Beak

Rumors About the Upcoming iPhone 5

admin — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 22:57:36 +0000

When the iPhone 4S was released last year, people were already buzzing about the 2012 release of the iPhone 5. What features will it have? What will be different? With this week’s unveiling of the iPad 3, people have started anticipating the iPhone 5 even more.

Here are the details of the iPhone 5, which is planned to be released by September or October 2012: it is said that the iPhone 5 will have a quad core processor A6, new and improved Gorilla Glass 2.0, a much bigger screen, 4G LTE, a longer lasting battery life, and a high-resolution camera.

In past years, Apple’s major fall announcements have revolved around their latest iPod developments, but since iPod sales are no longer the biggest contribution to Apple’s total profits, they are apparently turning their efforts towards unveiling the iPhone 5.

There is also a rumor that the iPhone 5 could be the first iPhone to have a wireless charging feature. This marks yet another step Apple is making, taking them further away from a dependence on cables. However, Apple could conceivably charge customers extra to pay for the wireless charging component, which some are hypothesizing will be in a mat form called the Powermat as a sort of dock connector.

It is totally believable that Apple would make a point to charge iPhone users for the Powermat–they could easily make a huge deal of advertising the new wireless charging capabilities of the iPhone 5, but then not provide a way to enjoy that without shelling out a few more bucks. That would actually be a smart business move, even if it is slightly sneaky. Especially because not needing to rely on a cable to charge your phone would be extremely convenient; cable chargers often go bad prematurely, and this way that just would not be an issue ever again.

What do you think? Are you excited for the iPhone 5? Would you be willing to pay extra to make use of the phone’s wireless charging capability?

Turn Your House Into a Billboard & Pay Your Mortgage

mikkel — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:48:58 +0000

When the economy turned south, thousands of Americans were left without jobs, without money, and without a way to pay their mortgage. Even people in the higher economic class are defaulting on their mortgage loans, unable to meet their financial requirements. Nobody wants to be homeless, but America’s worst nightmares are coming true for many people. This problem is leading many people to take unconventional approaches to pay their bills.

In Buena Park, CA, Scott and Beth Hosteler’s house is brightly colored, does not fit in with the rest of the houses, and their mortgage is being paid, because their house is a huge billboard. At first, neighbors were angry and some even thought about calling the police. Of course, as it turns out, your neighbors have the right to paint their house any color they want, unless of course you live in a planned community with an HOA.

Now, the Hostetler home is brightly colored and garish, but somebody else is paying their $2000 a month mortgage. This family gets paid by a company called Brainiacs from Mars, in part because they live in a residential neighborhood that gets heavy traffic. People can’t help but stop and look when they pass this now awkwardly colored house.

According to the company founder Romeo Mendoza, the idea is to turn 1000 homes in the United States into similar billboards. In this case, this family will have their mortgage paid for up to a year, after which their house will be painted back to a solid color for free.

The Hostetlers were chosen because they were “nice people” according to Mendoza. He actually wants the nicest people instead of the people who just happen to live on the busiest streets, which is an interesting business approach. So far, Mendoza has 38,000 applicants to choose from and counting. In fact, there are applicants in countries as far away as Russia and Japan.

Both of the Hostetlers are deaf, and they were informed just 3 months ago that their house was one of those chosen.

There are zoning restrictions to consider as well as HOA policies that control the look of the home. Not everybody can compete in this particular scheme. However, Mendoza aims to help those who live in those neighborhoods to avoid foreclosure and stay in their homes. So far, he is one of quite a few companies taking the same approach. The Hostetlers plan on using the extra money they will save to pay off credit card debt.

Most of the applicants that Mendoza has considered live in California, which is one of 3 states hit hardest by the housing crisis. In Southern California alone, 44% of homeowners are currently underwater. In other words, their mortgage is worth more than their house is. 1 in 270 houses in Buena Park is in foreclosure.

Mendoza plans to continue expanding, in hopes that other companies will choose to use his company to advertise their own ideas. He is already in negotiations with several big firms, and Mendoza and others are hoping for more funding in the future.

The Buena Park city council and the Hostetler’s neighbors have responded strongly, suggesting that Mendoza and others like him may face some serious struggles in the future. Neighbors have been told that this home will be decorated for a month, but Mr. Hostetler would like to keep it this way for 6 months. Still, attitudes may change.

According to neighbor Bob Pancoast, All the neighbors were a little upset at first. We thought they had gone off their rocker. But I guess it’s a good idea for them.

There are no restrictions on the colors of houses in Buena Park. Technically, what he’s doing is completely legal. However, at least one city councilman seems to think that the advertisements are not okay, comparing it to graffiti. If he has his way, this trend will disappear by this time next year.

The Most Charitable Companies in America

mikkel — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:05:50 +0000

Created to protest corporate greed in America, Occupy Wall Street has attacked hundreds of companies accused of this kind of misbehaving. Corporate America has been accused of doing whatever they have to in order to avoid sharing any money, and they’re right. A lot of companies are doing just that. Unfortunately, the companies who are giving back aren’t getting as much attention, and we’re not just talking about Oprah.

Most Charitable Companies in America

Kroger

In 2009 alone, Kroger gave $64,000,000 in charitable contributions, which is about 10.9% of their profits. The largest grocery store chain in America, Kroger is the only company to give 10% of its profits in 2010. Charity from Kroger typically goes to the communities around their stores, and quite a bit of this money goes to their hometown Cincinnati. The company is estimated to give just as much this year as they did in 2010 if not more. In addition, Kroger has actually raised $1.5 million in donations for the Salvation Army kettles.
Macy’s

Macy’s followed close behind, donating $41,226,887, which is about 8.1% of their net profits. Macy’s has long sponsored the Thanksgiving Day Parade in New York, helping kids to believe in Santa Claus. Macy’s personally provided 1200 grants to small companies in their own communities around the country.
Safeway

In 2010, Safeway gave a total of $76,500,000 in generosity, which is about 7.5% of their net profits from 2009. Safeway promotes charities in its checkout lines, and the company personally donated money to many causes on their own. Safeway funds charitable organizations such as the Easter Seals, Special Olympics, Muscular dystrophy association, and prostate and breast cancer charities.
Dow Chemical

Dow Chemical is found in Michigan, and it sells products to every other country in the world. The company donated $34,237,817 in 2010, which is about 7.3% of their profits. This company continues to invest in environmental sustainability, which enhances their relations with other companies they work with. However, their giving tends to fluctuate based on the year.
Morgan Stanley

In 2010, Morgan Stanley donated $55,641,610, which is about 5.7% of their net profits for 2009. Most know Morgan Stanley as a large investment banker and a target for protestors. However, Morgan Stanley actually maintains the idea that generosity can certainly improve the communities in which we live and work, and it can help us financially. They do have their own edge, but who doesn’t?
Walmart

On one hand, Walmart systematically pays women less, exploits third world workers, and commits a number of other “crimes.” On the other hand, Walmart donated $319,454,996 in 2010 and $288,091,839 in 2009. Walmart gives to local and national charities that fight hunger and promote economic development in local areas. Clearly, executives want to promote the idea that Walmart cares.
Goldman Sachs

Another company you might not expect, Goldman Sachs gave $315,383,413 in 2010 and $69,569,895 in 2009. It’s quite a jump. They basically tripled their donations in one year. CEO Lloyd Blankfein told the New York Times in November of 2007 that We know we make a lot of money, and we know that we live in this world and we have a responsibility to give something back. Who would’ve figured.

There are other companies that have become more charitable in recent years, and there are some who will continue to donate more. Donations are ultimately good for their pocketbooks. Ironically, as much as we admire Steve Jobs, he seems to be one of the few that never caught the philanthropic bug. The good news is that whatever the reasons, charitable companies are on the rise.

The New Silicon Valley

mikkel — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:13:22 +0000

At one time, Silicon Valley was the only place to be if you wanted to be a real technology giant. However, let’s be straight here, Silicon Valley is vastly overpopulated, and the truth is that there is another valley on the rise. For a number of tech companies on the rise, it’s the Gallatin Valley that is presenting real opportunity. Just ask Jerry Nettuno, who founded his company, Schedulicity in the GallatinValley.

Found in Bozeman, Montana, the population is currently only 38,000. It’s barely noticeable in terms of area fame. Compared to other cities on the move, most people barely know where Bozeman is. However, according to Nettuno, this area is attracting some of the brightest minds in the business. A lot of them are coming from the San Francisco bay area, which is largely regarded as one of the most overpriced places to live. According to Nettuno:

”It is a small town in Southwestern Montana right in the mountains with fantastic schools and unbelievable opportunities for recreation, so we have people that come here from all over. People come to Bozeman generally to look for a better, simpler way of life.”

Bozeman is now home to companies such as Wisetail, CRM software provider RightNow Technologies, TechRanch, Oracle, and many other growing tech companies. Nettuno simply finds it easier to find happier people who actually enjoy talking to people easier in Bozeman, which is not nearly as fast paced as some other tech savvy areas.

Even with all of this said, one has to admit, there are still advantages to living and breathing in the Silicon valley. It is the initial home of technology giants, and there are many important connections to be had. Some of the big guys still don’t want to move. So to get some of the best people, you really do have to be in Silicon Valley. One such figure called Bozeman a “Twilight Zone experience.”

Bozeman does not have any international firms, which is a substantial change from the Silicon Valley, and there are no indications that this will be changing any time soon. I’m not sure that the people of Bozeman would appreciate this kind of change. However, there is still a fair group of people who believe that Bozeman, not Silicon Valley, is the place to be for big business.

How to Become a 20 Something Year Old Millionaire

mikkel — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 20:40:29 +0000

Okay, so most high school dropouts end up being McDonalds workers or something that doesn’t make much money, but then there are those high school or college dropouts that end up being extremely successful and then some. Take Bill Gates for example, but let’s face facts, Bill Gates is a freak, in more ways than one. The man had the opportunity to attend the equivalent of an ivy league high school, he was exposed to more computer related technology than 95% of the population at that time, and he had a clear advantage, as did Steve Jobs. Right place, right time, right age.

However, that does not mean that there are not 20 something year old millionaires who didn’t just get it right. There’s no luck involved. If it were all luck, business would go down and you would go bankrupt like Donald Trump. You have to be at least somewhat intelligent.

Growing up in East San Jose, you wouldn’t think that Gurbaksh Chahal would be successful at all, let alone a millionaire. He struggled to fit in as a recent emigrant from India, and at the age of 4, he wore traditional Sikh coverings from head to toe. He was called a patka at school. Yes, even back then, kids were mean. However, instead of bowing to what he has called the wild, wild west for minorities, Chahal has risen above.

He depended on his close-knit family at the time for support, and he used this support to become entrepreneurial when most teenagers just act out against parents and family. He dropped out of high school at 16, started a business, and of course his family had to allow this at that age. However, he has never looked back.

Originally, Chahal founded ClickAgents in December of 1998. Just less than 2 years later, he sold that business for $40 million, which could sustain plenty of people for an entire lifetime. However, he still wanted to work, which was why he started the online advertising company BlueLithium in 2004. Yahoo paid $300 million for that company. Currently, Chahal, now 29, is working with RadiumOne, an expanding ad network that pushes social data on the internet.

Chahal took a positive approach to his life, noting that he never expected to be the most popular kid in school, the prom king, a big jock, or anything else. He fell in love with the internet and business, and he was determined to succeed. He was inspired by close family relations and he recommends,

”Don’t focus so much energy on what you’ve lost, focus on what you need to win. There will be times when you may lose $1 million in deals. You’ll think it’s the end of the world, but the next day you may make $1.2 million. Nothing is meant to always work out. You just need a plan B.”

Are Kid Free Businesses More Successful?

mikkel — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:25:05 +0000

Get a freaking babysitter! That thought has crossed your mind more than once when you’re sitting in a crowded theatre trying to watch a movie that is non Disney, and frankly non-kid friendly, and yet you hear a screaming child. Maybe you’re trying to enjoy your dinner or fly to see your parents for the holidays, and again you are interrupted by parents who refused to pay for a babysitter, drive, or stay home if they couldn’t afford other accommodations for their child. Why are you suffering when they are the ones who chose to be parents?

Technically, there are way too many parents out there who don’t want to be, which really begs the question why did they go through with the pregnancy or adopt in the first place. Still the same, while there are mothers who raise hell every time there is an issue with breastfeeding or places that don’t want kids, there is a growing number of consumers who love these places.

We love places that put up a sign, who talk to others who don’t control their little ones, and who basically tell other people for us that your child is interrupting our time out, we are paying good money to be here instead of home, maybe we’re even paying for babysitters ourselves, and you are being rude. We pay ridiculous amounts of money to dine in a no kids allowed restaurant at Disneyland of all places, we pay extra for that little line on our wedding invitations that says, “please leave kids ___ and under at home”, and when McDain’s, a Pittsburgh restaurant, banned kids under 6, we rallied behind them. They lost some business, but some servers aren’t complaining, and neither are consumers who are used to sitting beside them.

According to Robert Klara of Adweek, “Brat bans could well be the next frontier in destination and leisure product marketing.” This writer notes an entire website dedicated to this movement, LeaveThemBehind.com, which provides a huge list of luxury resorts as well as lower cost bargain hotels that do not allow children.

Call it what you will, many of us agree that even if we like kids, we have the ill behaved brats bred by so many who want to go to a luxury restaurant, but can’t seem to afford a babysitter. Isn’t it cheaper to pay for a babysitter than to pay for their food at a nicer restaurant? That’s what I always figured, unless of course the babysitters of the neighborhood are afraid of your children, in which case, other methods are necessary.

There are theatres in Texas who have banned kids under 6 completely, regardless of the movie, except on baby specified days. Who knows, maybe even kids 7 and 8 can’t stand the crying. Naturally, we argue that kids are going to want to see movies like Harry Potter, but when parents are taking infants and small children to see Underworld Awakening…..as they often do…..we’re sure you can see why many are jumping on the wagon.

Keep in mind, business opportunities may open up for those who provide a finer dining experience for parents with small children because of this. However, the early bird gets the worm, and so far, it seems that businesses who are willing to ban kids are on a profitable track.

iPad 3 Rumors Building Up

mikkel — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 20:02:18 +0000

After 2 iPads have been released, creating excitement and joy in many communities, there are rumors about an iPad 3. Of course, it could turn out that we get a 2S just like we got an iPhone 3S with plenty of bugs as it turns out with the Siri. However, that does not dampen the enthusiasm of people who really want to know about the iPad 3 first.

According to currently unnamed sources from Apple, “Starting with the new iPads, Apple will utilize IGZO panels from Sharp in order to upgrade the display resolution of the new tablets to full HD level. To enter the supply chain of iPads, Sharp has switched some of its capacity for large-size-panels to the production of small-size panels for smartphones and tablet PC’s.”

Whether or not that anonymous report is actually legitimate, we have no way of knowing. Previously rumors about iPads and other Apple products have shown us that we should take any rumors about future generations with a big grain of salt. Rumors are just that, nothing but rumors.

The biggest rumor is that we will get a lower cost iPad. You may not get all of the same tricks and toys, but it will be able to compete head to head with the Amazon Kindle Fire, a 7 inch tablet which has been taking over some possible iPad sales. Of course, some don’t believe that the Kindle Fire offers as much as the iPad, but at less than half the price, what can we say.

Some estimate that the iPad 3 will be released some time next year. With growing competition, it is still important that Apple keep up. Yes, Apple has made quite a unique name for themselves, but with everybody creating iPad replicas for lower prices, there is plenty of reason for the iPad to be bigger, better, and still reasonably priced.

AT&T No Longer Merging with T-Mobile

mikkel — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:46:24 +0000

While AT&T has long been working to complete a merger with T-Mobile, which would make AT&T the biggest wireless company in the industry, there have been many complaints along the way. Officials with the US government have been highly opposed to any merger, suggesting the possibility of a monopoly, which would require prompt legal action. The company would be split, much like Microsoft, to keep AT&T from completely taking over (which would make prices go up exponentially.

AT&T seemed to be pushing forward anyway, but it’s possible that the FTC and other organizations have issued more severe warnings, because the deal has officially been cancelled. While this would have been better for T-Mobile in some ways, AT&T has closed what could have been its biggest acquisition yet.

According to Kevin Smithen, an analyst from Macquarie Capital USA Inc., “They made an unprecedented move bidding on T-Mobile and appear to have miscalculated the risks and the regulatory opposition.”

AT&T was unable to convince the Justice Department, which actually sued to block the merger in August. At that time, AT&T was still trying to push forward, but apparently officials have changed their minds. AT&T would have literally spent months in nasty litigation to try to win court approval, which may not have been granted anyway depending on the opinion of the courts. They could have literally spent millions in legal fees, and they could have faced future lawsuits.

AT&T is currently the second largest US wireless operator due to numerous complaints about service and many other issues. However, this does not mean that AT&T is really suffering. The company still makes millions every year.

On December 12, the justice department decided to put their lawsuit on hold while AT&T was deciding whether they wanted to revise the deal or move on as originally planned. The delay would have made it extremely difficult to make their original deadline anyway.

So far, there are no future plans officially in place to try any deals of this size again, and we doubt the FTC would let it go through. No matter the possible profit margins, AT&T could not easily make up for the losses in legal fees, time, and the possibility that any deal would be blocked by the courts even after spending millions of dollars.

In other business, Apple and Android are still battling. While Apple products are largely offered by most big phone companies, Androids remain exclusively with Verizon, and when hacked, other companies on the same wavelength. However, Android has attracted a very specific type of customer while Apple products appeal to a wider crowd of consumers.

Google Cancels Renewable Energy Plan

mikkel — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 20:51:44 +0000

Google Inc has officially determined that their company will not be pursuing a project designed to create renewable energy that is considerably cheaper than coal. Chief executive Larry Page has decided that the internet giant will focus on fewer plans and efforts in the forseeable future.

The renewable energy project is accordingly not the only plan that Google has recently ditched, officially dropping 7 different projects including a Wikipedia like encyclopedia service that would have been called Knol. These decisions all come as part of an effort for “spring cleaning.”

So why the change in ideas? Because lately, Google has faced especially harsh competition from both Apple Inc and Facebook, falling from previous ranks as the #1 Internet search company.

In an official blog post, Google Senior Vice President of Operations Urs Holzle wrote, “To recap, we’re in the process of shutting down a number of products which haven’t had the impact we’d hoped for, integrating others as features in our broader product efforts, and ending several which have shown us a different path forward.”

Google has stated that executives believe that there are other companies more qualified to take on this particular project who would have outdone any efforts from Google at this time.

Google started investing in renewable energy and taking those efforts to the “next level” in 2007, and have since invested million in research on solar power technology. In 2009, Google’s official Green energy exec told Reuters that he expected that Google could produce a sustainable technology within a few years at a cheaper price as compared to coal. He still seems to view the halt as a waste.

Google has since announced that as of December, email and calendar applications will no longer work with Gears technology. In other words, you will no longer be able to access your information offline. Instead, google is working on offline capabilities with HTML5 technology.

Google will also “wind down” Google Labs according to reports, which offered public access to Google products and personal health records put on Google. Considerable efforts will be made to fix any applicable problems, ideally making Google a bigger competitor among search engine companies once again.

Restaurant in Trouble for $5 Baby Tax

mikkel — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:26:50 +0000

For mothers in Croyden, England, the $5 baby tax at one restaurant is an outrage. Of course, all of the reports come from consumers who tell one side of the story, but those such as new mom, Ana Sheridan have been told that they have to pay $5 just to keep babies on their laps according to self reports. I’m actually surprised that more complaints haven’t been made public about the fact that there’s an adults only restaurant at Disneyland, which seems ironic but convenient to me.

According to Sheridan, at 6 months old “I was astonished as we explained she was exclusively breastfed and would be sitting on our laps, therefore not consuming any food or occupying an extra seat. They said it was their new policy. That was all.”

Since then, the staff has apologized for “mistreatment by staff” and what some would consider bad business. Of course, it depends on who you talk to. For people who work in the restaurant business, it could be a godsend, driving away customers with babies. However, for a restaurant owner who wants consumers as long as they are willing to pay, driving away paying customers is clearly a bad thing.

The truth is that babies tend to be messy, and at 6 months, most babies have enough teeth to at least eat soft foods. For a server, busser, or other restaurant staff, it’s not always the most desirable type of table. However, business could go either way.

Obviously, when mothers read about this tax, even though it’s only $5, many will avoid this particular restaurant. However, when childless people who don’t necessarily want to dine with children read this, they might be more inclined to visit this restaurant. Others might be worried about other policies that may be implemented in the future.

It is possible that this whole thing is a misunderstanding or even that it was exaggerated. Frankly, a $5 fee, as long as it is going to the applicable restaurant staff could be a logical thing to do. If this restaurant is buffet style or offers buffets, it would also be logical to charge more if small children are eating off of parents’ plates. Based on past incidences, it is completely possible that children were not as young as parents stated, that kids were not sitting on parents’ laps, or that children were observed being fed from their parents plates.

However, so far, management has stated that the baby fee was only intended for toddlers who were actually eating restaurant’s foods. No information has been released on the types of food this particular restaurant serves. “COSMO would like to assure customers that this is an isolated incident. We will be retraining all employees at Croyden as a matter of urgency.”