Alejandro Suárez Sánchez-Ocaña. Entrepreneur and private investor of the Internet and new technologies sector.
The almighty Google even offered some 3,000 million euros, far from offering Microsoft final amount, but it shows that a business must be behind this company, even at a loss. The truth is that both Google to Microsoft, is behind this operation is much at stake: a large number of new users and technology in video calls, which for the opinion of the Internet, is light years ahead of the competition, not least because the technology works PC, Smartphone, and lately even on consoles with internet TVs. The key in my opinion has made Microsoft was launched to purchase Skype and widely exceed the offerings of its competitors is Windows Mobile as the operating system designed by Microsoft for Smartphone and Tablets is alone and light years from the competition, Android and iPhone. purchases Microsoft with Windows Mobile gives life to attract millions of users and causing clear synergies, while laying on a mu tessitura and difficult to telecom operators, if they wanted to charge before Microsoft and Google by the use of networks, now that one of them owns Skype, a company that makes them lose a lot of revenue and consume vast resources of red-, with more occasion will study how to apply shortly rates consumer users. But Skype , like Twitter and many other com. than one day after years of losses involve large investments, must have a real attraction to large investment groups continue to maintain their participation shares. An appeal that goes beyond an acquisition end in 3 or 5 years for a large company like Google, Microsoft or Amazon. The logical step for Skype or Twitter is how to monetize those 700 million users move their war to profitable markets, stop thinking only about the end user and start making the leap to the company, which really is the business. In corporate communications, Cisco Systems has for years been the king, but they know they can turn the tables in a few months. Do not forget that in the past and tried to acquire Skype and the response was intended to convince Tony Bates, CEO of the corporate business unit of Cisco, that things would go better in the future as CEO of Skype. Tony agreed. Today nobody sees possible to launch an online environment, but is directed towards a sector with significant profit potential, unless you are able to attract major advertising campaigns. This business model entirely free, "freemium" is designed to attract users through services for which no charge and then convince them to pay for services with more advanced features or belonging to unique environments. But the customer gets used to being "freemium" it costs to become paid. For a long time these platforms have provided users a, much higher than they should have received very high grades. Now you can not convince them to pay a monthly fee to have an apparently higher profit. S i understood to be a platform indefinitely subsidize everyone, for 3 or 4 years, it will be almost impossible to turn it into paying users. The business will not be there.
I leave you with the last platform, published February 22 in the Journal of Navarra. Also you can download it in pdf by clicking here .
According to British newspaper said the Financial Times, only 10% of the 347,000 million euros allocated by the EU to help its poorer regions have reached disbursed. In addition, the British weekly said that certain abuses and irregularities in the use of the program. Among some of the irregularities is money granted to large companies like Nokia, IBM, Coca Cola or McDonalds, which were initially aimed at small and medium enterprises.
Before such information can not but stay stunned: Coca-cola is a medium sized company? I'm sure it was a semantic error committed by the EU. It can not be that European funds earmarked to help SMEs it is carrying one of the world's largest companies, such as Coca-Cola and IBM. Yes, gentlemen. So, then we miss the data provided by Social Security, according to which, in 2010, 264 companies closed every day in Spain, and most are not in the construction sector. Sure, if the aid is as bounded and unusual is that you can not with the EU already have, not with this kind of abuse.
In this type of action is one of the explanations to the continuous increase in the unemployment rate, if all aid is intended for large companies, there is no way to create jobs because there is not. It is time to understand that to create jobs we must begin by encouraging the creation of small and medium enterprises and not continue to encourage large companies.
But this concept is far from being understood by José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero from the moment they met with 35 major Spanish companies, he says, to bring solutions to the crisis. These solutions are the leading adopting from the beginning, with disastrous results, and so it goes. With these measures is demonstrated where the interests are set both by our government and the EU. Indeed, far from creating jobs, and as he said the Financial Times, many of these large companies are making use of EU funds to move their factories to countries hands cheapest even though this is expressly forbidden by Brussels work. Ie not only deprive SMEs aid they deserve but large firms use the funds to bypass the laws of the EU to the bullfighter. So create jobs, sure, but apparently did not understand where I had to do and knew it was forbidden. Know if these data are held by the EU or directly turn a blind eye, but in any case are vandalism and crime. So I understand why many large companies do not suffer the crisis. And while the EU and the Spanish government still carried this line of action, we will continue looking at unemployment rates, blaming the brick, the Madrid-Barcelona or Carmen de Mairena, which is better.
This text is an article published in El Diario de Navarra and can be read in pdf here
Thousands of netizens have launched from your PC million attacks against the websites of the General Society of Authors and Editors (SGAE), the Ministry of Culture and the label bosses Promusicae, getting it were inoperative for hours. This attack, say the group of surfers that caused "Anonymous" was a protest against digital canon and called Sinde Law, which haunt the pages of downloads of copyrighted material copyrighted. Not the first time it happens, but previously no media picked up the story were made in order to not encourage more Internet aunirse aeste group onduct or similar actions.
The debate has been swift among those who accuse cibervandalismo and defending it as a simple and legitimate form of protest. The truth is that the media coverage has caused has been much greater than any Aluso act of protest. One feature of the Internet is that information flows with great speed and control over it is very difficult to maintain. Freedom of expression prevails in the network whenever the content of a review does not constitute a crime, therefore acts protest, under this view, should be lawful.
Many surfers use the network to openly express their views on the government and public and private entities, and with the proliferation of social networks, where the city operates its real power. Indeed, too many dates does a great signing American clothes are not forced to change the logo of your company for the many fans expressed their protests through Facebook, email and Twitter.
But the fact of expressing an opinion on the net about an entity is very different to lock a page because I do not like the content, or what it represents, the limit is clear and obvious. The living websites advertising and some media should ask themselves if they are to accommodate this type of news or not, what if tomorrow an opinion expressed in a web of a newspaper nog this collective and usta Aldía following this page is blocked by a denial of service attack known as "DoS".
Loveríamos? Cibervandalismo or as a legitimate form of protest?
SGAE, disliked by many groups, and especially among netizens, and express opinions about their actions seems lawful and fall within the freedom of expression that characterizes the network. But it turns aggressive, illegal and intellectually weak, express an opinion blocking a website, using aggressive tools anonymously, without showing their faces, and the fact qualify this as a new act of protest similar to demonstrations on an street, "making use of freedom of expression" is simply nonsense.
We are in a dead spot in that until we come into force the new penal code these acts do not constitute a crime, and therefore the autoridadescomolos courts can not do much about it. And while we wait to be punishable by law, the content providers are unprotected and can only give our opinion about it, praying that I would not touch me.
The blog of Alejandro Suarez.