising generally rose 30% to $12.5 billion last year, according to the Interactive Advertising Bureau trade group and consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Microsoft executives also said they will need to boost investments in online businesses in the next fiscal year to levels far higher than Wall Street had expected. That prompted an 11% selloff of Microsoft shares Friday. The stock has ticked lower this week. In 4 p.m. Nasdaq Stock Market composite trading, shares fell 1.2% to $24.01, after hitting a 52-week low during the day of $23.90.
At its core, the clash between Microsoft and Google centers on Microsoft's attempt to build up its Web-search and online-advertising businesses, and Google's push to broaden its own offerings onto Microsoft's traditional turf. Google's encroachment includes software that lets consumers search the content of their personal computers, and email and calendar services that overlap with Microsoft software offerings. Microsoft has pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into its search-engine technology and an online-ad system called AdCenter, which it plans to officially unveil this week. But so far its approach hasn't yielded the sought-after results.
In search, "Microsoft appears to be falling farther behind Yahoo and Google," says Henry Ellenbogen, portfolio manager of the T. Rowe Price Media & Telecommunications fund, whose holdings included Yahoo and Google shares as of March 31. Mr. Ellenbogen considers a Microsoft bid for Yahoo a possibility.
Some investors are growing increasingly impatient with Microsoft's spending to compete with Google head-on. "Chasing Google in search is a waste of money," says Walter Price, managing director at RCM Capital Management LLC. Investors such as Mr. Price point to the results so far: Microsoft's share of the Web-search market dropped to just 10.9% of all U.S. search queries in March 2006 from 14.2% in February 2005, while Google and Yahoo each gained share, according to research firm NetRatings Inc., and in March were at 49% and 22.5%, respectively.
A Microsoft-Yahoo combination could merge complementary strengths. To succeed in Internet-search advertising -- the business driving Google's growth -- a competitor needs three core elements: strong technology, a mass of consumers and a universe of different advertisers. Microsoft is spending untold hundreds of millions of dollars on the technology piece, but it doesn't yet have enough consumers using its MSN service to entice the needed advertisers.
A tie-up with Yahoo could address part of that problem. It has more than 100 million people visiting its site a month, making it the most popular Web site in the U.S. So far it is losing the race to Google when it comes to the technology for matching ads to consumer search queries, though it plans to unveil an upgrade to its system this month.
Combined, MSN and Yahoo would have all three pieces and, at least on paper, could leapfrog Google. Combined, the companies would have the "technology and the scale," to compete, says Ellen Siminoff, a former Yahoo senior vice president and now chief executive of search marketing company Efficient Frontier Inc.
RCM's Mr. Price says Microsoft should focus on building its online-ad business around media properties, such as sports highlights that display ads, the type of content services that Yahoo has spent years developing. "To the extent that they can preserve the Yahoo culture and let Yahoo focus on being the next-generation media company -- that would be really good for Microsoft," Mr. Price says.
Short of a wholesale acquisition, Microsoft could sell MSN to Yahoo, taking a minority stake in the Internet portal, say people familiar with the company.
Behind the scenes at Microsoft there are two factions of thinking about a Yahoo deal, say people familiar with Microsoft. One, largely led by MSN veterans, has been focused on Microsoft building its own answer to Google. So far that group has prevailed.
Pushing for more is Hank Vigil, a Microsoft senior vice president who internally is advocating for Microsoft to do a major deal such as a tie-up with Yahoo, say people familiar with Microsoft. Mr. Vigil has a long history of forging (and at times fixing) relations with other companies in the industries in which Microsoft plays. Last year Mr. Vigil led Microsoft in talks to form a joint venture with Time Warner Inc. that would have combined MSN and the media giant's AOL unit. The plan was scuttled after Google swooped in with $1 billion and took a 5% stake in AOL. Mr. Vigil couldn't be reached for comment.
source:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114662449016042303.html
Study Shows Americans Sicker Than English
Americans had higher rates of diabetes, heart disease, strokes, lung disease and cancer — findings that held true no matter what income or education level.
Those dismal results are despite the fact that U.S. health care spending is double what England spends on each of its citizens.
"Everybody should be discussing it: Why isn't the richest country in the world the healthiest country in the world?" asks study co-author Dr. Michael Marmot, an epidemiologist at University College London in England.
The study, based on government statistics in both countries, adds context to the already-known fact that the United States spends more on health care than any other industrialized nation, yet trails in rankings of life expectancy.
The United States spends about $5,200 per person on health care while England spends about half that in adjusted dollars.
Even experts familiar with the weaknesses in the U.S. health system seemed stunned by the study's conclusions.
"I knew we were less healthy, but I didn't know the magnitude of the disparities," said Gerard Anderson, an expert in chronic disease and international health at Johns Hopkins University who had no role in the research.
Just why the United States fared so miserably wasn't clear. Answers ranging from too little exercise to too little money and too much stress were offered.
Even the U.S. obesity epidemic couldn't solve the mystery. The researchers crunched numbers to create a hypothetical statistical world in which the English had American lifestyle risk factors, including being as fat as Americans. In that model, Americans were still sicker.
Smoking rates are about the same on both sides of the pond. The English have a higher rate of heavy drinking.
Only non-Hispanic whites were included in the study to eliminate the influence of racial disparities. The researchers looked only at people ages 55 through 64, and the average age of the samples was the same.
Americans reported twice the rate of diabetes compared to the English, 12.5 percent versus 6 percent. For high blood pressure, it was 42 percent for Americans versus 34 percent for the English; cancer showed up in 9.5 percent of Americans compared to 5.5 percent of the English.
The upper crust in both countries was healthier than middle-class and low-income people in the same country. But richer Americans' health status resembled the health of the low-income English.
"It's something of a mystery," said Richard Suzman of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, which helped fund the study.
Health experts have known the U.S. population is less healthy than that of other industrialized nations, according to several important measurements, including life expectancy. The U.S. ranks behind about two dozen other countries, according to the World Health Organization.
Some have believed the United States has lagged because it is more ethnically diverse, said Suzman, who heads the National Institute on Aging's Behavioral and Social Research Program. "Minority health in general is worse than white health," he said.
But the new study showed that when minorities are removed from the equation, and adjustments are made to control for education and income, white people in England are still healthier than white people in the United States.
"As far as I know, this is the first study showing this," said Suzman. The study, supported by grants from government agencies in both countries, was published in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association.
Other studies have measured the United States against other countries in terms of health care spending, use of medical care and availability of health care services. But this is the first to focus on prevalence of chronic conditions, said Anderson, the Johns Hopkins professor.
Differences in exercise might partly explain the gap, he suggested. One of the study's authors, Jim Smith, said the English exercise somewhat more than Americans. But physical activity differences won't fully explain the study's results, he added.
Marmot offered a different explanation for the gap: Americans' financial insecurity. Improvements in household income have eluded all but the top fifth of Americans since the mid-1970s. Meanwhile, the English saw their incomes improve, he said.
Robert Blendon, a professor of health policy at the Harvard School of Public Health who was not involved in the study, said the stress of striving for the American dream may account for Americans' lousy health.
"The opportunity to go both up and down the socioeconomic scale in America may create stress," Blendon said. Americans don't have a reliable government safety net like the English enjoy, Blendon said.
However, Britain's universal health-care system shouldn't get credit for better health, Marmot and Blendon agreed.
Both said it might explain better health for low-income citizens, but can't account for better health of Britain's more affluent residents.
Marmot cautioned against looking for explanations in the two countries' health-care systems.
"It's not just how we treat people when they get ill, but why they get ill in the first place," Marmot said.
source:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060503/ap_on_he_me/sick_america;_ylt=ApwGI2_a4VR7yCf_3J4qmU2s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3czJjNGZoBHNlYwM3NTE-
Can You Spoof IP Packets?
source:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/02/1729257
Cash card taps virtual game funds
 The virtual space station will be transformed into a nightclub |
Gamers can use the card at cash machines around the world to convert virtual dollars into real currency.
The card is offered by the developers of Project Entropia, an online role-playing game that has a real world cash economy.
Last year, a virtual space resort being built in the game was snapped up by a gamer for $100,000 (£56,200).
The buyer, Jon Jacobs who plays in the game as a character called Nerverdie, is developing the space station into a virtual night club through which the entertainment industry can sell music and videos to gamers.
"We're bridging the gap between virtual reality and reality right now," said Jan Welter, founder of Project Entropia.
Alternate worlds
Project Entropia is one of several games known as massively multi-player online role-playing games (MMORPGs).
The games allow people to inhabit alternate virtual worlds as a character of their choosing.
We are creating the next level of the online experience 
In Entropia, these avatars, as they are known, play out their virtual lives in a planet called Calypso that has two continents with large expanding cities.
The basic version of the game is free. But according to Jan Welter, just like the real world you need money to experience everything the Universe has to offer.
"If you fell out of nowhere and landed in a street in London, you could walk around there for free. But if you want to have fun then you need to spend money," he said. "It's the same in our world."
The Entropia economy works by allowing gamers to exchange real currency for Project Entropia Dollars (PEDs) and back again into real money.
Ten PEDs are the equivalent to one US dollar.
Making money
Gamers can earn cash by accumulating PEDs via the acquisition of goods, buildings and land.
For example a gamer may choose to be a hunter who traps virtual animals for their furs. These can then be sold to a virtual seamstress who makes and sells clothes.
The founding company, MindArk, makes money because all of the tools used by characters in the game have a finite life and need to be repaired.
If a hunter needs to continue using his weapon to make money, he must pay MindArk to repair it.
Last year $165m passed through the game and the founders of the online Universe expect that to at least double in 2006.
The new cash card blurs the boundary between the virtual and physical world even further.
It allows people to access their virtually acquired PEDs and convert them into real world money at any cash machine in the world.
"We are creating the next level of the online experience," said Mr Welter.
Virtual treasure
The card, issued by MindArk, is associated with the players Entropia Universe account and has all of the features of a real world bank account.
Players can transfer, withdraw, deposit and even view account balances using the system.
"It is incredible to now think that it is possible to manufacture and sell a virtual item one minute and then go out and buy real dinner the next minute, with the same funds," said Jon Jacobs, owner of the virtual space resort.
For many people, games like Entropia have become a real source of income.
In December 2004, another character called Deathifier, bought a virtual treasure island for $26,500 (£13,700).
The real person behind the character, an Australian gamer called David Storey, recouped his money within a year by selling land to build virtual homes as well as taxing other gamers to hunt or mine on the island.
The sale of the island was in the Guinness book of World Records as the most virtual dollar ever spent.
The sale of the space station in 2005 is the new record holder.
source:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4953620.stm
Software and Web Development Blog
For sites with recurring traffic there are at least 10 times less unique customers than there are unique IPs.
Example: if an online radio or news site (i.e. a site with recurring traffic serving primarily repeat customers) claims that it has 1 million unique visitors (meaning IPs) in reality they have no more than 100,000 unique visitors.
Explanation: in USA there are about as many DSL customers as there are Cable customers. Presuming that the latter have static IPs the former draw different IP from some pool each time they connect.
Since recurring traffic presumes visiting the same site over and over again, quite frequently from different computers (i.e. at home, at work, via laptop, etc.) new IPs are drawn from the pool disproportionately inflating DSL customer visits.
While it is obvious that DSL visits would be inflated they are drawn from a limited pool. Given enough time the entire pool will be drawn by DSL customers thus giving the impression that there are as many unique visitors as there are IPs in the pool.
So unless a site is really big (like CNN.com or MSN.com) the number of actual unique visitors is much less than the size of the pool, hence the number of unique visits will be inflated by the factor of times each customer visits the site in any given interval of time.
Hence if the number of unique IPs is measured within a month and it is known that via random callout that visitors visit the site at least 10 times a month then the equation linking unique visitors with unique IPs will be:
IPs = Visitors*(DSL_FRACTION*VISITS_PER_TIME_PERIOD + CABLE_FRACTION)
If DSL_FRACTION = CABLE_FRACTION = 0.5 then we get
IPs = 5.5*Visitors or Visitors = IPs/5.5
And the most important unknown factor is the number of visits per time period.
So do not trust stats, they ARE inflated.
source:http://techsearch.cmp.com/blog/archives/2006/03/online_advertis_1.html?loc=software_and_web_development
