NEW YORK (AP) - Apple Inc. said Friday that it is putting its products back on an environmental ratings registry, saying it made a mistake in removing them from the list.
The Cupertino, Calif., company said all of its eligible products are back on the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool registry, and says it looks forward to working with EPEAT, the nonprofit organization that runs the registry.
Apple told EPEAT that it was withdrawing its products from the list on June 29, and said it did not plan to submit its products for ratings in the future.
The list is considered an industry standard and it helps customers buy electronics that are environmentally friendly. Some municipalities also use it to guide their decisions in buying electronics.
In a letter posted on Apple's website, Bob Mansfield, its senior vice president of hardware engineering, said the company 'heard from many loyal Apple customers who were disappointed' the company had removed its products from the system.
'I recognize that this was a mistake,' he wrote.
After Apple's previous announcement, the city of San Francisco said it would stop buying Apple computers.
Shares of Apple rose $7.66, or 1.3 percent, to $606.56 in afternoon trading.
This news article is brought to you by SMALL HOUSE PLANS - where latest news are our top priority.
Friday, July 13, 2012
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Price hike still haunts Netflix stock 1 year later
The unexpected twist that Netflix unveiled a year ago Thursday triggered mass customer cancellations and a sell-off in its stock, which has wiped out more than $11 billion in shareholder wealth.
Netflix Inc. has bounced back this year to revive its subscriber growth. But even after a recent rally, its stock remains more than 70 percent below its peak price of nearly $305 about a year ago, largely because of concerns about what Netflix has been spending to attract and retain subscribers. The stock gained $3.33, or 4 percent, to close Thursday at $84.97.
The company increased its prices by as much as 60 percent as part of an effort to phase out its DVD-by-mail rental service and raise more money to license TV shows and movies for its Internet video library.
Preparing for the day when DVDs become obsolete makes good business sense as the ubiquity of high-speed Internet connections makes it easier and more convenient to watch video online. Promoting Internet streaming over DVDs also helps Netflix save money on postage as it mails fewer discs.
But DVDs still appeal to subscribers who want to watch the latest movie releases. That's because studios generally have refused to license their more recent material for online viewing, leaving Netflix's Internet video library with a less comprehensive selection than what's available on DVD.
The shortcoming wasn't a problem until last year because Netflix had been bundling DVDs with unlimited video streaming in a package that cost as little as $10 per month. With the price change, Netflix split video streaming and DVD rentals into separate services that raised the monthly minimum cost for both to $16.
As if the higher prices weren't aggravating enough, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings infuriated subscribers even more a couple months later with a ham-handed apology that dropped another bombshell: The company intended to spin off the DVD service into a separate website called Qwikster. That switch would inconvenience subscribers who still wanted both DVDs and Internet streaming by requiring them to maintain two separate accounts on different websites.
The ensuring uproar caused Hastings to quickly scrap Qwikster, but by then the damage had been done.
Netflix lost 800,000 U.S. subscribers during the quarter spanning the price hike and the Qwikster announcement, but the company has since bounced back from that setback. As of March 31, Netflix had 26.1 million U.S. subscribers, more than the 24.6 million the company had just before the price hike was announced. The bulk of those subscribers now pay only for Internet streaming.
Just as Hastings envisioned, the streaming service is becoming increasingly addictive as Netflix adds more titles.
Netflix, which is based in Los Gatos, Calif., says its streaming subscribers worldwide watched more than 1 billion hours of Internet video in June. That translates to a monthly average of about 38 hours per subscriber, up from 28 hours late last year. Netflix's commercial-free Internet video library now gets watched more frequently than most TV networks, which depend on ads and cable fees.
Despite the popularity, Netflix hasn't proven that it will be able to make as much money streaming video over the Internet as it has delivering rented DVDs through the mail during the past decade.
Internet video hasn't been as profitable so far primarily because Netflix has had to spend heavily to secure the licensing rights to show movies and TV shows online whenever subscribers want to watch them. The popularity of streaming could prompt movie and TV studios to demand even higher fees.
As of March 31, Netflix had signed contracts that will require the company to pay $3.6 billion in licensing rights during the next five years, including $730 million by next April. Netflix ended March with about $800 million in cash.
The obligations have been piling up so quickly that Netflix expects to post an annual loss this year, the first time that has happened since 2002. Netflix will release its second-quarter results on July 24.
'Smart people question whether they will ever make money,' Pachter said of the challenges facing Netflix in streaming. 'Netflix is growing unprofitably, and content owners who see usage (of video streaming) go up by 50 percent are either going to charge more or offer lower quality content. Either is a drag on the stock.'
Pachter said he is wondering if Netflix's stock might even fall below the $45 price target that he has set for the shares.
Citigroup analyst Mark Mahaney said the concerns about Netflix are overblown, although he doesn't expect the stock to return to its previous high any time soon. He believes Netflix shares could reach $130 within the next year.
This article is brought to you by BUY CHEAP COMPUTERS.
Yahoo's interim CEO faces off with shareholders
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Yahoo's interim CEO has faced skeptical questioning from frustrated shareholders as he tries to convince them that the embattled Internet company will rebound from years of financial malaise and internal turmoil.
Ross Levinsohn's exchanges with investors Thursday came during Yahoo's hour-long annual shareholders meeting in Santa Clara, Calif.
Levinsohn came under scrutiny just two months after he filled a void created when Yahoo Inc. ousted Scott Thompson as CEO. Yahoo dumped Thompson amid a flap over misleading information on his official biography. Thompson's departure came just eight months after Yahoo fired Carol Bartz as CEO.
Levinsohn is now considered to be the leading candidate to be named permanent CEO.
The seven shareholders who questioned Levinsohn Thursday made it clear they are losing their patience with the company.
This article is brought to you by BUY A NEW COMPUTER.
Ross Levinsohn's exchanges with investors Thursday came during Yahoo's hour-long annual shareholders meeting in Santa Clara, Calif.
Levinsohn came under scrutiny just two months after he filled a void created when Yahoo Inc. ousted Scott Thompson as CEO. Yahoo dumped Thompson amid a flap over misleading information on his official biography. Thompson's departure came just eight months after Yahoo fired Carol Bartz as CEO.
Levinsohn is now considered to be the leading candidate to be named permanent CEO.
The seven shareholders who questioned Levinsohn Thursday made it clear they are losing their patience with the company.
This article is brought to you by BUY A NEW COMPUTER.
Yahoo investigating reported mass password breach
LONDON (AP) - Yahoo Inc. said Thursday it is investigating reports of a security breach that may have exposed nearly half a million users' email addresses and passwords.
The company said it was looking into 'claims of a compromise of Yahoo! user IDs' but did not disclose the size of the reported breach or how it may have happened. Yahoo's Head of U.K. Consumer PR Caroline MacLeod-Smith said that she couldn't immediately provide any more detail on the breach 'as we are still investigating it.'
Technology news websites including CNET, Ars Technica, and Mashable cited hackers calling themselves the D33D Company as claiming responsibility for the attack, adding that data posted to the group's website carried more than 453,000 login credentials from an unidentified Yahoo subdomain.
The little-known group was quoted as saying that they had stolen the passwords using an SQL injection - the name given to a commonly-used attack in which hackers use rogue commands to extract data from vulnerable websites.
'We hope that the parties responsible for managing the security of this subdomain will take this as a wake-up call,' the group was quoted as saying.
A Ukraine-registered website associated with D33D Company appeared to be unreachable Thursday; an email address and a phone number attributed to the site's registrant appeared to be invalid.
This article is brought to you by AFFORDABLE COMPUTERS.
The company said it was looking into 'claims of a compromise of Yahoo! user IDs' but did not disclose the size of the reported breach or how it may have happened. Yahoo's Head of U.K. Consumer PR Caroline MacLeod-Smith said that she couldn't immediately provide any more detail on the breach 'as we are still investigating it.'
Technology news websites including CNET, Ars Technica, and Mashable cited hackers calling themselves the D33D Company as claiming responsibility for the attack, adding that data posted to the group's website carried more than 453,000 login credentials from an unidentified Yahoo subdomain.
The little-known group was quoted as saying that they had stolen the passwords using an SQL injection - the name given to a commonly-used attack in which hackers use rogue commands to extract data from vulnerable websites.
'We hope that the parties responsible for managing the security of this subdomain will take this as a wake-up call,' the group was quoted as saying.
A Ukraine-registered website associated with D33D Company appeared to be unreachable Thursday; an email address and a phone number attributed to the site's registrant appeared to be invalid.
This article is brought to you by AFFORDABLE COMPUTERS.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Judge lets startup relay live TV to iPhones in NYC
NEW YORK (AP) - A startup company can continue to send live TV programming to iPhones and other mobile devices in the city despite objections from major broadcasters that say expansion can threaten the free broadcasting of events such as the Super Bowl, a judge ruled Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan said she understood how the service provided by the company, Aereo, may be unfair to broadcasters. But she said the law left her no choice but to reject a request by News Corp.'s Fox and other broadcasters to pull the plug on the company.
Aereo lets customers capture over-the-air broadcasts for viewing on iPhones, iPads and computers for $12 a month. A copyright infringement lawsuit was filed by Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC and others, accusing Aereo of copying and retransmitting their programming over the Internet unlawfully.
Aereo argued that it was providing a legal, alternate platform for free TV broadcasts and was merely letting users rent a remotely located antenna to access content they could receive for free by installing the same equipment at home. Its chief executive told the judge at a hearing that extended litigation would be 'the end of the company.'
Nathan's ruling was on a request for a preliminary injunction. Generally, more evidence is presented before a judge makes a final ruling that can then be appealed, but Nathan said the broadcasters have indicated they are likely to appeal immediately. Lawyers on both sides did not immediately respond to messages for comment Wednesday.
The judge said the broadcasters are likely to suffer irreparable harm as a result of her ruling, including to their ability to negotiate with advertisers once viewers are siphoned from traditional distribution avenues, making it seem that fewer people are watching programs than actually are. She said it also will affect their retransmission agreements because companies will demand concessions from broadcasters to make up for the apparent loss in viewership. These deals, she said, amount to billions of dollars a year for broadcasters.
The judge said Aereo's service has only just begun to operate on any significant scale and the company has conceded that it intends to expand. She noted that the service had grown from 100 users to 3,500 users this year before a hearing she conducted several weeks ago and that Aereo had conducted surveys suggesting its services could prompt a substantial portion of its subscribers to cancel their cable TV subscriptions.
She added that broadcasters' 'showing of imminent irreparable harm is substantial, but not overwhelming.'
In siding with Aereo, the judge said the case probably would have been decided in favor of the broadcasters were it not for a ruling by the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan in a case challenging Cablevision's Remote Storage DVR system. Cablevision was found not to violate copyrights in the case.
The judge noted that Aereo's lawyers had argued that, like Cablevision, it effectively rents to its users remote equipment comparable to what they could install at home. The broadcasters had argued that the judge should conclude Aereo engages in a public performance by transmitting the programming.
The judge said arguments by broadcasters in the Aereo case were 'profoundly similar to those already considered and rejected' by the appeals court.
'This court does not believe it would be appropriate to blaze a trail that runs opposed to the direction dictated by Cablevision,' she wrote.
U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan said she understood how the service provided by the company, Aereo, may be unfair to broadcasters. But she said the law left her no choice but to reject a request by News Corp.'s Fox and other broadcasters to pull the plug on the company.
Aereo lets customers capture over-the-air broadcasts for viewing on iPhones, iPads and computers for $12 a month. A copyright infringement lawsuit was filed by Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC and others, accusing Aereo of copying and retransmitting their programming over the Internet unlawfully.
Aereo argued that it was providing a legal, alternate platform for free TV broadcasts and was merely letting users rent a remotely located antenna to access content they could receive for free by installing the same equipment at home. Its chief executive told the judge at a hearing that extended litigation would be 'the end of the company.'
Nathan's ruling was on a request for a preliminary injunction. Generally, more evidence is presented before a judge makes a final ruling that can then be appealed, but Nathan said the broadcasters have indicated they are likely to appeal immediately. Lawyers on both sides did not immediately respond to messages for comment Wednesday.
The judge said the broadcasters are likely to suffer irreparable harm as a result of her ruling, including to their ability to negotiate with advertisers once viewers are siphoned from traditional distribution avenues, making it seem that fewer people are watching programs than actually are. She said it also will affect their retransmission agreements because companies will demand concessions from broadcasters to make up for the apparent loss in viewership. These deals, she said, amount to billions of dollars a year for broadcasters.
The judge said Aereo's service has only just begun to operate on any significant scale and the company has conceded that it intends to expand. She noted that the service had grown from 100 users to 3,500 users this year before a hearing she conducted several weeks ago and that Aereo had conducted surveys suggesting its services could prompt a substantial portion of its subscribers to cancel their cable TV subscriptions.
She added that broadcasters' 'showing of imminent irreparable harm is substantial, but not overwhelming.'
In siding with Aereo, the judge said the case probably would have been decided in favor of the broadcasters were it not for a ruling by the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan in a case challenging Cablevision's Remote Storage DVR system. Cablevision was found not to violate copyrights in the case.
The judge noted that Aereo's lawyers had argued that, like Cablevision, it effectively rents to its users remote equipment comparable to what they could install at home. The broadcasters had argued that the judge should conclude Aereo engages in a public performance by transmitting the programming.
The judge said arguments by broadcasters in the Aereo case were 'profoundly similar to those already considered and rejected' by the appeals court.
'This court does not believe it would be appropriate to blaze a trail that runs opposed to the direction dictated by Cablevision,' she wrote.
Apple pulls out of environmental ratings registry
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Apple's withdrawal from an environmental ratings registry has prompted at least one city - San Francisco - to stop buying its computers.
The decision does not apply to iPads or iPhones. But Francis Tsang, spokesman for Mayor Edwin Lee's office, says the city's rules require that laptops, computers and monitors comply with the registry's requirements.
Late last month, Apple Inc. told the nonprofit EPEAT, short for Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool, to remove its products from its registry. It also plans to stop submitting its products to EPEAT for environmental ratings.
EPEAT is an industry standard that seeks to make it easier for customers to buy environmentally friendly electronics. Manufacturers still participating include Dell Inc., Hewlett-Packard, Lenovo, Samsung and Sony.
Apple did not respond to messages for comment Wednesday afternoon.
The decision does not apply to iPads or iPhones. But Francis Tsang, spokesman for Mayor Edwin Lee's office, says the city's rules require that laptops, computers and monitors comply with the registry's requirements.
Late last month, Apple Inc. told the nonprofit EPEAT, short for Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool, to remove its products from its registry. It also plans to stop submitting its products to EPEAT for environmental ratings.
EPEAT is an industry standard that seeks to make it easier for customers to buy environmentally friendly electronics. Manufacturers still participating include Dell Inc., Hewlett-Packard, Lenovo, Samsung and Sony.
Apple did not respond to messages for comment Wednesday afternoon.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Source: Google to pay $22.5M fine in privacy case
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Google has agreed to pay a $22.5 million fine to settle allegations that it broke a privacy promise by secretly tracking the online activities of millions of people who use Apple's Safari web browser.
That's according to a person familiar with Google Inc.'s negotiations to settle a case brought by the Federal Trade Commission. The person who spoke to The Associated Press Tuesday asked not to be identified because the agreement still needs to be approved by the FTC.
The Wall Street Journal first reported on the pending settlement.
If approved, the $22.5 million fine would be the largest penalty ever imposed by the FTC.
The agency has been investigating whether unauthorized changes Google made to Safari's privacy settings violated a recent FTC agreement prohibiting the company from misleading consumers.
This news article is brought to you by CONTRACEPTIVES - where latest news are our top priority.
That's according to a person familiar with Google Inc.'s negotiations to settle a case brought by the Federal Trade Commission. The person who spoke to The Associated Press Tuesday asked not to be identified because the agreement still needs to be approved by the FTC.
The Wall Street Journal first reported on the pending settlement.
If approved, the $22.5 million fine would be the largest penalty ever imposed by the FTC.
The agency has been investigating whether unauthorized changes Google made to Safari's privacy settings violated a recent FTC agreement prohibiting the company from misleading consumers.
This news article is brought to you by CONTRACEPTIVES - where latest news are our top priority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)