La marque de carte de paiement lance un service gratuit destiné à faciliter le paiement et la gestion des achats sur Internet. Une initiative concurrente du Paypal d'eBay.
Sur Internet, Visa veut devenir plus qu'une marque de cartes bancaires. L'entreprise américaine vient de lancer Rightcliq, une plate-forme concurrente de Paypal dont l'ambition est d'accompagner les internautes dans leurs achats en ligne. Rightcliq fonctionne à partir d'un plug-in de navigateur Web et est compatible avec l'ensemble des cybermarchands américains. Gratuit pour les internautes, Rightcliq sera financé par un service de couponning valable chez certains e-commerçants américains.
Le cœur du service de Rightcliq est sa solution de gestion de coordonnées, qui permet à l'internaute de déléguer le remplissage de formulaires lors de commandes sur les sites e-commerce (moyen de paiement, coordonnées bancaires, adresse de livraison, etc.). Cet outil permet de gérer plusieurs cartes de paiement (Visa ou non) pour un même compte et propose également le stockage et l'archivage des confirmations de paiements envoyées par les cybermarchands.
Visa propose également un service de wishlist dans lequel l'internaute peut stocker les produits qu'il désire acheter. Lorsqu'un utilisateur surfe sur un site marchand et signale à Rightcliq un produit intéressant, l'outil récupère la fiche produit et l'intègre à la wishlist de l'internaute. Ce dernier peut ensuite requérir l'avis de ses amis sur ces articles qu'il convoite.
A travers ce service, Visa cherche à concurrencer plus frontalement Paypal, la filiale de paiement électronique d'eBay. Si la carte bancaire demeure le moyen de paiement le plus utilisé en ligne, Paypal est devenu la première alternative à la saisie directe d'un numéro de carte sur un site e-commerce, avec 81 millions de membres actifs selon une étude de Lazard Capital Markets. Ni le service de paiement de Google, Google Checkout, ni celui d'Amazon, Checkout by Amazon, n'ont réussi à s'arroger une part de marché suffisamment importante pour concurrencer efficacement Paypal. En offrant un service gratuit (Paypal se rémunère en prélevant des commissions sur les transactions), Visa espère réussir là où ces deux tenors du Web ont jusqu'à présent échoué.
Source: JDNet
mercredi 17 mars 2010
mardi 16 mars 2010
Pixazza veut convertir les images en espaces publicitaires
La start-up financée par Google lance une plate-forme publicitaire utilisant les images à la place du texte comme base de ciblage.
Pixazza veut devenir l'AdSense des images. Cette start-up américaine, créée en 2008, a annoncé le lancement d'AdPix, un réseau publicitaire dont les bannières et liens sponsorisés sont contextualités non pas par le texte mais par les images d'une page Web.
Pixazza dipose déjà d'une plate-forme d'affiliation basée sur les images. Les éditeurs de sites utilisant les services de cette plate-forme ont la possibilité de taguer des éléments d'images (objets, vêtements, etc.) présentes sur leurs sites. Lorsqu'un internaute passe la souris ou clique sur l'un de ces éléments tagués, une liste de revendeurs de l'élément en question s'affiche sur la page. Désormais, le même service servira à proposer de la publicité en rapport avec les images au survol d'un élément tagué.
En misant sur les images plus que sur le texte comme base de ciblage, Bob Lisbonne, PDG de Pixazza, dit vouloir offrir aux petits éditeurs américains une alternative au réseau AdSense de Google. Une alternative à laquelle le moteur de recherche - qui a fait sa fortune grâce au ciblage contextuel - n'a pas échappé : Google a investi en mars 2009 dans Pixazza en participant à un tour de table de 5,75 millions de dollars.
Source: JDNet
Pixazza veut devenir l'AdSense des images. Cette start-up américaine, créée en 2008, a annoncé le lancement d'AdPix, un réseau publicitaire dont les bannières et liens sponsorisés sont contextualités non pas par le texte mais par les images d'une page Web.
Pixazza dipose déjà d'une plate-forme d'affiliation basée sur les images. Les éditeurs de sites utilisant les services de cette plate-forme ont la possibilité de taguer des éléments d'images (objets, vêtements, etc.) présentes sur leurs sites. Lorsqu'un internaute passe la souris ou clique sur l'un de ces éléments tagués, une liste de revendeurs de l'élément en question s'affiche sur la page. Désormais, le même service servira à proposer de la publicité en rapport avec les images au survol d'un élément tagué.
En misant sur les images plus que sur le texte comme base de ciblage, Bob Lisbonne, PDG de Pixazza, dit vouloir offrir aux petits éditeurs américains une alternative au réseau AdSense de Google. Une alternative à laquelle le moteur de recherche - qui a fait sa fortune grâce au ciblage contextuel - n'a pas échappé : Google a investi en mars 2009 dans Pixazza en participant à un tour de table de 5,75 millions de dollars.
Source: JDNet
lundi 15 mars 2010
RFID, NFC ... Un décollage imminent ?
Cette technologie de radio fréquence a fait la une de la presse spécialisée depuis les années 2000. Longtemps présentée comme le summum de la traçabilité, où en est-on aujourd'hui ?
Par Philippe Tran, spécialiste des technologies M2M
Dans la logistique, secteur par excellence de la traçabilité, les transpondeurs RFID sont utilisés pour tracer le contenant (conteneur, caisse, carton etc.) plutôt que le contenu (les articles). La raison : le coût d'un transpondeur ne permet pas encore aux fabricants de tagger tous les articles (contenant et contenu), de quelques dizaines de centimes pour les transpondeurs passifs à quelques dizaines d'euros pour ceux actifs. L'autre secteur phare est la grande distribution, où des milliards d'articles potentiels sont à tagger. Le jour ou un Wall Mart ou un Carrefour ordonnera à tous ses fournisseurs de passer du code-barre au transpondeur, le marché du RFID aura véritablement décollé. Mais alors quel est le frein ? Le prix ? Non.
Un manque d'intérêt pour le consommateur
La puissance d'achat et le potentiel de la grande distribution permettront d'avoir les prix des transpondeurs à quelques centimes. Non, un des freins est d'avoir étudié la RFID comme une technologie pour améliorer la traçabilité côté entreprise... Mais pas côté consommateur. Entre temps une technologie proche, la NFC (Near Field Communication) a fait son apparition. A l'origine, elle est intégrée dans un téléphone mobile pour effectuer des transactions bancaires en mode sans contact, utilisant une fréquence existante en RFID (la 13.56Mhz en courte portée). Imaginons dans un futur prochain que tous les consommateurs soient dotés d'un mobile NFC capable de lire les transpondeurs de la grande distribution.
Tagger sa liste de courses
Un boulevard d'applications viendrait épauler le consommateur dans sa quête de mieux consommer. Avec le mobile NFC on pourra tagger sa liste de course, lire le prix du produit grâce à son transpondeur et donc avoir le prix total de ses courses en temps réel, vérifier si les produits contiennent des substances incompatibles avec un régime alimentaire spécifique, envoyer la référence du produit lue sur son mobile au producteur pour obtenir un remboursement etc. Cette révolution permettra au consommateur de mieux connaître les produits qu'il achète. Quant à la grande distribution, elle pourra mieux cerner la consommation pour mieux fidéliser. Une bonne idée à creuser pour rentabiliser une même technologie pour la SCM (Supply Chain Management) et la CRM (Customer Relationship Manager).
SOURCE : L'Atelier
Par Philippe Tran, spécialiste des technologies M2M
Dans la logistique, secteur par excellence de la traçabilité, les transpondeurs RFID sont utilisés pour tracer le contenant (conteneur, caisse, carton etc.) plutôt que le contenu (les articles). La raison : le coût d'un transpondeur ne permet pas encore aux fabricants de tagger tous les articles (contenant et contenu), de quelques dizaines de centimes pour les transpondeurs passifs à quelques dizaines d'euros pour ceux actifs. L'autre secteur phare est la grande distribution, où des milliards d'articles potentiels sont à tagger. Le jour ou un Wall Mart ou un Carrefour ordonnera à tous ses fournisseurs de passer du code-barre au transpondeur, le marché du RFID aura véritablement décollé. Mais alors quel est le frein ? Le prix ? Non.
Un manque d'intérêt pour le consommateur
La puissance d'achat et le potentiel de la grande distribution permettront d'avoir les prix des transpondeurs à quelques centimes. Non, un des freins est d'avoir étudié la RFID comme une technologie pour améliorer la traçabilité côté entreprise... Mais pas côté consommateur. Entre temps une technologie proche, la NFC (Near Field Communication) a fait son apparition. A l'origine, elle est intégrée dans un téléphone mobile pour effectuer des transactions bancaires en mode sans contact, utilisant une fréquence existante en RFID (la 13.56Mhz en courte portée). Imaginons dans un futur prochain que tous les consommateurs soient dotés d'un mobile NFC capable de lire les transpondeurs de la grande distribution.
Tagger sa liste de courses
Un boulevard d'applications viendrait épauler le consommateur dans sa quête de mieux consommer. Avec le mobile NFC on pourra tagger sa liste de course, lire le prix du produit grâce à son transpondeur et donc avoir le prix total de ses courses en temps réel, vérifier si les produits contiennent des substances incompatibles avec un régime alimentaire spécifique, envoyer la référence du produit lue sur son mobile au producteur pour obtenir un remboursement etc. Cette révolution permettra au consommateur de mieux connaître les produits qu'il achète. Quant à la grande distribution, elle pourra mieux cerner la consommation pour mieux fidéliser. Une bonne idée à creuser pour rentabiliser une même technologie pour la SCM (Supply Chain Management) et la CRM (Customer Relationship Manager).
SOURCE : L'Atelier
US - L'essor des energies renouvelables ne pourra se faire sans l'amélioration du réseau des lignes de transmissions
http://www.bulletins-electroniques.com/actualites/62593.htm
Jeudi dernier à Berkeley s'est tenu le Berkeley Energy Symposium regroupant un large panel de représentants industriels, de chercheurs et lobbyistes impliqués dans les clean technologies. Parmi eux Philip Moeller, un des cinq représentants à la tête de la Federal Regulatory Energy Commission (FERC), a rappelé le fait que les USA ont besoin de mettre à jour le réseau des lignes de transmission. Cependant la population proteste régulièrement contre tout nouveau projet de construction de nouvelles lignes ou de nouveaux pipelines. Comme il le dit lui même "Il est de notoriété publique que nous avons besoin de plus de lignes transmissions... Il n'y a aucun moyen de capter plus d'énergie renouvelable sans transmission, mais les gens ne veulent pas le voir... Les gens ont horreur des infrastructures énergétiques".
Situation actuelle et ce qui doit être amélioré
L'état de Californie a instauré une législation qui oblige les principaux producteurs d'électricité à fournir 20% de cet électricité à partir de sources d'énergies renouvelables d'ici la fin de l'année. Le gouvernement californien pense d'ailleurs porter cette part à 33% d'ici 2020. Un rapport [1] publié en août dernier, écrit par les régulateurs californiens et les producteurs d'électricité, prévoit un coût de $15.7 milliard dans le déploiement de lignes de transmission pour parvenir aux objectifs ambitieux de la Californie. Ceci prend notamment en compte le transport jusqu'aux grands centres de populations de grandes quantités d'énergie provenant de lieux de production éloignés comme des éoliennes dans le Midwest ou des centrales géothermiques dans le Southwest. Une carte proposant de nouvelles infrastructures de transmissions [2] ainsi qu'une carte recensant la situation actuelle [3] sont disponibles. "Dans le futur nous pourrions voir le développement de larges centrales comme des fermes d'éoliennes capables de produire 5 à 10 GW, mais situées loin des centres urbains. Il deviendra alors nécessaire de transporter de larges quantités d'énergie sur des longues distances" affirme Arshad Mansoor, vice président du Power Delivery and Utilization de l'EPRI. Le gouvernement est conscient de cet enjeu et prévoit d'améliorer l'ensemble du système électrique d'ici 2030 grâce à un réseau de puissants câbles supraconducteurs. Cette décision est venue en réponse au nombre croissant de pannes de courant qui ont affectés les Etats-Unis ces dernières années.
Comment y parvenir?
Pour faire face aux problèmes relatifs à la transmission, la Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI) [4] a été créée. C'est une initiative californienne mise en place pour aider l'identification des projets de transmissions nécessaires pour atteindre les objectifs dictés par la politique énergétique de la Californie. La mission du RETI est de définir toutes les zones favorables aux énergies renouvelables, dites "competitive renewable energy zones (CREZ)", en Californie et dans les états voisins qui pourraient fournir des quantités significatives d'énergie à la population d'ici 2020. Une fois cette étape validée, il s'agit ensuite d'identifier quelles sont les zones avec le meilleur potentiel de développement, à savoir le meilleur rapport qualité/prix, tout en prenant aussi en compte les critères écologiques. L'étude se termine par des plans détaillés des transmissions nécessaires pour le développement.
Switch
Pour pouvoir initier et planifier le déploiement du réseau de transmission, les décideurs ont besoin de se fier à des simulations aussi détaillées que possible. Afin de fournir les meilleures prévisions possibles le Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL) [5], affilié à l'université de Berkeley (qui était aussi présent au Berkeley Energy Symposium) a développé son propre logiciel de simulations : Solar, Hydro and Conventional generators and Transmission (Switch) [6] peut explorer différents scénarios pour le futur réseau électrique des Etats-Unis. Le modèle suggère les décisions d'investissement à prendre en fonction du coût, pour répondre à la future demande en électricité. Ceci en tenant compte du réseau actuel mais aussi des projections quant au prix des carburants, des développements technologiques, des potentiels d'énergie renouvelable et des politiques proposées. Les premiers résultats pour la Californie indiquent que le "Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)", soit la proportion visée d'énergies renouvelables pourrait être atteinte sans coût additionnel.
Promotion de nouvelles lignes grâce à des technologies plus efficaces
Transporter de grandes quantités d'énergie sur de longues distances pourrait être plus aisé dans les prochaines années si les producteurs d'électricité adoptaient un nouveau système de transmission utilisant du courant continu (DC) plutôt qu'alternatif (AC) et des câbles supraconducteurs selon l'EPRI. L'institut décrit un système à base de tels câbles permettant de transporter plusieurs gigawatts d'électricité dans un récent rapport. Deux autres rapports expliquent les problèmes principaux pour l'intégration sur de longues distances, la connexion des câbles supraconducteurs de type DC avec le réseau existant, les transmissions de type AC à de plus faibles tensions et les systèmes de distribution. Comme défini dans le rapport principal, le nouveau système pourrait fournir une capacité de 10 GW avec un courant et une tension nominale de 100 kilo ampères et de 100 kilovolts. Le rapport met également en avant le potentiel d'amélioration de la sécurité, la fiabilité et l'efficacité sur le réseau AC existant.
De plus, le rapport indique que les constructeurs de telles transmissions pourraient se reposer sur des technologies déjà disponibles sur le marché et des méthodes de construction similaires à celles utilisées dans la construction des pipelines de gaz naturel. En se fondant sur les tendances notamment dans le domaine des améliorations dans le secteur des câbles supraconducteurs, l'EPRI a affirmé que les transmissions de type DC pourraient être à l'avenir plus efficaces que des lignes haute tension de type AC pour le transport de grandes quantités d'énergie sur de longues distances.
Les projets de construction de ligne de transmission en Californie
Plusieurs projets ont démarré. Ci-dessous la liste fournie par la Californian Energy Commission (CEC) [7]
- SB 1059 State Corridor Planning
- Imperial Valley Study Group (terminé)
- Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI)
- Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS)
- West-Wide Federal Energy Corridor Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS)
- California ISO Regional Transmission Planning
- California Public Utilities Commission - Transmission Information and Projects
- U.S. Department of Energy National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETC)
- U.S. Department of Energy Wind Energy Development Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Information Center
SOURCE : BE Etats-Unis numéro 199 (12/03/2010) - Ambassade de France aux Etats-Unis / ADIT - http://www.bulletins-electroniques.com/actualites/62593.htm
Jeudi dernier à Berkeley s'est tenu le Berkeley Energy Symposium regroupant un large panel de représentants industriels, de chercheurs et lobbyistes impliqués dans les clean technologies. Parmi eux Philip Moeller, un des cinq représentants à la tête de la Federal Regulatory Energy Commission (FERC), a rappelé le fait que les USA ont besoin de mettre à jour le réseau des lignes de transmission. Cependant la population proteste régulièrement contre tout nouveau projet de construction de nouvelles lignes ou de nouveaux pipelines. Comme il le dit lui même "Il est de notoriété publique que nous avons besoin de plus de lignes transmissions... Il n'y a aucun moyen de capter plus d'énergie renouvelable sans transmission, mais les gens ne veulent pas le voir... Les gens ont horreur des infrastructures énergétiques".
Situation actuelle et ce qui doit être amélioré
L'état de Californie a instauré une législation qui oblige les principaux producteurs d'électricité à fournir 20% de cet électricité à partir de sources d'énergies renouvelables d'ici la fin de l'année. Le gouvernement californien pense d'ailleurs porter cette part à 33% d'ici 2020. Un rapport [1] publié en août dernier, écrit par les régulateurs californiens et les producteurs d'électricité, prévoit un coût de $15.7 milliard dans le déploiement de lignes de transmission pour parvenir aux objectifs ambitieux de la Californie. Ceci prend notamment en compte le transport jusqu'aux grands centres de populations de grandes quantités d'énergie provenant de lieux de production éloignés comme des éoliennes dans le Midwest ou des centrales géothermiques dans le Southwest. Une carte proposant de nouvelles infrastructures de transmissions [2] ainsi qu'une carte recensant la situation actuelle [3] sont disponibles. "Dans le futur nous pourrions voir le développement de larges centrales comme des fermes d'éoliennes capables de produire 5 à 10 GW, mais situées loin des centres urbains. Il deviendra alors nécessaire de transporter de larges quantités d'énergie sur des longues distances" affirme Arshad Mansoor, vice président du Power Delivery and Utilization de l'EPRI. Le gouvernement est conscient de cet enjeu et prévoit d'améliorer l'ensemble du système électrique d'ici 2030 grâce à un réseau de puissants câbles supraconducteurs. Cette décision est venue en réponse au nombre croissant de pannes de courant qui ont affectés les Etats-Unis ces dernières années.
Comment y parvenir?
Pour faire face aux problèmes relatifs à la transmission, la Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI) [4] a été créée. C'est une initiative californienne mise en place pour aider l'identification des projets de transmissions nécessaires pour atteindre les objectifs dictés par la politique énergétique de la Californie. La mission du RETI est de définir toutes les zones favorables aux énergies renouvelables, dites "competitive renewable energy zones (CREZ)", en Californie et dans les états voisins qui pourraient fournir des quantités significatives d'énergie à la population d'ici 2020. Une fois cette étape validée, il s'agit ensuite d'identifier quelles sont les zones avec le meilleur potentiel de développement, à savoir le meilleur rapport qualité/prix, tout en prenant aussi en compte les critères écologiques. L'étude se termine par des plans détaillés des transmissions nécessaires pour le développement.
Switch
Pour pouvoir initier et planifier le déploiement du réseau de transmission, les décideurs ont besoin de se fier à des simulations aussi détaillées que possible. Afin de fournir les meilleures prévisions possibles le Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL) [5], affilié à l'université de Berkeley (qui était aussi présent au Berkeley Energy Symposium) a développé son propre logiciel de simulations : Solar, Hydro and Conventional generators and Transmission (Switch) [6] peut explorer différents scénarios pour le futur réseau électrique des Etats-Unis. Le modèle suggère les décisions d'investissement à prendre en fonction du coût, pour répondre à la future demande en électricité. Ceci en tenant compte du réseau actuel mais aussi des projections quant au prix des carburants, des développements technologiques, des potentiels d'énergie renouvelable et des politiques proposées. Les premiers résultats pour la Californie indiquent que le "Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)", soit la proportion visée d'énergies renouvelables pourrait être atteinte sans coût additionnel.
Promotion de nouvelles lignes grâce à des technologies plus efficaces
Transporter de grandes quantités d'énergie sur de longues distances pourrait être plus aisé dans les prochaines années si les producteurs d'électricité adoptaient un nouveau système de transmission utilisant du courant continu (DC) plutôt qu'alternatif (AC) et des câbles supraconducteurs selon l'EPRI. L'institut décrit un système à base de tels câbles permettant de transporter plusieurs gigawatts d'électricité dans un récent rapport. Deux autres rapports expliquent les problèmes principaux pour l'intégration sur de longues distances, la connexion des câbles supraconducteurs de type DC avec le réseau existant, les transmissions de type AC à de plus faibles tensions et les systèmes de distribution. Comme défini dans le rapport principal, le nouveau système pourrait fournir une capacité de 10 GW avec un courant et une tension nominale de 100 kilo ampères et de 100 kilovolts. Le rapport met également en avant le potentiel d'amélioration de la sécurité, la fiabilité et l'efficacité sur le réseau AC existant.
De plus, le rapport indique que les constructeurs de telles transmissions pourraient se reposer sur des technologies déjà disponibles sur le marché et des méthodes de construction similaires à celles utilisées dans la construction des pipelines de gaz naturel. En se fondant sur les tendances notamment dans le domaine des améliorations dans le secteur des câbles supraconducteurs, l'EPRI a affirmé que les transmissions de type DC pourraient être à l'avenir plus efficaces que des lignes haute tension de type AC pour le transport de grandes quantités d'énergie sur de longues distances.
Les projets de construction de ligne de transmission en Californie
Plusieurs projets ont démarré. Ci-dessous la liste fournie par la Californian Energy Commission (CEC) [7]
- SB 1059 State Corridor Planning
- Imperial Valley Study Group (terminé)
- Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI)
- Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS)
- West-Wide Federal Energy Corridor Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS)
- California ISO Regional Transmission Planning
- California Public Utilities Commission - Transmission Information and Projects
- U.S. Department of Energy National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETC)
- U.S. Department of Energy Wind Energy Development Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Information Center
SOURCE : BE Etats-Unis numéro 199 (12/03/2010) - Ambassade de France aux Etats-Unis / ADIT - http://www.bulletins-electroniques.com/actualites/62593.htm
Les anciens de Google au service de l'innovation américaine ?
http://www.bulletins-electroniques.com/actualites/62585.htm
En investissant dans de nombreuses jeunes pousses de la Silicon Valley, les anciens employés du géant de l'Internet favorisent l'éclosion d'une nouvelle génération d'innovations sur le web. Ce cercle très fermé des "alumnis" investisseurs de Google est un puissant moteur de création de richesse aux Etats-Unis. Depuis son introduction en bourse il y a six ans, Google a en effet généré plus de 170 milliards de dollars de retour sur investissements pour ses actionnaires, parmi lesquels on compte de nombreux employés ou anciens employés de la marque multicolore. Ces multimillionnaires sont pour la plupart jeunes, très au fait des dernières technologies du web et qui plus est très bien connectés à l'ensemble des acteurs de la Silicon Valley.
D'après une étude menée par "YouNoodle", publiée dans Business Week, ce sont plus de 40 "ex-Googlers" qui auraient investi dans près de 200 jeunes pousses depuis 2005. Une demi-douzaine de responsables de haut niveau de Google, à l'instar du PDG Eric Schmidt ou des fondateurs Larry Page et Sergey Brin, apportent également un soutien financier à plusieurs jeunes pousses.
Pour les analystes américains des investissements à risques, les "Googlers" ont beaucoup plus en commun qu'un simple logo sur une fiche de paie. A la différence des traditionnels investisseurs, capitaux-risqueurs et business angels, les "Googlers" aiment à s'échanger leurs idées de placement et à collectivement soutenir des entreprises. Autre particularité, ils s'engagent en général dans des affaires très risquées mais où le retour sur investissement peut être considérable. Ils apportent également une expertise de qualité et un soutien indispensable aux jeunes pousses, notamment grâce à leurs réseaux.
Cette prise de risque conjuguée à leur forte activité, notamment au cours des deux ou trois dernières années, ont fait de ces "Google Angels" les instigateurs d'une nouvelle vague d'innovation technologique dans le secteur. Parmi les jeunes pousses épaulées par les "Googlers" se trouvent notamment Twitter, Tesla Motors, Mint.com ou Tapulous, créateur de jeux vidéo pour iPhone. Grâce au soutien financier et technologique de plusieurs "Googlers", Tapulous génère désormais chaque mois plus d'un million de dollars de chiffre d'affaires. Mint.com, qui propose des outils en ligne pour gérer ses comptes bancaires, s'est quand à lui fait racheter en 2009 par Intuit, le leader du marché, pour 170 millions de dollars.
L'investisseur le plus actif parmi les anciens employés de Google s'appelle Aydin Senkut. Ce turc de 40 ans a investi entre 25.000 et 150.000 dollars dans plus de 60 start-ups. Senkut a rejoint Google en 1999 comme le 63ème employé de la société. Devenu multimillionnaire six ans plus tard, il quittait l'entreprise. A ce jour, ce sont pas moins de 11 entreprises que Senkut a soutenues qui ont été acquises par quelques grands noms comme AT&T, Microsoft et bien sûr... Google. Si Senkut est devenu une figure parmi les "Google Angels", d'autres ne sont pas moins actifs ; et chaque année la communauté s'agrandit.
Ainsi, alors que Google poursuit son ascension dans un climat de prospérité, la société met touen oeuvre pour conserver l'esprit entrepreneurial de ses débuts. De ce point de vue, elle est fidèle à ses idéaux en faisant confiance à ses anciens employés qui ont à leur tour un impact considérable sur l'écosystème de la Silicon Valley. Vu des Etats-Unis, beaucoup commencent ici à mieux comprendre les répercussions sur l'innovation que peuvent avoir les anciens employés d'entreprises à succès. En alimentant l'offre de projets innovants et risqués, ces acteurs de l'innovation représentent en effet une ressource pour les grandes entreprises cherchant à rester "in".
De toute évidence, il n'y a que des avantages à ce que Google conserve et développe des liens forts avec ses anciens employés. Ce mode d'investissement, à très haut risque, collectif mais proche d'une grande entreprise, devrait s'intensifier dans les années à venir, voire s'étendre à autres géants de la "Valley". Au final, et pour certains secteurs, la stratégie des grandes entreprises innovantes pourrait s'inspirer du modèle qui consiste à pousser ses employés les plus fortunés à quitter l'entreprise afin qu'ils puissent créer un flux de projets au service de l'innovation mais aussi, et sans doute avant tout, au service de leur maison d'origine. De ce nouveau paradigme se dégage une fois de plus un trait caractéristique de la culture entrepreneuriale américaine : la connexion avec les alumnis.
SOURCE : BE Etats-Unis numéro 199 (12/03/2010) - Ambassade de France aux Etats-Unis / ADIT - http://www.bulletins-electroniques.com/actualites/62585.htm
En investissant dans de nombreuses jeunes pousses de la Silicon Valley, les anciens employés du géant de l'Internet favorisent l'éclosion d'une nouvelle génération d'innovations sur le web. Ce cercle très fermé des "alumnis" investisseurs de Google est un puissant moteur de création de richesse aux Etats-Unis. Depuis son introduction en bourse il y a six ans, Google a en effet généré plus de 170 milliards de dollars de retour sur investissements pour ses actionnaires, parmi lesquels on compte de nombreux employés ou anciens employés de la marque multicolore. Ces multimillionnaires sont pour la plupart jeunes, très au fait des dernières technologies du web et qui plus est très bien connectés à l'ensemble des acteurs de la Silicon Valley.
D'après une étude menée par "YouNoodle", publiée dans Business Week, ce sont plus de 40 "ex-Googlers" qui auraient investi dans près de 200 jeunes pousses depuis 2005. Une demi-douzaine de responsables de haut niveau de Google, à l'instar du PDG Eric Schmidt ou des fondateurs Larry Page et Sergey Brin, apportent également un soutien financier à plusieurs jeunes pousses.
Pour les analystes américains des investissements à risques, les "Googlers" ont beaucoup plus en commun qu'un simple logo sur une fiche de paie. A la différence des traditionnels investisseurs, capitaux-risqueurs et business angels, les "Googlers" aiment à s'échanger leurs idées de placement et à collectivement soutenir des entreprises. Autre particularité, ils s'engagent en général dans des affaires très risquées mais où le retour sur investissement peut être considérable. Ils apportent également une expertise de qualité et un soutien indispensable aux jeunes pousses, notamment grâce à leurs réseaux.
Cette prise de risque conjuguée à leur forte activité, notamment au cours des deux ou trois dernières années, ont fait de ces "Google Angels" les instigateurs d'une nouvelle vague d'innovation technologique dans le secteur. Parmi les jeunes pousses épaulées par les "Googlers" se trouvent notamment Twitter, Tesla Motors, Mint.com ou Tapulous, créateur de jeux vidéo pour iPhone. Grâce au soutien financier et technologique de plusieurs "Googlers", Tapulous génère désormais chaque mois plus d'un million de dollars de chiffre d'affaires. Mint.com, qui propose des outils en ligne pour gérer ses comptes bancaires, s'est quand à lui fait racheter en 2009 par Intuit, le leader du marché, pour 170 millions de dollars.
L'investisseur le plus actif parmi les anciens employés de Google s'appelle Aydin Senkut. Ce turc de 40 ans a investi entre 25.000 et 150.000 dollars dans plus de 60 start-ups. Senkut a rejoint Google en 1999 comme le 63ème employé de la société. Devenu multimillionnaire six ans plus tard, il quittait l'entreprise. A ce jour, ce sont pas moins de 11 entreprises que Senkut a soutenues qui ont été acquises par quelques grands noms comme AT&T, Microsoft et bien sûr... Google. Si Senkut est devenu une figure parmi les "Google Angels", d'autres ne sont pas moins actifs ; et chaque année la communauté s'agrandit.
Ainsi, alors que Google poursuit son ascension dans un climat de prospérité, la société met touen oeuvre pour conserver l'esprit entrepreneurial de ses débuts. De ce point de vue, elle est fidèle à ses idéaux en faisant confiance à ses anciens employés qui ont à leur tour un impact considérable sur l'écosystème de la Silicon Valley. Vu des Etats-Unis, beaucoup commencent ici à mieux comprendre les répercussions sur l'innovation que peuvent avoir les anciens employés d'entreprises à succès. En alimentant l'offre de projets innovants et risqués, ces acteurs de l'innovation représentent en effet une ressource pour les grandes entreprises cherchant à rester "in".
De toute évidence, il n'y a que des avantages à ce que Google conserve et développe des liens forts avec ses anciens employés. Ce mode d'investissement, à très haut risque, collectif mais proche d'une grande entreprise, devrait s'intensifier dans les années à venir, voire s'étendre à autres géants de la "Valley". Au final, et pour certains secteurs, la stratégie des grandes entreprises innovantes pourrait s'inspirer du modèle qui consiste à pousser ses employés les plus fortunés à quitter l'entreprise afin qu'ils puissent créer un flux de projets au service de l'innovation mais aussi, et sans doute avant tout, au service de leur maison d'origine. De ce nouveau paradigme se dégage une fois de plus un trait caractéristique de la culture entrepreneuriale américaine : la connexion avec les alumnis.
SOURCE : BE Etats-Unis numéro 199 (12/03/2010) - Ambassade de France aux Etats-Unis / ADIT - http://www.bulletins-electroniques.com/actualites/62585.htm
Google vs Apple : a fierce battle in perspective
IT looked like the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
Three years ago, Eric E. Schmidt, the chief executive of Google, jogged onto a San Francisco stage to shake hands with Steven P. Jobs, Apple’s co-founder, to help him unveil a transformational wonder gadget — the iPhone — before throngs of journalists and adoring fans at the annual MacWorld Expo.
Google and Apple had worked together to bring Google’s search and mapping services to the iPhone, the executives told the audience, and Mr. Schmidt joked that the collaboration was so close that the two men should simply merge their companies and call them “AppleGoo.”
“Steve, my congratulations to you,” Mr. Schmidt told his corporate ally. “This product is going to be hot.” Mr. Jobs acknowledged the compliment with an ear-to-ear smile.
Today, such warmth is in short supply. Mr. Jobs, Mr. Schmidt and their companies are now engaged in a gritty battle royale over the future and shape of mobile computing and cellphones, with implications that are reverberating across the digital landscape.
In the last six months, Apple and Google have jousted over acquisitions, patents, directors, advisers and iPhone applications. Mr. Jobs and Mr. Schmidt have taken shots at each other’s companies in the media and in private exchanges with employees.
This month, Apple sued HTC, the Taiwanese maker of mobile phones that run Google’s Android operating system, contending that HTC had violated iPhone patents. The move was widely seen as the beginning of a legal assault by Apple on Google itself, as well as an attempt to slow Google’s plans to extend its dominion to mobile devices.
Apple believes that devices like smartphones and tablets should have tightly controlled, proprietary standards and that customers should take advantage of services on those gadgets with applications downloaded from Apple’s own App Store.
Google, on the other hand, wants smartphones to have open, nonproprietary platforms so users can freely roam the Web for apps that work on many devices. Google has long feared that rivals like Microsoft or Apple or wireless carriers like Verizon could block access to its services on devices like smartphones, which could soon eclipse computers as the primary gateway to the Web. Google’s promotion of Android is, essentially, an effort to control its destiny in the mobile world.
While the discord between Apple and Google is in part philosophical and involves enormous financial stakes, the battle also has deeply personal overtones and echoes the ego-fueled fisticuffs that have long characterized technology industry feuds. (Think Intel vs. A.M.D., Microsoft vs. everybody, and so on.)
Yet according to interviews with two dozen industry watchers, Silicon Valley investors and current and former employees at both companies — most of whom requested anonymity to protect their jobs or business relationships — the clash between Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Jobs offers an unusually vivid display of enmity and ambition.
At the heart of their dispute is a sense of betrayal: Mr. Jobs believes that Google violated the alliance between the companies by producing cellphones that physically, technologically and spiritually resembled the iPhone. In short, he feels that his former friends at Google picked his pocket.
“We did not enter the search business. They entered the phone business,” Mr. Jobs told Apple employees during an all-hands meeting shortly after the public introduction of the iPad in January, according to two employees who were there and heard the presentation. “Make no mistake: Google wants to kill the iPhone. We won’t let them.”
One of these employees said Mr. Jobs returned to the topic of Google several times in the session and even disparaged its slogan “Don’t be evil” with an expletive, which drew thunderous applause from his underlings.
Apple declined to comment for this article. Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Google’s co-founders, have openly expressed admiration for Mr. Jobs, and Google says it isn’t at war with its former ally. “Apple is a valued partner, and we have great respect for everything they have done for technology for more than 30 years,” says Jill Hazelbaker, a Google spokeswoman.
In a statement, Mr. Schmidt concurred. “I continue to believe, as many do, that Steve Jobs is the best C.E.O. in the world today, and I admire Apple and Steve enormously,” he wrote.
Despite such sentiments, the tech world at large is watching the battle between Apple and Google with shock and awe.
“I’m sure it is going to get uglier,” says David B. Yoffie, a professor at Harvard Business School who has studied the tech industry for decades. “To beat Apple, Google is going to have to be very aggressive. If they are successful, it will put price pressure on Apple and the iPhone.”
One well-connected Silicon Valley investor, who did not want to be identified talking about the Google-Apple feud, says he is stunned by the level of rancor he’s witnessed.
“It’s World War III. Amazing animosity is motivating two of the most powerful people in the industry,” he says. “This is emotional. This is the biggest ego battle in history. It’s incendiary.”
THE fight features two Valley veterans whose styles couldn’t be more different. Mr. Schmidt is a brainy technologist turned executive. He is measured and professorial in public, but takes pride in being tough.
Along with Mr. Page and Mr. Brin, he has infused Google with an intense competitiveness and an almost evangelical belief that its engineers can do just about everything better than its rivals.
Mr. Jobs, of course, is the master marketer and innovator who exerts authoritarian control over every aspect of Apple. Since he helped to found the company in 1976, he has been known to elevate the fight against rivals — first I.B.M. and Microsoft, and later Dell — into corporate calls to battle, using the specter of the enemy to motivate employees and sharpen Apple’s image in the public eye.
But in this latest battle with Google, his actions appear to be unusually emotional. In filing the lawsuit over Android phones, he positioned his company as an aggrieved victim finally standing up to the playground bully. “We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it,” he said in a statement when the suit was filed. “We’ve decided to do something about it.”
Google said that day that it wasn’t a party to the suit but that it would “stand behind” HTC. And, privately, some Google executives say they worry that the lawsuit could hold back Android, which is also being built into tablets that could rival the iPad.
Mr. Schmidt hasn’t shied away from taking public swipes at Apple, either. In January at the World Economic Forum, when asked what he thought of Apple’s new iPad, due to go on sale early next month, he joked to reporters: “You might want to tell me the difference between a large phone and a tablet.”
Although Mr. Jobs and Mr. Schmidt both began working in Silicon Valley in the late 1970s, their paths rarely crossed. But by 2001, with Mr. Jobs back at Apple and Mr. Schmidt running Google, they shared a singular mission: limiting Microsoft’s hegemony to the personal computer and ensuring that Bill Gates didn’t dominate the frontier of online services and mobile devices.
When Mr. Schmidt was invited to join Apple’s board in 2006, he and Mr. Jobs lavished praise on each other.
Behind the scenes, closer bonds between the two companies had formed. Google’s co-founders, Mr. Page and Mr. Brin, considered Mr. Jobs a mentor and, according to a former Apple executive, were regular visitors to Mr. Jobs’s office in Cupertino, Calif., during Google’s early days.
Mr. Brin was also known to take long walks with Mr. Jobs near his house in Palo Alto, and in the nearby foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains. According to colleagues, they discussed the future of technology and planned some joint ventures that never came to fruition — like a collaborative effort to develop a version of Apple’s Safari browser for Windows.
Another former Google executive said Mr. Page and Mr. Brin “spoke very openly about their admiration for Jobs and how he’s a role model for them as they grow into becoming executives.” Mr. Page and Mr. Brin declined to be interviewed. People close to the company say they are disappointed that the relationship with Apple has soured.
Still, they and other Google executives see the company’s push to open up the industry and to succeed in mobile computing as too important to sacrifice just to placate Mr. Jobs.
BY all accounts, Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Jobs were never close friends. But they dined together on several occasions, according to a former associate of Mr. Schmidt’s, and Mr. Jobs never hesitated to call Mr. Schmidt directly to voice his opinions. Mr. Schmidt, several friends say, relished his position on Apple’s board and the proximity it gave him to one of the most famous figures in American business.
But it didn’t take long for friction to emerge. When Apple began selling the iPhone in 2007, Google was already quietly ramping up efforts to develop Android, its own smartphone operating system.
Two years earlier, Google had acquired the start-up that was developing Android. At the time, the move was largely aimed at Microsoft and meant to ensure that it didn’t wind up controlling the market for mobile devices. But when Microsoft faltered in the emerging smartphone market, and other companies like Research In Motion and then Apple began to dominate instead, Google continued to push ahead with Android and its vision of a more open mobile phone ecosystem.
As Google’s plans took shape, Apple and Google executives either met in person or spoke on the phone on multiple occasions about Apple’s concern about Android, executives on both sides say.
Many of those meetings turned confrontational, according to people familiar with the discussions, with Mr. Jobs often accusing Google of stealing iPhone features. Google executives said that Android’s features were based on longstanding ideas already circulating in the industry and that some Android prototypes predated the iPhone.
At one particularly heated meeting in 2008 on Google’s campus, Mr. Jobs angrily told Google executives that if they deployed a version of multitouch — the popular iPhone feature that allows users to control their devices with flicks of their fingers — he would sue. Two people briefed on the meeting described it as “fierce” and “heated.”
While Google listened to Apple, it rarely backed down. “I don’t think they made many accommodations,” says a former Google executive who was briefed on the discussions. “Google is not a company that is particularly afraid of anyone, including Apple.”
Google did proceed cautiously with Android, at least initially. The first versions of the software, which appeared on devices in 2008, didn’t feature multitouch. The phones were slow and unwieldy, and Google insiders joked that they looked like bricks.
But as Android-powered devices kept improving, Apple became more concerned. When Mr. Jobs returned to work from a prolonged health leave last year, he faced an array of emerging Android-powered phones like the Motorola Droid, with sleeker lines, improved performance and, like the other Android phones, the ability to run multiple applications at the same time.
Highlighting the escalating rivalry, Verizon ran ads for the Droid that took aim at the iPhone with the tagline “Everything iDon’t ... Droid Does.”
AS tensions mounted between Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Jobs, their infighting became more public. When Google tried to get its voice mail management program, Google Voice, onto the iPhone, Apple blocked the effort last July, citing privacy concerns. Then, last August, Mr. Schmidt stepped down from Apple’s board, prompted in part by regulatory concerns over ties between the two companies but also because Apple said his position had become untenable.
When Mr. Jobs announced Mr. Schmidt’s departure from the board, he noted that with Android and plans for a computer operating system, Google was “unfortunately” entering more of Apple’s “core business.”
Then a wrestling match began on the acquisition front.
Last fall, Apple made a formal bid to acquire AdMob, a rapidly growing mobile advertising company, for $600 million. AdMob specializes in developing ads that run inside mobile phone applications, like those on the iPhone.
While Apple conducted due diligence on the deal, AdMob agreed to a 45-day “no shop” provision, a routine clause that prevented the start-up from offering itself for sale to others, according to three people briefed on the negotiations. But after Apple inexplicably let 45 days pass without consummating its offer, Google pounced.
Their interest piqued by Apple’s pursuit of the start-up, Mr. Schmidt, along with Mr. Page, Mr. Brin and other Google executives, began intensely courting Omar Hamoui, AdMob’s young chief executive. AdMob, the Google guys argued, belonged in their corporate family because Google — unlike Apple — was an old pro in advertising. They also promised that AdMob employees would be able to cash out stock options sooner than Apple’s deal would have allowed. It also didn’t hurt that Google was willing to pay a 25 percent premium over Apple’s offer.
Three days after the no-shop provision expired, Google agreed to buy AdMob — putting a whopping $750 million price tag on a four-year-old company with modest revenue. Jilted and angry, Mr. Jobs speculated that AdMob might have violated its legal obligations, with help from Google, according to two people briefed on the fallout from the negotiations.
(Neither AdMob nor Google would comment on any aspect of the process. The acquisition is being reviewed by the Federal Trade Commission for possible antitrust problems.)
One executive familiar with Google’s acquisitions strategy said the company was willing to pay a large premium for AdMob simply to keep the company out of Apple’s arms. “There is no way AdMob would have gotten $750 million if he wasn’t worried that it would end up in the hands of Steve,” the executive said. “Are they going to get $750 million in cash flow back? No way.”
Apple rebounded quickly, buying Quattro Wireless, a rival to AdMob, for close to $300 million in January — signaling that Apple and Google would duke it out for pre-eminence in the ad market for mobile devices.
In the tech press, however, Apple’s announcement was overshadowed by much bigger news. The same day, Google introduced the Nexus One, its flagship phone designed in close collaboration with HTC, which carried some of the unmistakable design flourishes associated with the iPhone.
And later that month, days after Mr. Jobs derided Google’s “Don’t be evil” mantra, Google dropped any pretense of conciliation: it sent out a software update to the Nexus One, adding multitouch capabilities and thereby openly crossing a line that Mr. Jobs had drawn in the sand.
INSIDE both Apple and Google, employees say, the sense of rivalry is intense and a peacemaker is sorely needed. “I’ve never seen anything quite like it in my life,” one Apple employee says. “I’m in so many meetings where so many potshots are taken. It feels weird.”
At Google, which counts Microsoft, Facebook and Yahoo on an ever-expanding list of rivals, the enmity toward Apple is not quite as widespread. After all, the iPhone has helped to fuel the popularity of Google mobile services and ads.
The spat over Google Voice, along with other confrontations, sharpened one of Google’s worst fears: that a rival could keep millions of people from accessing its services. A Google executive vowed to bring Google Voice to the iPhone “one way or the other,” and the company quickly developed a workaround to circumvent the Apple block.
If anyone could negotiate a ceasefire, it would be Bill Campbell, a well-regarded Silicon Valley business counselor known simply as Coach.
Mr. Campbell, a former college football coach and the former chief executive of Intuit, has played pivotal roles at Google. He sat in on high-level management meetings, counseled Mr. Schmidt individually in private sessions every other week, helped to establish the company’s management structure, and had a hand in smoothing over the initially turbulent relationship between Mr. Schmidt and Google’s founders.
Mr. Campbell also looms large at Apple, where he is co-chairman of the board, and was one of the few people in whom Mr. Jobs confided during his health crisis.
While Mr. Campbell has tried to be a diplomat and smooth over the problems between Mr. Jobs and Mr. Schmidt, the task hasn’t been easy. Mr. Campbell declined to comment for this article, but people briefed on the matter say that throughout last fall, Mr. Jobs and Mr. Schmidt each lobbied Mr. Campbell to sever his connection with the other’s company, at times even giving him ultimatums to do so.
Finally, Mr. Campbell was forced to choose, and according to a person with knowledge of the situation, he dropped his formal responsibilities at Google, although he is still informally mentoring executives there.
Mitch Kapor, the founder of Lotus Development and now a tech investor, describes such infighting as “old wine in a new bottle,” and reminiscent of many past corporate battles in Silicon Valley. He sees the old dynamics between Apple and Microsoft being recycled, with Apple still trying to control every aspect of the user experience, and Google, like Microsoft before it, working with multiple partners to flood the market with a large number of devices.
While mobile phone developers favor the iPhone for now, “they are all racing ahead to develop for Android, too,” Mr. Kapor says. “Tight control helps in the beginning, but it tends to choke things in the long term.”
APPLE and Google remain partners in certain areas. Google pays Apple millions of dollars annually to make its search engine the default on Apple’s Web browser, on the iPhone and soon, perhaps, on the iPad.
But there is wide speculation in technology circles that Apple is preparing to give Google a public black eye: by making Microsoft’s offering, Bing, the preferred search engine on the iPad, and perhaps even on the iPhone. One Apple employee says that Qi Lu, the president of Microsoft’s online services division, was recently seen visiting Apple’s campus in Cupertino to discuss such a deal. Microsoft declined to comment.
A deal with Microsoft may not be a big blow to Google financially, because many iPhone and iPad users will undoubtedly visit Google’s search service from their device’s Web browser. But the backing of Mr. Jobs would amount to a very valuable and high-profile product endorsement for Microsoft, which has been the perennial underdog in search.
And it would present an unlikely sight: Steve Jobs and Apple, running from the arms of Eric Schmidt and Google, into the embrace of Steve Ballmer and Microsoft.
Source: New-York Times, 15/03/10
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Three years ago, Eric E. Schmidt, the chief executive of Google, jogged onto a San Francisco stage to shake hands with Steven P. Jobs, Apple’s co-founder, to help him unveil a transformational wonder gadget — the iPhone — before throngs of journalists and adoring fans at the annual MacWorld Expo.
Google and Apple had worked together to bring Google’s search and mapping services to the iPhone, the executives told the audience, and Mr. Schmidt joked that the collaboration was so close that the two men should simply merge their companies and call them “AppleGoo.”
“Steve, my congratulations to you,” Mr. Schmidt told his corporate ally. “This product is going to be hot.” Mr. Jobs acknowledged the compliment with an ear-to-ear smile.
Today, such warmth is in short supply. Mr. Jobs, Mr. Schmidt and their companies are now engaged in a gritty battle royale over the future and shape of mobile computing and cellphones, with implications that are reverberating across the digital landscape.
In the last six months, Apple and Google have jousted over acquisitions, patents, directors, advisers and iPhone applications. Mr. Jobs and Mr. Schmidt have taken shots at each other’s companies in the media and in private exchanges with employees.
This month, Apple sued HTC, the Taiwanese maker of mobile phones that run Google’s Android operating system, contending that HTC had violated iPhone patents. The move was widely seen as the beginning of a legal assault by Apple on Google itself, as well as an attempt to slow Google’s plans to extend its dominion to mobile devices.
Apple believes that devices like smartphones and tablets should have tightly controlled, proprietary standards and that customers should take advantage of services on those gadgets with applications downloaded from Apple’s own App Store.
Google, on the other hand, wants smartphones to have open, nonproprietary platforms so users can freely roam the Web for apps that work on many devices. Google has long feared that rivals like Microsoft or Apple or wireless carriers like Verizon could block access to its services on devices like smartphones, which could soon eclipse computers as the primary gateway to the Web. Google’s promotion of Android is, essentially, an effort to control its destiny in the mobile world.
While the discord between Apple and Google is in part philosophical and involves enormous financial stakes, the battle also has deeply personal overtones and echoes the ego-fueled fisticuffs that have long characterized technology industry feuds. (Think Intel vs. A.M.D., Microsoft vs. everybody, and so on.)
Yet according to interviews with two dozen industry watchers, Silicon Valley investors and current and former employees at both companies — most of whom requested anonymity to protect their jobs or business relationships — the clash between Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Jobs offers an unusually vivid display of enmity and ambition.
At the heart of their dispute is a sense of betrayal: Mr. Jobs believes that Google violated the alliance between the companies by producing cellphones that physically, technologically and spiritually resembled the iPhone. In short, he feels that his former friends at Google picked his pocket.
“We did not enter the search business. They entered the phone business,” Mr. Jobs told Apple employees during an all-hands meeting shortly after the public introduction of the iPad in January, according to two employees who were there and heard the presentation. “Make no mistake: Google wants to kill the iPhone. We won’t let them.”
One of these employees said Mr. Jobs returned to the topic of Google several times in the session and even disparaged its slogan “Don’t be evil” with an expletive, which drew thunderous applause from his underlings.
Apple declined to comment for this article. Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Google’s co-founders, have openly expressed admiration for Mr. Jobs, and Google says it isn’t at war with its former ally. “Apple is a valued partner, and we have great respect for everything they have done for technology for more than 30 years,” says Jill Hazelbaker, a Google spokeswoman.
In a statement, Mr. Schmidt concurred. “I continue to believe, as many do, that Steve Jobs is the best C.E.O. in the world today, and I admire Apple and Steve enormously,” he wrote.
Despite such sentiments, the tech world at large is watching the battle between Apple and Google with shock and awe.
“I’m sure it is going to get uglier,” says David B. Yoffie, a professor at Harvard Business School who has studied the tech industry for decades. “To beat Apple, Google is going to have to be very aggressive. If they are successful, it will put price pressure on Apple and the iPhone.”
One well-connected Silicon Valley investor, who did not want to be identified talking about the Google-Apple feud, says he is stunned by the level of rancor he’s witnessed.
“It’s World War III. Amazing animosity is motivating two of the most powerful people in the industry,” he says. “This is emotional. This is the biggest ego battle in history. It’s incendiary.”
THE fight features two Valley veterans whose styles couldn’t be more different. Mr. Schmidt is a brainy technologist turned executive. He is measured and professorial in public, but takes pride in being tough.
Along with Mr. Page and Mr. Brin, he has infused Google with an intense competitiveness and an almost evangelical belief that its engineers can do just about everything better than its rivals.
Mr. Jobs, of course, is the master marketer and innovator who exerts authoritarian control over every aspect of Apple. Since he helped to found the company in 1976, he has been known to elevate the fight against rivals — first I.B.M. and Microsoft, and later Dell — into corporate calls to battle, using the specter of the enemy to motivate employees and sharpen Apple’s image in the public eye.
But in this latest battle with Google, his actions appear to be unusually emotional. In filing the lawsuit over Android phones, he positioned his company as an aggrieved victim finally standing up to the playground bully. “We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it,” he said in a statement when the suit was filed. “We’ve decided to do something about it.”
Google said that day that it wasn’t a party to the suit but that it would “stand behind” HTC. And, privately, some Google executives say they worry that the lawsuit could hold back Android, which is also being built into tablets that could rival the iPad.
Mr. Schmidt hasn’t shied away from taking public swipes at Apple, either. In January at the World Economic Forum, when asked what he thought of Apple’s new iPad, due to go on sale early next month, he joked to reporters: “You might want to tell me the difference between a large phone and a tablet.”
Although Mr. Jobs and Mr. Schmidt both began working in Silicon Valley in the late 1970s, their paths rarely crossed. But by 2001, with Mr. Jobs back at Apple and Mr. Schmidt running Google, they shared a singular mission: limiting Microsoft’s hegemony to the personal computer and ensuring that Bill Gates didn’t dominate the frontier of online services and mobile devices.
When Mr. Schmidt was invited to join Apple’s board in 2006, he and Mr. Jobs lavished praise on each other.
Behind the scenes, closer bonds between the two companies had formed. Google’s co-founders, Mr. Page and Mr. Brin, considered Mr. Jobs a mentor and, according to a former Apple executive, were regular visitors to Mr. Jobs’s office in Cupertino, Calif., during Google’s early days.
Mr. Brin was also known to take long walks with Mr. Jobs near his house in Palo Alto, and in the nearby foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains. According to colleagues, they discussed the future of technology and planned some joint ventures that never came to fruition — like a collaborative effort to develop a version of Apple’s Safari browser for Windows.
Another former Google executive said Mr. Page and Mr. Brin “spoke very openly about their admiration for Jobs and how he’s a role model for them as they grow into becoming executives.” Mr. Page and Mr. Brin declined to be interviewed. People close to the company say they are disappointed that the relationship with Apple has soured.
Still, they and other Google executives see the company’s push to open up the industry and to succeed in mobile computing as too important to sacrifice just to placate Mr. Jobs.
BY all accounts, Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Jobs were never close friends. But they dined together on several occasions, according to a former associate of Mr. Schmidt’s, and Mr. Jobs never hesitated to call Mr. Schmidt directly to voice his opinions. Mr. Schmidt, several friends say, relished his position on Apple’s board and the proximity it gave him to one of the most famous figures in American business.
But it didn’t take long for friction to emerge. When Apple began selling the iPhone in 2007, Google was already quietly ramping up efforts to develop Android, its own smartphone operating system.
Two years earlier, Google had acquired the start-up that was developing Android. At the time, the move was largely aimed at Microsoft and meant to ensure that it didn’t wind up controlling the market for mobile devices. But when Microsoft faltered in the emerging smartphone market, and other companies like Research In Motion and then Apple began to dominate instead, Google continued to push ahead with Android and its vision of a more open mobile phone ecosystem.
As Google’s plans took shape, Apple and Google executives either met in person or spoke on the phone on multiple occasions about Apple’s concern about Android, executives on both sides say.
Many of those meetings turned confrontational, according to people familiar with the discussions, with Mr. Jobs often accusing Google of stealing iPhone features. Google executives said that Android’s features were based on longstanding ideas already circulating in the industry and that some Android prototypes predated the iPhone.
At one particularly heated meeting in 2008 on Google’s campus, Mr. Jobs angrily told Google executives that if they deployed a version of multitouch — the popular iPhone feature that allows users to control their devices with flicks of their fingers — he would sue. Two people briefed on the meeting described it as “fierce” and “heated.”
While Google listened to Apple, it rarely backed down. “I don’t think they made many accommodations,” says a former Google executive who was briefed on the discussions. “Google is not a company that is particularly afraid of anyone, including Apple.”
Google did proceed cautiously with Android, at least initially. The first versions of the software, which appeared on devices in 2008, didn’t feature multitouch. The phones were slow and unwieldy, and Google insiders joked that they looked like bricks.
But as Android-powered devices kept improving, Apple became more concerned. When Mr. Jobs returned to work from a prolonged health leave last year, he faced an array of emerging Android-powered phones like the Motorola Droid, with sleeker lines, improved performance and, like the other Android phones, the ability to run multiple applications at the same time.
Highlighting the escalating rivalry, Verizon ran ads for the Droid that took aim at the iPhone with the tagline “Everything iDon’t ... Droid Does.”
AS tensions mounted between Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Jobs, their infighting became more public. When Google tried to get its voice mail management program, Google Voice, onto the iPhone, Apple blocked the effort last July, citing privacy concerns. Then, last August, Mr. Schmidt stepped down from Apple’s board, prompted in part by regulatory concerns over ties between the two companies but also because Apple said his position had become untenable.
When Mr. Jobs announced Mr. Schmidt’s departure from the board, he noted that with Android and plans for a computer operating system, Google was “unfortunately” entering more of Apple’s “core business.”
Then a wrestling match began on the acquisition front.
Last fall, Apple made a formal bid to acquire AdMob, a rapidly growing mobile advertising company, for $600 million. AdMob specializes in developing ads that run inside mobile phone applications, like those on the iPhone.
While Apple conducted due diligence on the deal, AdMob agreed to a 45-day “no shop” provision, a routine clause that prevented the start-up from offering itself for sale to others, according to three people briefed on the negotiations. But after Apple inexplicably let 45 days pass without consummating its offer, Google pounced.
Their interest piqued by Apple’s pursuit of the start-up, Mr. Schmidt, along with Mr. Page, Mr. Brin and other Google executives, began intensely courting Omar Hamoui, AdMob’s young chief executive. AdMob, the Google guys argued, belonged in their corporate family because Google — unlike Apple — was an old pro in advertising. They also promised that AdMob employees would be able to cash out stock options sooner than Apple’s deal would have allowed. It also didn’t hurt that Google was willing to pay a 25 percent premium over Apple’s offer.
Three days after the no-shop provision expired, Google agreed to buy AdMob — putting a whopping $750 million price tag on a four-year-old company with modest revenue. Jilted and angry, Mr. Jobs speculated that AdMob might have violated its legal obligations, with help from Google, according to two people briefed on the fallout from the negotiations.
(Neither AdMob nor Google would comment on any aspect of the process. The acquisition is being reviewed by the Federal Trade Commission for possible antitrust problems.)
One executive familiar with Google’s acquisitions strategy said the company was willing to pay a large premium for AdMob simply to keep the company out of Apple’s arms. “There is no way AdMob would have gotten $750 million if he wasn’t worried that it would end up in the hands of Steve,” the executive said. “Are they going to get $750 million in cash flow back? No way.”
Apple rebounded quickly, buying Quattro Wireless, a rival to AdMob, for close to $300 million in January — signaling that Apple and Google would duke it out for pre-eminence in the ad market for mobile devices.
In the tech press, however, Apple’s announcement was overshadowed by much bigger news. The same day, Google introduced the Nexus One, its flagship phone designed in close collaboration with HTC, which carried some of the unmistakable design flourishes associated with the iPhone.
And later that month, days after Mr. Jobs derided Google’s “Don’t be evil” mantra, Google dropped any pretense of conciliation: it sent out a software update to the Nexus One, adding multitouch capabilities and thereby openly crossing a line that Mr. Jobs had drawn in the sand.
INSIDE both Apple and Google, employees say, the sense of rivalry is intense and a peacemaker is sorely needed. “I’ve never seen anything quite like it in my life,” one Apple employee says. “I’m in so many meetings where so many potshots are taken. It feels weird.”
At Google, which counts Microsoft, Facebook and Yahoo on an ever-expanding list of rivals, the enmity toward Apple is not quite as widespread. After all, the iPhone has helped to fuel the popularity of Google mobile services and ads.
The spat over Google Voice, along with other confrontations, sharpened one of Google’s worst fears: that a rival could keep millions of people from accessing its services. A Google executive vowed to bring Google Voice to the iPhone “one way or the other,” and the company quickly developed a workaround to circumvent the Apple block.
If anyone could negotiate a ceasefire, it would be Bill Campbell, a well-regarded Silicon Valley business counselor known simply as Coach.
Mr. Campbell, a former college football coach and the former chief executive of Intuit, has played pivotal roles at Google. He sat in on high-level management meetings, counseled Mr. Schmidt individually in private sessions every other week, helped to establish the company’s management structure, and had a hand in smoothing over the initially turbulent relationship between Mr. Schmidt and Google’s founders.
Mr. Campbell also looms large at Apple, where he is co-chairman of the board, and was one of the few people in whom Mr. Jobs confided during his health crisis.
While Mr. Campbell has tried to be a diplomat and smooth over the problems between Mr. Jobs and Mr. Schmidt, the task hasn’t been easy. Mr. Campbell declined to comment for this article, but people briefed on the matter say that throughout last fall, Mr. Jobs and Mr. Schmidt each lobbied Mr. Campbell to sever his connection with the other’s company, at times even giving him ultimatums to do so.
Finally, Mr. Campbell was forced to choose, and according to a person with knowledge of the situation, he dropped his formal responsibilities at Google, although he is still informally mentoring executives there.
Mitch Kapor, the founder of Lotus Development and now a tech investor, describes such infighting as “old wine in a new bottle,” and reminiscent of many past corporate battles in Silicon Valley. He sees the old dynamics between Apple and Microsoft being recycled, with Apple still trying to control every aspect of the user experience, and Google, like Microsoft before it, working with multiple partners to flood the market with a large number of devices.
While mobile phone developers favor the iPhone for now, “they are all racing ahead to develop for Android, too,” Mr. Kapor says. “Tight control helps in the beginning, but it tends to choke things in the long term.”
APPLE and Google remain partners in certain areas. Google pays Apple millions of dollars annually to make its search engine the default on Apple’s Web browser, on the iPhone and soon, perhaps, on the iPad.
But there is wide speculation in technology circles that Apple is preparing to give Google a public black eye: by making Microsoft’s offering, Bing, the preferred search engine on the iPad, and perhaps even on the iPhone. One Apple employee says that Qi Lu, the president of Microsoft’s online services division, was recently seen visiting Apple’s campus in Cupertino to discuss such a deal. Microsoft declined to comment.
A deal with Microsoft may not be a big blow to Google financially, because many iPhone and iPad users will undoubtedly visit Google’s search service from their device’s Web browser. But the backing of Mr. Jobs would amount to a very valuable and high-profile product endorsement for Microsoft, which has been the perennial underdog in search.
And it would present an unlikely sight: Steve Jobs and Apple, running from the arms of Eric Schmidt and Google, into the embrace of Steve Ballmer and Microsoft.
Source: New-York Times, 15/03/10
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
jeudi 11 mars 2010
Smart Grid Revolution Becomes 'Disruptive' for Utilities Worldwide According to New Microsoft Survey
Only 8 percent of utilities around the world have
completed their smart grid technology implementations while 37 percent have projects underway and
more than half haven't yet started, according to a new Microsoft Corp. survey.
The Microsoft Worldwide Utility Industry Survey 2010, released today at CERAWeek 2010 in Houston,
surveyed almost 200 professionals within electric, gas and water utilities and related companies around
the world. The survey highlights a range of challenges — from financial and regulatory to technology and
return on investment — for utilities already unsure of the right path to building the smart grid.
"As this study clearly shows, the disruptive nature of the smart grid revolution, and the innovations it
brings, has caught many in the industry by surprise, including many utilities that already have embraced
smart grid technologies," said Jon Arnold, managing director for the Worldwide Power & Utilities Industry
at Microsoft, who was recently named one of the 100 People You Must Know in Smart Grid by Greentech
Media Inc. "Some incorrectly assert that the utility industry is unwilling to change, but the survey shows
the opposite. It's the magnitude of change to everything from business models to systems that's
overwhelming, especially given utilities' existing asset and technology investments combined with the
need to ensure profitability and reliability."
Distribution Management and Smart Metering Are Critical
The survey shows that utilities professionals and executives perceive distribution management and smart
metering solutions as the most important technologies for successful smart grid implementations.
Integration of renewable energy sources into the smart grid and consumer energy management solutions
follow closely. However, 63 percent of the respondents in the Americas think the information technologies
available today are not sufficient to address future challenges, while only 45 percent and 42 percent of
respondents in Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) and Asia Pacific respectively believe they are
insufficient.
"The clear objective is to optimize current power generation and delivery assets to help utilities improve
grid reliability; achieve demand response, environmental and conservation goals; and avoid unnecessary
capital expenditures," said Julie Hance, vice president of software solutions for Itron North America, a
Microsoft partner. "It will take close industrywide collaboration — from the smart meter into the home and
the smart meter back to the array of generation sources — to complete this complex task and achieve a
smarter, more sustainable future."
Respondents worldwide cite financial concerns — both costs and return on investment — as the main
challenge to smart grid development. They also cite regulatory factors as the most influential to smart grid
technology deployment decisions. However, the economic climate is tied with regulatory factors as the
two biggest influencers among Asia Pacific respondents.
The survey reveals that 42 percent of the respondents are currently incorporating distributed generation
sources such as wind and solar on rooftops and another 25 percent will begin to incorporate these
sources in the next one to three years. Also, by early 2013, half of the respondents expect to offer time-
of-use pricing to all of their residential customers.
Only 8 percent of respondents believe their utility has a technology architecture that is adequate to
support new business processes and new technologies. To fund all of these investments, 77 percent of
respondents expect their budgets for smart grid technologies to increase over the next two to three years.
"The inevitability of change combined with financial and regulatory uncertainty makes it critical for utilities
to begin implementing the right technology capabilities now to meet the challenge of any regulation,
energy source or distribution need in the future," Arnold said.
Founded in 1975, Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) is the worldwide leader in software, services and solutions
that help people and businesses realize their full potential.
For more information about Microsoft Power and Utilities:
Microsoft News Center: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/industries/manufacturing/Default.aspx
Utilities industry home page: http://microsoft.com/utilities
Industry blog: http://blogs.msdn.com/mspowerutilities/default.aspx
SOURCE Microsoft Corp.
RELATED LINKS
http://www.microsoft.com
completed their smart grid technology implementations while 37 percent have projects underway and
more than half haven't yet started, according to a new Microsoft Corp. survey.
The Microsoft Worldwide Utility Industry Survey 2010, released today at CERAWeek 2010 in Houston,
surveyed almost 200 professionals within electric, gas and water utilities and related companies around
the world. The survey highlights a range of challenges — from financial and regulatory to technology and
return on investment — for utilities already unsure of the right path to building the smart grid.
"As this study clearly shows, the disruptive nature of the smart grid revolution, and the innovations it
brings, has caught many in the industry by surprise, including many utilities that already have embraced
smart grid technologies," said Jon Arnold, managing director for the Worldwide Power & Utilities Industry
at Microsoft, who was recently named one of the 100 People You Must Know in Smart Grid by Greentech
Media Inc. "Some incorrectly assert that the utility industry is unwilling to change, but the survey shows
the opposite. It's the magnitude of change to everything from business models to systems that's
overwhelming, especially given utilities' existing asset and technology investments combined with the
need to ensure profitability and reliability."
Distribution Management and Smart Metering Are Critical
The survey shows that utilities professionals and executives perceive distribution management and smart
metering solutions as the most important technologies for successful smart grid implementations.
Integration of renewable energy sources into the smart grid and consumer energy management solutions
follow closely. However, 63 percent of the respondents in the Americas think the information technologies
available today are not sufficient to address future challenges, while only 45 percent and 42 percent of
respondents in Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) and Asia Pacific respectively believe they are
insufficient.
"The clear objective is to optimize current power generation and delivery assets to help utilities improve
grid reliability; achieve demand response, environmental and conservation goals; and avoid unnecessary
capital expenditures," said Julie Hance, vice president of software solutions for Itron North America, a
Microsoft partner. "It will take close industrywide collaboration — from the smart meter into the home and
the smart meter back to the array of generation sources — to complete this complex task and achieve a
smarter, more sustainable future."
Respondents worldwide cite financial concerns — both costs and return on investment — as the main
challenge to smart grid development. They also cite regulatory factors as the most influential to smart grid
technology deployment decisions. However, the economic climate is tied with regulatory factors as the
two biggest influencers among Asia Pacific respondents.
The survey reveals that 42 percent of the respondents are currently incorporating distributed generation
sources such as wind and solar on rooftops and another 25 percent will begin to incorporate these
sources in the next one to three years. Also, by early 2013, half of the respondents expect to offer time-
of-use pricing to all of their residential customers.
Only 8 percent of respondents believe their utility has a technology architecture that is adequate to
support new business processes and new technologies. To fund all of these investments, 77 percent of
respondents expect their budgets for smart grid technologies to increase over the next two to three years.
"The inevitability of change combined with financial and regulatory uncertainty makes it critical for utilities
to begin implementing the right technology capabilities now to meet the challenge of any regulation,
energy source or distribution need in the future," Arnold said.
Founded in 1975, Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) is the worldwide leader in software, services and solutions
that help people and businesses realize their full potential.
For more information about Microsoft Power and Utilities:
Microsoft News Center: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/industries/manufacturing/Default.aspx
Utilities industry home page: http://microsoft.com/utilities
Industry blog: http://blogs.msdn.com/mspowerutilities/default.aspx
SOURCE Microsoft Corp.
RELATED LINKS
http://www.microsoft.com
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)