Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Una industria de $1.5 Billones luchando para no ser regulada

E-Cigarettes: A $1.5 Billion Industry Braces for FDA Regulation   

The first time J. Andries Verleur tried an e-cigarette in 2008, he burned his lip and accidentally inhaled the nicotine fluid. “It was one of the worst products I ever tried,” he recalls, “but the idea was amazing.”


Verleur, a heavy smoker, was living in Prague and happened to spot the strange new product in a Vietnamese grocery store. The crude early version obviously didn’t work very well, but Verleur, a serial entrepreneur, immediately realized that if it did work, it could upend the tobacco industry. That was worth looking into: Cigarettes are a global business that generates more than half a trillion dollars every year, according to data from Euromonitor International.
In its simplest form, an e-cigarette is a cartridge filled with a nicotine solution and a battery powering a coil that heats the solution into vapor, which one sucks in and exhales like smoke. Typically, it looks like a regular cigarette, except the tip, embedded with an LED, often glows blue instead of red. The active ingredient in e-cigarettes is the same nicotine found in cigarettes and nicotine patches.
The effects of inhaling nicotine vapor are not totally understood, but there is no evidence to date that it causes cancer. Experts and logic seem to agree that it’s a lot better than setting chopped-up tobacco leaves on fire and inhaling the nicotine along with thousands of combustion byproducts, some of which are definitely carcinogenic. Because cancer is the main drawback of smoking for a lot of people, the delivery of nicotine without lighting a cigarette is very attractive. And because it produces a wispy vapor instead of acrid smoke, an e-cigarette lets you bring your smoking back indoors, where lighting up in an enclosed space is no longer socially, or legally, acceptable.
Verleur saw right away that if e-cigarettes could be made as convenient and satisfying as a pack of smokes, he’d make a killing. He enlisted the help of his brother, an engineer working for an Agilent Technologies (A) spinoff; booked a trip to China; and began meeting with manufacturers. In 2009 he formed his company, V2Cigs, with four employees working out of an apartment.
Five years later, V2Cigs has six manufacturing facilities in Shenzhen, China, a Miami headquarters, 250 employees, and 5 million customers worldwide. Verleur says more than a million of those are in the U.S., where Bloomberg Industries projects total e-cigarette sales could reach $1.5 billion this year. Other competitors now include NJoy, Vapor (VPCO), and Victory Electronic Cigarettes (ECIG), as well as the major tobacco manufacturers and hundreds of others.
It all still represents a tiny fraction of what Americans spend on tobacco, but it’s pretty solid for an industry that barely existed five years ago. A projection by Bloomberg Industries shows e-cigarette sales could surpass that of the traditional tobacco product by as early as 2023. Who will dominate the market is a different question, and one that may be answered not by the markets, but by the government. 
  
A primitive, battery-operated “smokeless non-tobacco cigarette” was patented as early as 1963 and described in Popular Mechanics in 1965. Thomas Schelling, a Nobel prize-winning economist who helped start the Institute for the Study of Smoking Behavior and Policy at Harvard University’s Kennedy School in the 1980s, recalls that people in the 1960s were talking about a charcoal-based vaporizer that would heat some sort of nicotine solution. While those early versions might have been safer than a regular cigarette, they were too expensive and cumbersome to become a substitute for a pack of Camels in a country where, as Schelling notes, “you’re never more than 5 or 10 minutes away from a smoke.”

In a way, electronic cigarettes were made possible by cell phones. The drive to make phones smaller and lengthen their battery life led to the development of batteries and equipment small enough to fit in a container the size and shape of a cigarette. There’s some dispute over who invented the modern e-cigarette, but the first commercially marketed device was created by a Chinese pharmacist, Hon Lik, and introduced to the Chinese market as a smoking cessation device in 2004. From there, e-cigarettes made their way to small shops such as that of the Vietnamese grocer who sold Verleur his first one four years later.

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Westminster Dog Show Discrimination: ... (Business Week)

Aunque parezca mentira: discrimación en los perros...!?

Unmasking Bias Against Dachshunds


Monday, February 10, 2014

11 Reasons Your Co-workers Hate You (Salary.com)

Annoying Coworkers Make Office Life Miserable

  You know who they are.

Maybe it was something as huge as taking all the credit for a game-changing business idea, or something as small as chewing gum too loudly at their desks. But whatever the reason, we all have coworkers we absolutely hate. And some of us are that coworker -- whether we realize it or not.

It's inevitable really. After all, you can't spend 40 hours a week with the same people day in and day out, trapped together in a confined area and forced to share space and resources, without developing a little bit of acrimony from time to time. We're human beings and bad days and isolated incidents are occasionally expected. But when those isolated bad days turn into regular occurences and start affecting others at work, that's a problem.

So which traits cause you to hate coworkers (or make you hated)? We've got eleven of them.



1. You're Never on Time

"Let's wait another five minutes to start the meeting because (insert name of chronically late coworker here) hasn't arrived yet."

Is there anything -- and I mean ANYTHING -- more frustrating than dealing with other people who show absolutely no respect for everyone else's time? In our "Wasting Time at Work" survey last year, 47% of workers said meetings were the biggest time-waster in the workplace, because if someone is late to the first meeting it pushes each subsequent appointment back until there aren't enough hours in the day. If you were hoping to get home early or attend your kid's special event, this can have far-reaching consequences that extend well beyond your cubicle walls.

The answer is simple -- be on time. Write it on your calendar or better yet, put reminders in your phone. It's the quickest way to ensure 1) you won't be late, and 2) your coworkers won't hate you to the point they schedule their own meeting to plan your comeuppance.

2. You Have No Manners

Think there's no room in business for good manners? Think again.

People notice the little things, which is why consistently using "please" and "thank you" are an underrated yet important factor when it comes to dealing with other human being on a daily basis. In an office setting, you're normally in too close a proximity to be rude without major repercussions. That's why manners and basic common courtesy are so important.

So if you're someone who tends to bark orders at co-workers, try engaging in some civility and asking politely. Also, if you do have an issue with a co-worker take him/her aside or behind closed doors. Having a verbal spat in the middle of the office is unbecoming, distracting and unnecessary.

3. You're Noisy

Imagine you're sitting in your cubicle fielding a call from a customer. You're trying to calm them down about an order gone haywire, but in the midst of your efforts all you can hear is the person in the next cube.

This one is a biggie when talking about the pet peeves of co-workers. Who among us doesn't have the seemingly oblivious (or worse, just plain rude) co-worker who whistles/sings/hums/chews/plays his music too loud on a non-stop basis? Maybe they're nice people who just don't realize what they're doing, so you don't say anything because you don't want to complain and hurt their feelings. But on the inside you're seething as they use their fingers on the desk to beat out yet another Led Zeppelin drum solo that cuts through you like a knife.

If this is you, stop it. It's rude and inconsiderate. And if you're the one suffering, just let them know in a nice way that it's affecting your work and ask if they can try to keep it down to a dull roar.

4. You're a "Debbie Downer"

If you can't say something nice...

Hey, it's not like you have to be all sunshine and rainbows. You're a professional working with other professionals, and it's business not kindergarten. But while not every idea is a winner, you don't want to be the person who becomes notorious for automatically dumping on every single idea in a brainstorming session or planning meeting.

If you're so judgmental and critical of new ideas, eventually people will feel less and less comfortable sharing things with you or in front of you. At that point, whatever new ideas and valid criticism you bring to the table might go ignored because everyone is used to your negativity and no one wants to hear how stupid they are time and time again.

A little constructive criticism -- and some tact -- goes a long way. 

5. You're a Backstabber

Want people to hate you? Take credit for something someone else did.

Engaging in office politics is fine (and even expected to a point), but when you start actively taking credit for ideas that weren't yours, you're going to be hated in a hurry. It doesn't even have to involve the theft of ideas, either. Failing to give other co-workers proper credit during collaborative endeavors will give people more than enough ammo to despise you. And rightfully so.

Don't be that person. Even if your deceptions and office politics get you moved up a rung or two on the corporate ladder, that just means the target on your back will be that much more visible.

6. You're the "Stinky Lunch" Guy

This might start off innocently enough, but your choice of lunchtime cuisine can land you in the hallowed halls of office hatred faster than anything else on this list.

We understand everyone has different tastes and people come from all walks of life -- and that includes what we all eat. But if you're in an office environment, you need to remember you're sharing space. Sometimes with dozens and dozens of other people. So when you stick your leftover fish in the microwave for 4 minutes, it's like dropping a stinkbomb right in the middle of the office. And while curry and Tex-Mex taste delicious if you're the one eating it, the rest of us just lost our appetites because that smell is going to linger for the rest of the day.

Bring a sandwich or some soup that doesn't assault the nostrils. Unless of course you want everyone to think about a horrible stench every time you enter a meeting.

7. You're Lazy

Laziness isn't one of the 7 Deadly Sins for nothing.

Every office has at least a handful of these lazy employees. They've been around for a few years, don't like their jobs very much, and therefore do as little as possible -- basically only performing in their duties enough to not get fired and keep collecting a paycheck. So while they might perform the bare minimum, don't look for these workers to carry their weight as part of a team or contribute anything worthwhile during a big project. Yet they never have any problem accepting the credit courtesy of the people who actually did work hard -- hence the reason lazy workers made this list.

We get that you're unhappy, but if work is so bad that you can't see fit to put forth any effort whatsoever, just leave. You're cheating the company, your co-workers who hate you a little more every day, and ultimately yourself. Contribute or be gone!

8. Too Much Information

Too Much Information -- or TMI as the kids are calling it these days -- is a tricky thing.

While most co-workers share a certain amount of personal information with one another and the line between just enough and too much is often blurry, it is still there. For example, it's perfectly acceptable to tell your co-workers you went out to a club this weekend. But telling them you got so wasted the bouncers had to toss you out for your half-naked rendition ofGangnam Style is TMI. The same goes for excessive talk of personal health problems, marital spats, your child's latest accomplishment at preschool no one cares about, and your private phone calls during work that are anything but.

Everyone has their own problems, they don't want to deal with yours too.

9. You're Condescending

Knowing what you're talking about is a good thing. Being a know-it-all? Not so much.

Everyone gets it -- you're the smartest person in the room. You not only have a solution for everything, you're all too happy to point out why other peoples' suggestions are destined to fail. But while you were busy being right, something interesting happened -- you alienated your entire team and now no one wants to work with you because they can't stand the sight of you.

There's a way to stand out in a positive light without kicking everyone else into the abyss. Don't stop coming up with great ideas, but use your brilliance to foster the ideas of others and bring them up to your level without drawing the ire of the people you have to work with on a daily basis. If you continue to talk down to people you're bound to get a lot of middle fingers extended up to you in no time.

10. No E-mail Etiquette

Are you the "caps lock guy?" The "reply all gal?" Well knock it off!

We are far enough along into the Internet Age that "I'm not good with computers" can no longer be used as a legitimate excuse for email etiquette ignorance. First of all, the caps lock thing? Don't. Just don't. It used to be mean you're shouting, but at this point it means "you're shouting and nothing you say can be taken seriously."

And please, don't just automatically hit "reply all" when corresponding via email. This goes double for those times you're part of a team and you run the risk of typing something inappropriate with your boss on the list, or something that makes a co-worker look bad. Also, don't become a habitual offender when it comes to marking things "high priority." If it's an emergency, fine. But just because you sent it doesn't mean it's automatically a priority.

11. Being a Slob

A little messy? OK. A tad unorganized and slightly eccentric? Sure. But let's face it, no one likes a disgusting slob.

When your cubicle looks like it hasn't been cleaned since Clinton was in office and the mold from your coffee cup is turning into a sentient being with plans of office domination, you've officially become a slob. Your complete disregard of the company dress code and the curious decision to only shower twice a week has also contributed to your new job title -- office pariah.

No one says you have to be a fashion maven or wear expensive perfume or cologne, but at the very least you have to look presentable and engage in basic personal hygiene so the people you work with can stand to share the same space. And speaking of your space, give the cubicle a spring cleaning, will ya? Having your workspace declared a biohazard is not going to help your chances for a raise come performance review time.












Wednesday, February 5, 2014

El Nuevo Jefe de Microsoft...BusinessWeek)

Management

New CEO Satya Nadella Needs to Make Microsoft More Like Google

About two years ago, Microsoft’s (MSFT) research arm described something amazing in a blog post. It had developed a contact lens equipped with a tiny chip that could measure the blood sugar level of tears.
The technology could free people from having to prick their fingers to check insulin levels. Instead of intermittent reports, people would be able to record a steady stream of data and get warnings when they need them most. “The team envisions a way to automatically display important information—including abnormal glucose or insulin alerts—in the lens wearer’s view,” Microsoft wrote in the December 2011 post. “It could alert the wearer when their glucose levels indicate that they should stop eating, or remind them when it’s time to eat a snack.”
Microsoft earned a few pats on the back in the press for this announcement. But the reception was nothing compared to what Google (GOOG) received in mid-January when it unveiled—wait for it—a contact lens that can measure blood sugar levels. Hundreds of stories celebrating Google’s innovative thinking appeared and portrayed these contact lenses as a natural extension to the Google Glass product churned out by the company’s research division. “Google doing amazing things,” wrote one commenter on Google’s blog post about the invention. “Again.”
The projects sound similar because they are, in fact, the same idea. Babak Parviz was a researcher at the University of Washington who had teamed up with Microsoft on the original project. He later took a job at Google, spearheaded the Google Glass product and then reintroduced the contact lens idea this year. The difference in reception from the outside observers shows why Parviz may have been right to move the work to Google. There’s a belief that Google will back this science experiment with enough energy and resources to turn it into an actual product that people can buy. When it comes to envisioning and delivering the future, Google is clearly the company people now seem to turn to most.
Of all the questions that Satya Nadella, Microsoft’s new chief executive officer, will face, the most pressing one may well revolve around deciding whether or not Microsoft still wants to be an arbiter of technology. Years ago, Bill Gates, Microsoft’s co-founder and former CEO, promised there would be a PC in every home—and then delivered on that vision through force of will and daring business deals. From there, Microsoft introduced the world to smartphones, tablets, wearable devices, ubiquitous voice recognition, smart homes, and scores of other ideas.
Futuristic videos shown at trade shows portraying the company’s even more remarkable technologies became legendary in the industry. Microsoft, though, has mistimed and failed to execute well on many of these products, and it has simply given up on pursuing the others. All too often, the company’s creative thinking has been stifled by its focus on Windows and by infighting among division chiefs. Google, meanwhile, has become even more aggressive at inventing and acquiring tomorrow’s technologies.
In many ways, Google has become the company Microsoft always hoped to be. Executives at Microsoft realize that the stakes in this battle for the future are high. Areas such as automotive technology, robotics, and the smart home finally appear poised to take off. This is why Google has developed self-driving cars and launched a new effort to get Android into automobiles. It’s also why the company has gone on an historic spree to buy dozens of robotics companies, including Boston Dynamics and Meka Robotics, acquiring artificial intelligence start-ups such as DeepMind, and spending $3.2 billion on the smart home appliance maker Nest. The search giant has made big, bold bets and managed to get its research and product groups to work together.
Microsoft, too, has invested in all these areas, but it may well be letting its chance to compete slip away by not backing some of its more audacious gambles with enough bodies and investment. “The same kinds of thoughts are on my mind and everyone’s’ minds,” says Peter Lee, head of Microsoft research. At about $10 billion per year, Microsoft’s annual research and development budget makes it one of the biggest spenders in tech. (Google spends $8 billion.) A lot of that money goes toward advancing existing products such as Windows and Office. Still, Microsoft employs 1,000-plus researchers just to tackle scientific endeavors, write papers, and invent mind-bending technology for future products.
Outside of a university setting, it would be difficult to find a larger collection of top-flight researchers given the latitude to think without the burden of corporate pressures. “The priorities were clear when I was there,” says Kurt Akeley, former general manager of Microsoft Research in Silicon Valley and Asia and now chief technology officer at camera maker Lytro. “You were brought in first and foremost to do excellent research.”
While Microsoft wants its scientists to focus on research, it has urged them to take a stab at more practical work, too. And the company has an impressive list of successes, although not always with eye-candy type stuff. Microsoft Research, for example, has done some of the key work behind the company’s shift turning boxed software such as Office into a service that can be delivered via the Web.
Nadella, as the head of Microsoft’s cloud computing strategy and data center software, has first-hand experience with these efforts. Researchers have also driven breakthroughs in the Bing search engine and—most notably to consumers—with the software behind the Xbox Kinect movement-tracking software, a huge leap forward in computing interfaces. “All of these things have been major efforts out of research in collaboration with our product groups,” says Lee. “All of them make billions of dollars.”
Microsoft’s research and development failures, however, have received far more attention. The company, for example, acquired smartphone maker Danger in 2008 for $500 million. That deal resulted in the Kin phone, which hardly anyone remembers today because it was an epic flop that Microsoft sold for only about a month. For its part, Google acquired mobile-phone startup Android and now dominates the smartphone market. In robotics, Microsoft beat most of its rivals to the punch years ago, shipping an entire suite of software that helped developers and researchers build smart machines. The software did well enough but it was overtaken by an open-source rival; Microsoft doesn’t even promote the product today.
In the automotive arena, Microsoft has a partnership with Ford (F), while Google has software deals in place with General Motors (GM), Honda Motor (HMC), Audi(NSU:GR), Hyundai (005380:KS), Tesla Motors (TSLA), Kia (000270:KS), BMW(BMW:GR), and Toyota (TM). And the smart home? Gates has been living in one for more than a decade, but you’ll need to buy that clever thermostat and smoke detector from Google.
Researchers who have worked at Microsoft’s labs find this a sad state of affairs. “It frustrates me,” says Lyndsay Williams, a former researcher at the company’s sprawling Cambridge, U.K., labs. In 1997, Williams worked on a phone with touchscreens and accelerometers and eye-tracking technology but says she could not get Microsoft excited about the technology. She also helped develop the SenseCam, a wearable cameras that would automatically take photos and document a person’s life. Microsoft still touts the product on its Research Web site. (Google just began selling Google Glass alongside prescription lenses.) “It is a shame, really,” says Williams. “To me, Google is now my favorite company. They bring out so many useful pieces of software for people.”
Microsoft insiders argue that the company is at a different stage in its life cycle than Google, whose share price has risen from $85 to more than $1,130 in the past 10 years, and say that this explains some of what is going on. Google, with its “Don’t Be Evil” slogan and risk-taking co-founders, is often allowed to make massive gambles without investors pushing back at all. Days after its $12 billion deal to buy Motorola and get into the smartphone hardware market blew up, Google’s shares surged to an all-time high.
Will the contact lenses turn into money-making products? Who knows? Who cares? For Microsoft, such scenarios do not exist. Every time it hints at a forthcoming, risky product, investors immediately push as to why the company is “wasting” money outside  its core business software market, and they want to know when these new, fanciful products will be sold—and at what profit margins. “Right now, Google has a path with its shareholders and the press and the public to invest significantly in some pretty far-out ideas,” says Lee. “It would be a shame for Google not to take advantage of that.”
What Microsoft has lacked is a leader willing to kill some sacred cows and redefine the way the company is perceived.
The latest management shakeup would seem to provide recognition of this, along with an opportunity to change it. Steve Ballmer is gone and Gates has given up his role as chairman, though he will remain on the board. Those looming, bigger-than-life ties to Microsoft’s past have been pushed to the side. It will take guts, but Nadella should seize on this moment, tempt the public with a couple of the company’s boldest ideas, and then deliver on them. This may be his only chance to reset expectations with investors and consumers. Microsoft could let the world know that it not only cares about participating in the future but intends to invent it.
Vance is a technology writer for Bloomberg Businessweek in Palo Alto, Calif. Follow him on Twitter@valleyhack .

Monday, February 3, 2014

Caída de las acciones de Google ... (ZDNet)

Google's Q4 earnings miss highlights Motorola woes

Summary: Fortunately for Google execs, Motorola won't be a question going forward. CEO Larry Page was already talking about Google sans Motorola's losses.
Google's fourth quarter earnings fell short of expectations, but at least it's clear why the company offloaded Motorola Mobility to Lenovo for $2.91 billion. Motorola Mobility's fourth quarter sales took a hit from a year ago and was clearly becoming a headache.
The search giant reported fourth quarter earnings of $3.38 billion, or $9.90 a share, on revenue of $16.86 billion including traffic acquisition costs. Google reported non-GAAP earnings of $12.01 a share for the fourth quarter. Wall Street was looking for earnings of $12.26 a share on a non-GAAP basis on revenue of $16.75 billion.
Fourth quarter revenue excluding $3.31 billion in traffic acquisition costs was $13.5 billion.
Despite the launch of Moto X and what was supposed to be a strong smartphone quarter during the holidays, Google's Motorola unit struggled. Motorola reported fourth quarter revenue of $1.24 billion, down from $1.51 billion a year ago. Motorola reported an operating loss of $384 million in the fourth quarter. There's a disconnect between Google's revenue slide and the supplemental financials.
google motorola q4
google q4 rev breakdown
Fortunately for Google execs, Motorola won't be a question going forward. The rest of Google's business looks solid. Google CEO Larry Page was already talking about Google sans Motorola and said "standalone revenue was up 22 percent year on year."
On a conference call with analysts, Nikesh Arora, chief business officer, said performance advertising remains the mainstay of the company and he's optimistic that Google can hit all screens.
Arora said:
Performance advertising continues to be a main stay of our core business. We're seeing good growth as driven primarily by increased search activity across all screens, as driven by new measurement features and more sophisticated market ears lining their search and display advertising strategies.
Arora also added that Google's enterprise business continues to grow. CFO Patrick Pichette said that Google is continuing to invest in data centers. "Most of our capital expenditures right now are really driven by data center construction and machines that are actually driving both the core businesses of Google and (cloud services like Compute and App Engine).
Google site revenue was $10.55 billion, up 22 percent from the fourth quarter a year ago. Network revenue was $3.52 billion, up 3 percent from a year ago. Other revenue was $1.65 billion, up 99 percent from a year ago. International revenue was 56 percent of sales in the fourth quarter.
Other revenue includes content, apps as well as hardware such as Chromecast and Chromebooks.
Other points worth noting:
  • Average cost-per-click, a key metric, fell 11 percent in the fourth quarter compared to a year ago.
  • Paid clicks were up 31 percent in the fourth quarter compared to a year ago.
  • Other cost of revenue, mostly manufacturing and inventory costs as well as data center expenses, was $4.13 billion, or 24 percent of revenue.
  • Google had a whopping $58.72 billion in cash and equivalents at the end of the fourth quarter.
  • There were 47,756 full-time employees (3,894 in Motorola Mobile) as of December 31.
google q4 costs
Larry Dignan is Editor in Chief of ZDNet and SmartPlanet as well as Editorial Director of ZDNet's sister site TechRepublic.