Month: February 2009

Gates releases the bugs for real – philanthropy or crime?

by

Bill Gates released a bunch of bugs to the public yesterday, literally. During a presentation at the TED (Technology, Entertainment and Design) Conference  in Long Beach, California February 5, Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates opened a jar of mosquitos and let them loose on an unsuspecting audience of elitist rich and famous Hollywood types to demonstrate the need for a cure for malaria.

Apparently Bill and wife Melinda Gates pledged $168 million to the research and eradication of the illness, which is primarily spread through contact with mosquitoes in third world countries. He was giving a presentation at TED to raise awareness of the disease.  “not only poor people should experience this”, Gates said, just before opening the jar.

After sufficient reaction to the stunt Gates assured the audience that the mosquitos were not actually infected with malaria. However, while the audience understood the symbolism of the exercise, it wasn’t necessarily well received. eBay founder Pierre Olmydar tweeted out “That’s it, I’m not sitting up front anymore.”

Now, I’ll admit that the idea of gathering a bunch of rich elites in a room and making them sweat a little is probably on the minds of a lot of the rest of the country, but this just isn’t right. It’s a little weird, even for Gates. However, that isn’t what bothers me.

What bother me is that he could get away with such a stupid stunt, and it is stupid. Aside from the sensationalism it draws from the media and obvious jokes about Bill Gates and buggy products, there’s a real issue about a lack of accountability for the actions of someone who happens to be one of the most well-known and wealthiest individuals in the world.

Forget the claim for a moment that these mosquitos are malaria-free. Are they free of other communicable diseases as well? That little fact is yet to be corroborated. Even if they are, who wants to be bitten by a mosquito anyway?

The mere possibility of such an assault by blood-sucking flying insects in an enclosed room full of human beings initiated by a deliberate action on the part of another is, in my book, nothing short of a crime. Sure, the insects may not be infected and they may not even bite anyone, but there is always a risk someone will be bitten. They were deliberately released into a captive crowd with little or no notice. I consider that assault with a potentially deadly weapon, even if that weapon wasn’t loaded.

This is the equivalent of someone holding up a convenience store with a toy gun. It may not be a real weapon, but it doesn’t matter. It’s still robbery and it is still a crime. If a lunatic attacked someone with a needle and said they had AIDS, they’d be charged with attempted murder, even if they were bluffing. It’s not the act that is the crime in these cases, it’s the intent.

If someone off the street pulled the stunt Gates apparently got away with, they would surely be arrested and charged with such a crime. Why not Gates? Is it because he gives away money and is called a philanthropist? Hey, I used to give to the United Way. Why should I get a parking ticket?

There is a lot of talk about this mosquito stunt on the net. There are jokes and snide remarks and even a few who are “enlightened” by the symbolism of the act. Not from me. I am angry because someone did something that was clearly  out of line and he got away with it when others would be punished. Why? Because he is Bill Gates.

Standards only apply to those who follow them. – Rick

Netbooks are destroying Microsoft? I don’t think so

by

Last week I read a post by Computerworld blogger Preston Gralla that made me stop and go “huh”?  Gralla says Linux on Netbooks are killing Microsoft. According to Preston, Netbook sales are driving Microsoft to layoff employees because Microsoft is losing margin.

While there may be some truth to the fact that Linux is gaining an edge in the Netbook market, it is hardly killing Microsoft, whose revenue is not driven by the operating system alone. In additon, while Microsoft is losing margin, it can hardly claim that the company is tanking because of the netbook market alone.

Where did Gralla get the data to base these assumptions on? From hard numbers? from industry analysts? No. He based a lot of it on conjecture, mostly from those who commented on a previous blog post on a related topic and he admitted as much in his post. He reasoned it out himself, saying such things as  “Microsoft most likely gets less for each copy of Windows sold on a netbook than it does on a desktop machine”, “Microsoft probably gets less for XP than it does for Vista” and “Microsoft will likely continue to be paid less for Windows 7 on a netbook than on a more powerful PC”.

Most likely? Probably? Will Likely? Seriously, Preston, did you research any of this before you posted?

First, let’s look at the facts.

“Microsoft most likely gets less for each copy of Windows sold on a netbook than it does on a desktop machine.”

That is purely a guess on your part, and while there is some truth to the conjecture, it doesn’t mean Microsoft is losing money. Here’s why:

1. Fact – Although Microsoft lists pricing of OEM licenses for system builders, Redmond does not advertise or discuss pricing for Tier 1 royalty OEMs. It is generally private between Microsoft and that royalty OEM account. Netbook manufacturers are royalty OEMs, not lower tier system builders, so they do get a big break on the price while the system builder pays whatever price is set for those licenses through the channel.

However, although the royalty licensing is considerably less, its still not free, so those OEMs do indeed pay for those licenses and Microsoft does indeed make their money.

2. Fact – Microsoft is a business, not a charity. They give breaks to their Tier 1 OEMs, but they do not operate at a loss. They still build their margin into it. They are still making money.

Bottom line: Yes, this is a true statement. However it insinuates that Microsoft is LOSING money selling Windows on netbooks and making it on desktops, which is totally untrue. The Netbooks licenses still sold at nice markup and a fair profit. They just make a much larger markup on the desktops and, as some system builders may confide, more than fair.

“Microsoft probably gets less for XP than it does for Vista”?

This one made me laugh.

3. Fact – Windows XP is currently being installed or rolled back onto PCs at an estimated rate of 3 to 1. Bad for Vista? Yes, it is. Bad for Microsoft? Yes and No. Yes in terms of Microsoft’s ROI in Vista, no in terms of Microsoft’s ROI in XP.

4. Fact – Windows Vista cost a lot more to develop than XP. Redmond spent over $1B developing and marketing Vista. It spent a lot less than that developing XP. Vista has been available for two years. XP has been around for about nine. In fact, it is still selling strong, in spite of the company’s attempts to take it off the market.

5. Fact – As mentioned earlier, an estimated two thirds of Vista users use their downgrade rights to migrate to XP. They are no longer running Vista, yet Microsoft still counts it as a Vista sale and not XP, since the Vista license was initially purchased.

6. Fact – Vista is priced higher than XP, which means that when a user downgrades from Vista to XP, they are actually paying MORE for XP than they would had they purchased a PC with XP instead of Vista.

Bottom line: Has Vista returned on its investment? No. Has XP? You bet, and more. Microsoft made that back years ago. given the facts, Microsoft lost money on its investment in Vista, but made its money back on XP years ago. This means that the actual cost of producing XP and bringing it to market is so minimal the margin on an XP sale is way beyond reasonable. So, while Vista could be considered a write-off in many respects, XP is like selling bottled tap water and is basically a cash cow for Microsoft.

“Microsoft will likely continue to be paid less for Windows 7 on a netbook than on a more powerful PC”?

7. Fact – A royalty OEM license, or any system builder license for a particular product or version on a netbook is the same license as the one on a laptop. Vista Whatever is Vista Whatever, Office Whatever is Office Whatever. It is the same license and basically costs the OEM the same whether it is attached to a netbook, laptop, desktop or tablet PC. It’s not the device itself that determines the price, but what the software the license is for.

Now, could Microsoft make an exception for a netbook? Of course. But in such a scenario Fact 1 applies.

8. We don’t know the pricing for Windows 7 yet, so we really can’t draw conclusions. However, Microsoft has said that Windows 7 would have at least as many versions as Windows Vista and would have similar price points.

Bottom line: With the facts given above, does it matter?

“There’s very little margin on a machine selling for $200 or $300, and so Microsoft simply can’t charge full freight for Windows on one.

Now, this one just floors me. Preston, the MSRP of a netbook has little to do with what Microsoft decides to charge for its software.

8. Fact – Microsoft doesn’t care what we sell the computer for, they aren’t selling the computer, they are selling the software that is bundled with it.

9. Fact – Microsoft may negotiate with the royalty OEMs, but at the end of the day they charge what they want and the OEM decides how low they can sell the netbook with the license installed and still make a dollar.

10. Fact – System builders generally pay in advance for licenses or blocks of them, whether they use them or not. If I buy 30 copies of Vista put ten licenses on ten PCs and installed Linux on the rest of them, Microsoft got their money. I’m just stuck with 20 licenses in inventory.

Bottom line: whether the manufacturer sells a netbook for $1 or $100, Microsoft still charges the system builder what they charge according to the OEM license agreement. Whether the vendor makes money on the resale is the vendor’s problem, not Microsoft’s.

Association for Downloadable Media Members Adopt Standards and Measurement Guidelines

by

Ad Standards Define Industry Units and Organize Audience Reporting

Washington, D.C. (PRWEB) February 2, 2009 — The Association for Downloadable Media (ADM), which facilitates the monetization of episodic consumer-downloaded content, today announced a list of members who are in voluntary support of the first standards and guidelines agreed upon by the organization. This further advances the organization's charter of creating a landscape favorable to the commercialization of web-delivered shows.

Both the ad standards and audience measurement guidelines were created by open committees, then offered for public comment, edited and ratified by the organization. Though many members have been following these formats as a standard practice of doing business, the member organizations are now organizing to publicly support these standards in an effort to create a scalable, organized market for advertisers to easily flight campaigns and become sponsors of episodic podcasts and vidcasts.

"Our members' voluntary support of the ADM standards and guidelines provides structural integrity across separately-held ad networks, inventory pools and publisher assets, to create the scale needed to operate in today's advertising marketplace," says Chris MacDonald, Chairman of the Association for Downloadable Media. (http://www.downloadablemedia.org.)

Ad units that have been standardized include pre, mid and post roll insertions, product placement within shows, and host-endorsements among the twenty-five creative options outlined in the standards document. The measurement guidelines give each member company one of two reporting options, based on how their shows are hosted, either Native Server Measurement (NSM) or Third Party Measurement (TPM).

Now marketers can create ad units they can run in multiple podcast networks as well as in the shows of independent content producers to weave together a demographic and/or contextually targeted campaign. Further, audience metrics can be compared more easily and with confidence.

"With the emergence of each new digital media it's vital to create standardized ad units and measurement. Now that downloadable media companies are adopting the ADM guidelines, ad agencies will include podcasts and vidcasts in their media recommendations as standardized units mean they can scale across multiple content producers to get the reach they need." Susan MacDermid, SVP, Real Branding."

List of the Member Companies Participating in the Standards:

The ADM is open to both corporate and individual producers of content as well as non-profits, advertising agencies and solutions providers in the portable media space. The following companies that have agreed to offer at least a portion of the ad units outlined in the standards document and to report their audience metrics through one of the two methods outlined in the guideline are listed below.

COMPANY / CONTACT
BackBeat Media / Dave Hamilton
Bare Feet Studios / Roxanne Darling
Burst Media / Rob Simon
Circle of Seven Productions Sheila English
Coverville / Brian Ibbott
Culinary Media Network Jennifer Iannolo
Culture Catch / Richard Burns
IndieFeed / Chris Macdonald
KCRW /   Jennifer Ferro
Kiptronic / Dave Rowley
Modified Media / Doug Taylor
NPR / Bryan Moffett
Personal Life Media / Susan Bratton
Podcast.com (Treedia Labs) / Glenn Gaudet
Podtrac / Mark McCrery
Portage Media Solutions / Jeremiah Staes
PRI   / Morgan Church
Quick and Dirty Tips / Richard Rhorer
Raw Voice / Angelo Mandato
Revision3 / Jim Louderback
Sciencepodcasters.org / Ginger Campbell
SkydiverGirls.tv / Karen KFC Blanchette
Volomedia / Jeff Karnes
Wizzard Media / Chris Macdonald
ZimmComm New Media / Chuck Zimmerman
    
About the ADM

The Association for Downloadable Media (http://www.downloadablemedia.org) is focused on providing standards for advertising and audience measurement for episodic and downloadable media. The organization's constituents include individual podcasters, media companies, publishers, syndication companies and distributors offering downloadable media, advertising agencies, marketers, technology suppliers, hardware and software manufacturers of portable media products and services, market research firms and audience and advertising effectiveness measurement companies. Through our volunteer membership, we provide leadership in and organization of advertising and audience measurement standards, research, education and advocacy to all those involved in portable media (Podcasts/ATOM/RSS media enclosures) across the Internet, iPods, MP3 players, mobile devices, P2P and other upcoming platforms.

For more information, contact:

Susan Bratton
Personal Life Media
650-948-0500
susan at personallifemedia dot com

Phil Wilson
Association for Downloadable Media
612-743-7860
pwilson at downloadablemedia dot org

Cyveillance: Test Reveals Majority of Malware Undetected by Leading A/V Vendors

by

According to Company's Latest Cyber Intelligence Report: Detection Rates for Malware are Getting Worse and Anti-Phishing Filters Detect Less than Fifty Percent of Attacks. Cyveillance, the world leader in cyber intelligence, today announced that a recent test of best-of-breed anti-virus vendors and Web browser anti-phishing filters revealed that more than half of active malware and phishing threats on the Internet go undetected, with an average detection rate of 37 percent for malware and 42 percent for phishing. This data was captured as part of Cyveillance's "2H 2008 Cyber Intelligence Report," which was issued today.

Arlington, VA (PRWEB) February 2, 2009 — Cyveillance, the world leader in cyber intelligence, today announced that a recent test of best-of-breed anti-virus vendors and Web browser anti-phishing filters revealed that more than half of active malware and phishing threats on the Internet go undetected, with an average detection rate of 37 percent for malware and 42 percent for phishing. This data(1) was captured as part of Cyveillance's "2H 2008 Cyber Intelligence Report," which was issued today.

"Given the dynamic nature of today's online threats and the traditionally reactive approach taken by today's malware and phishing detection technology, conventional signature-based solutions are inherently at a disadvantage to keep up," said Panos Anastassiadis, CEO and Chairman of Cyveillance. "Because the majority of damage occurs during the first 24 hours of an attack, early detection of attacks is crucial. By combining today's defensive technologies with proactive intelligence gathered in real-time, organizations can significantly limit the harm inflicted by today's dynamically changing threats."

In addition to a detailed evaluation of the effectiveness of leading anti-virus malware detection and Web browser anti-phishing technologies, the report also tracks the online "fraud chain" comprised of malware components that store and serve malware executables, distribute malware to consumers, and receive and store the confidential information collected from infected computers.

Other key report findings include:
– Data tracked during second half of 2008 shows that the United States and China continue to be the top distributors of malware on the Internet.
– 159 unique new brands were phished in the second half of 2008, which represents a slight decrease compared to the number of new brands targeted during the same time a year ago.
– Phishers continue to expand attacks globally and across new industries. In the second half of 2008, Cyveillance saw an increase in the number of new phishing targets in countries that had yet to be phished as well as new targets in the media and social networking industries.

Anti-virus Malware and Web Browser Test Results
More information about Cyveillance's testing of anti-virus malware vendors and Web browser anti-phishing filters is included in the company's "2H 2008 Cyber Intelligence Report."

Malware
Cyveillance identifies a malware threat as a file or application downloaded from a Web site or server that exhibits properties that are both involuntary and malicious in nature. An active malware threat is one that has been located on a live Web site within the last 30 days.

Because anti-virus solutions primarily detect previously identified malware threats, perpetrators quickly replace recently discovered malware threats with modified versions and exploit this discovery lag-time to evade detection and infect unsuspecting machines. As such, the Cyveillance test which took place between November 30 and December 29, 2008, looked at twelve best-of-breed anti-virus vendor solution(2), deployed in their default settings with auto-update features enabled to ensure all malware signatures were within vendor parameters.

Phishing
Phishing threats are social engineering scams that rely on both technology and human interaction to carry out online fraud and identity theft. The schemes are varied but typically involve a spoofed (spam) email that mimics an email from a legitimate and respected organization in order to steal personal information (e.g., username and password, credit card number, Social Security number, etc.). The information collected is then used for identity theft purposes.

To better understand the daily risks consumers face from phishing attacks, Cyveillance test sampled unique and confirmed phishing attacks uncovered against a variety of organizations. To measure the effectiveness of some of today's leading consumer anti-phishing protections (3), Cyveillance fed these confirmed live attacks through four of the most widely used browsers with embedded anti-phishing technology. The data was fed in real-time to each browser and then again 24 hours later to determine detection rates over a minimal period of time.

All figures and statistics in the Cyveillance "2H 2008 Cyber Intelligence Report" are actual measurements rather than projections based upon sample datasets. The cyber intelligence included in this report includes data collected and analyzed between July 1 and December 31, 2008. It represents aggregate cyber intelligence findings that Cyveillance has delivered to its OEM data partners, except where otherwise noted. For more information about Cyveillance's research findings, please visit: http://www.cyveillance.com/web/forms/request.asp?getFile=113.

About Cyveillance:
Cyveillance, the world leader in cyber intelligence, provides an intelligence-led approach to security. Through continuous, comprehensive Internet monitoring and sophisticated intelligence analysis, Cyveillance proactively identifies and eliminates threats to information, infrastructure, individuals and their interactions, enabling its customers to preserve their reputation, revenues, and customer trust. Cyveillance serves the Global 2000 and OEM Data Partners – protecting the majority of the Fortune 50, regional financial institutions nationwide, and more than 30 million global consumers through its partnerships with security and service providers that include AOL and Microsoft. For more information, visit www.cyveillance.com.

(1) Cyveillance's comprehensive monitoring technology continuously sweeps the Internet – monitoring and collecting information from over 200 million unique domain name servers, 150 million unique Web sites, 80 million blogs, 90,000 message boards, thousands of IRC/Chat channels, billions of spam emails, auction sites, bot networks and more. This approach yields the discovery of more than 100,000 new sites each day.

(2) Vendors tested included F-Secure, Kaspersky, McAfee, Sunbelt, Sophos, Trend Micro, Dr. Web, AVG, Eset Nod32, F-Prot, Virus Buster and Norman. Symantec data was inconclusive at time of publication and was not included in the test results.

(3) Vendors tested included Firefox, Safari, Chrome and IE7.