Archive for May 2nd, 2008

Filed under: , , ,

Drop.io fax

We rarely run into situations where we absolutely have to send a fax these days. Most of the time, a PDF will do. But if you need to send a document to someone whose only means of communication with the outside world is a fax machine, you can still sign and send the contract necessary to help that nice Nigerian fellow’s funds out of the bank account they’re stuck in.

Drop.io is a file sharing service that we’ve covered in the past. The service provides you with a very special URL that you can share with friends and colleagues so that anyone can upload and share documents. Drop.io recently added the ability to send uploaded documents via fax. You can send Word, Excel, and PDF files to any fax number. The only limitation is that files cannot be more than 20 pages long, which is a vast improvement over other free online fax services like FaxZero, which will charge $1.99 per page for any document longer than three pages.

Ideal of all, you don’t even need to sign up for a drop.io account to send a fax. Just visit the main page, upload your document, and click send on the subsequent page.

[via Digital Inspiration]

Read

Comments No Comments »

Engadget recently grabbed a few minutes with Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz. They were able to get some great information on the JavaFX Mobile platform as well as Java on the iPhone and how the struggle against Microsoft is going with respect to open source.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Comments No Comments »

arbitraryaardvark writes “Mega-spammer Jeremy Jaynes was convicted in Virginia of spamming in ‘05, sentenced to 9 years, and lost his appeal, 4-3, at the Virgina Supreme Court. But the court has just ordered a new hearing on whether the anti-spam statute is unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Slashdot previously covered the appeal and the conviction.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Comments No Comments »

Raster Burn writes “According to TechCrunch, Twitter has plans to abandon Ruby on Rails after two years of scalability issues. Candidates to replace Rails are stated to be PHP, Java, and Ruby without the Rails framework.” The post links a brief comment (at 139 characters, probably a tweet) from Twitter founder Ev Williams saying it ain’t so. The comments following the post embody the controversy over whether or not RoR sucks.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Comments No Comments »

SkiifGeek writes “Early in March, Wintercore Labs published proof of a generic approach to defeating audio CAPTCHAs, using Google’s as the case study for their demonstration. With claims of over 90% success rate and expectations that this can be significantly improved with the right mix of filtering algorithms, the in-house tool remains unreleased. But it shouldn’t take long for other developers to create their own tools and begin targeting not only Google, but other sites that use audio CAPTCHAs for the vision-impaired. It isn’t the first time that major sites (significantly major webmail providers) have had their CAPTCHAs broken, but it is the first reporting of defeating an audio CAPTCHA using a generic software approach. News about the discovery is slowly starting to spread.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Comments No Comments »

SecureThroughObscure writes tells us about a hack broken by MacOSRumors: you can get free Wi-Fi at Starbucks, Barnes & Noble, and other AT&T hotspots if you know how to set your browser’s user agent string (trivial on Safari), and know a valid iPhone phone number. ZDNet blogger Nate McFeters gives some more details and links. This can’t last.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Comments No Comments »

LBR9 writes “James Reinders compares native threads with the goto statement so famously denounced 40 years ago by Edsger Dijkstra. Paraphrasing Dijkstra, he says they both ‘make a mess of a program,’ and then argues in favor of a higher level of abstraction. A couple of people commenting on the post question whether or not we should be even be treading into the ’swamp of parallelism,’ echoing the view recently espoused by Donald Knuth.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Comments No Comments »

Filed under: , , , , , , ,

This post is part of our Battle of the Brands feature. Let us know which brand you like, and check out other Battle of the Brands posts.

“I’m like Ma Bell, I got the ill communication.” — Beastie Boys

When considering these two particular companies, it is important to note their roots as offspring of the famous “Ma Bell” network. The Bell System, which has produced the most complex ongoing series of mergers and break-ups in the history of the United States, is the origin of the companies that are now AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T) and Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE: VZ), as well as competitor Qwest Communications International (NYSE: Q). A lot has changed since those early times — remember, after all, that the second “T” in AT&T symbolized Telegraph. Now phones are the latest devices to be made supercomputers. AT&T has its exclusive deal with the Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) iPhone, while Verizon slings the Research in Motion Ltd. (NASDAQ: RIMM) BlackBerry.

Since wireless is the way of the future, the wireless divisions of these companies is the most hotly contested, and the focus of this “Battle of the Brands.” It is important to note that despite Verizon Wireless bearing solely Verizon’s name, it isn’t owned by just them, it is a 55%-45% joint venture between Verizon and Vodafone Group (NYSE: VOD). It is also important to note that AT&T Mobility is the service formerly known as Cingular, which was acquired by AT&T in 2006 when it purchased BellSouth for $86B.

Looking first at Verizon Wireless, its strategy is easy. It focuses on the strength of its network as its main selling point. From the company’s “Can you hear me now?” ads, to the current “It’s the network” ads, the point the company conveys is that if you’ve Verizon, you are covered by the biggest and most reliable network. AT&T’s most memorable current ads may be Martin Scorsese “We won’t interrupt your phone calls, please don’t disturb our movies” ads that play at the cinema, but the company also runs television ads that focus on “more bars in more places,” which echoes a very similar message to Verizon’s about the strength of their network.

There are arguments that can be made that either network is superior, depending on your metrics — coverage area, dropped calls, strength of signal — but what matters with branding is perception, and the edge in network perception goes to Verizon Wireless, which has spent years building its image as the better cellular service.

However, network is not the entire argument. There’s also the important matter of the hardware available on each service, where AT&T took a significant lead when it signed an exclusive contract with Apple to carry its iPhone exclusively. The reason for its significance is not only that users selected AT&T over Verizon for the highly desirable device, and not just because some Verizon users switched to AT&T to get one, it is also the type of customers it got. It got the tech-savvy, 18-24 users that use more minutes, text frequently, and use data plans. These users are good for far more revenue than the older users with minimal plans that just need a good network to use their cell phone in case of an emergency.

Both companies have high-quality networks, advertise extensively, offer a ton of different cell phones, and have similar pricing models, so, like most of these “brand battles,” the decision comes down to personal preference. One thing is for sure, with over 65 million users for Verizon Wireless and over 71 million users for AT&T Mobility, this is one rivalry that will not be over anytime soon.

Vote in our poll for Verizon Wireless or AT&T Mobility as your preferred brand, and let us know in the comments why you love it.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Comments No Comments »

Filed under: , ,

When longtime Target Corp. (NYSE: TGT) CEO Bob Ulrich retires soon, he’ll leave behind a very impressive legacy. Target, the second-largest discount retailer in the U.S., has grown alongside its bigger competitor Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT). While Wal-Mart was opening stores and increasing sales at a blistering pace, Target was no slouch. Although Wal-Mart grew much faster, Target’s strategy worked pretty darn effectively, too.

Target seemed to beat Wal-Mart to the punch on the trends many customers cared about: brand-name clothing, hip marketing, clean and bright stores and very effective marketing and merchandising of its own store-brand product lines. While Wal-Mart became the generic big-box store, Target seemed to be the store shoppers flocked to to stay away from Wal-Mart’s lifeless marketing, boring stores and grand-central-station customer traffic. In other words, price isn’t everything to every U.S. retailer customer.

Now that Ulrich is retiring, his longtime company sidekick Gregg Steinhafel will be taking over with some lingering challenges that’ll put him on the hot seat almost immediately. Target is suffering, along with other retailers, from a seemingly-persistent economic slump and from the performance of its credit-card business (which is being hit with defaults due to consumer credit problems nationwide). Even though things can be rosy at Target, they aren’t for all of its customers at this time. With rising energy prices and the spike in food staple prices recently, Target’s store brands like Archer Farms might suffer or need to be priced at the level of brand names — and then they may lose their appeal to consumers looking for quality alternatives to higher-priced brand names. Steinhafel will have his plate full as he takes over when Ulrich turns 65 –Target’s mandated retirement age for the CEO position.

 

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Comments No Comments »

Filed under: , , , , ,

Hundreds of stories have been written over current weeks about the plans of Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT) to buy Yahoo! (NASDAQ:YHOO) and Yahoo!’s plan to outsource its search to Google (NASDAQ:GOOG). At the end of the day, the are all speculation backed by very tiny fact.

More “news” about the deals came out overnight. According to Bloomberg ,”Yahoo might concur to use Google’s Web advertising software within a week.” The Wall Street Journal says that “Microsoft Corp. late Thursday was leaning toward going hostile in its pursuit of Yahoo Inc.”

All of this is great theater because both stories might be true and the entire situation could dissolve into a cauldron of competing companies, investment bankers, and corporate boards each competing for leadership in the web search market.

Who is served? In this case, for once, the shareholders. Yahoo! could take a deal to have Google handle its search and search advertising features. Depending on which analysis Wall Street wants to believe, this should save the portal hundreds of millions of dollars a year, if the government will approve an alliance between the two largest search companies.

On the other hand, Microsoft may raise its bid in an attempt to tempt shareholders to take $33 or $34 for Yahoo!. The company’s shares traded around $20 before Redmond made its offer.

The media might have months of fun ahead of them A proxy fight could drag on and on as could a government decision about whether Yahoo! and Google can form a search venture.

At the very least, its sells newspapers.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com and the author of the Ten Stocks Under $10 newsletter.

Comments No Comments »

Close
E-mail It