April 2012

How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes

Apple, the world’s most profitable technology company, doesn’t design iPhones in Reno, Nevada. It doesn’t run AppleCare customer service from this city. And it doesn’t manufacture MacBooks or iPads anywhere nearby. Yet, with a handful of employees in a small office here in Reno, Apple has done something central to its corporate strategy: it has avoided millions of dollars in taxes in California and 20 other states. Apple’s headquarters are in Cupertino, California. By putting an office in Reno, just 200 miles away, to collect and invest the company’s profits, Apple sidesteps state income taxes on some of those gains. California’s corporate tax rate is 8.84 percent. Nevada’s? Zero. Setting up an office in Reno is just one of many legal methods Apple uses to reduce its worldwide tax bill by billions of dollars each year.

OK, Google, Take a Deep Breath

Step onto Google’s campus in Mountain View, California — with its indoor treehouse, volleyball court, apiaries, heated toilet seats — and you might think you’ve just sailed over the rainbow. But all the toys and perks belie the frenetic pace here, and many employees acknowledge that life at Google can be hard on fragile egos. Sure, the amenities are seductive, says Blaise Pabon, an enterprise sales engineer, but “when you get to a place like this, it can tear you apart” if you don’t find a way to handle the hard-driving culture.

Big Data's Big Problem: Little Talent

"A significant constraint on realizing value from Big Data will be a shortage of talent, particularly of people with deep expertise in statistics and machine learning, and the managers and analysts who know how to operate companies by using insights from Big Data," according to a report published last year by McKinsey. "We project a need for 1.5 million additional managers and analysts in the United States who can ask the right questions and consume the results of the analysis of Big Data effectively." What the industry needs is a new type of person: the data scientist.

Heat Turned Up on Falcone

As Philip Falcone's LightSquared nears a critical deadline, some of the wireless company's creditors are pressing the hedge-fund manager to step away from the venture on which he has staked his fortune and reputation.

These lenders want Falcone -- the founder of Harbinger Capital Partners LLC, which is LightSquared's main backer -- to bow out as the public face of the firm as a condition for avoiding a looming debt default. The lenders and Falcone's representatives are in talks to extend a waiver on debt-term violations that expires April 30. If Falcone doesn't agree to eventually leave LightSquared's board and make way for new executives and directors at the wireless-communications firm -- as well as make some other concessions -- some lenders are likely to balk and the company could end up filing for bankruptcy protection.

How biased are the media, really?

[Commentary] Charges of media bias have been flying like a bloody banner on the campaign trail.

Newt Gingrich excoriated the “elite media” in a richly applauded moment during one of the Republican debates. Rick Santorum chewed out a New York Times reporter. Mitt Romney said this month that he faces “an uphill battle” against the press in the general election. Meanwhile, just about every new poll of public sentiment shows that confidence in the news media has hit a new low. Seventy-seven percent of those surveyed by the Pew Research Center in the fall said the media “tend to favor one side” compared with 53 percent who said so in 1985. But have the media really become more biased? Or is this a case of perception trumping reality? In fact, there’s little to suggest that over the past few decades news reporting has become more favorable to one party. That’s not to say researchers haven’t found bias in reporting. They have, but they don’t agree that one side is consistently favored or that this favoritism has been growing like a pernicious weed.

US ban sought on cell phone use while driving

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood called for a federal law to ban talking on a cell phone or texting while driving any type of vehicle on any road in the country.

Tough federal legislation is the only way to deal with what he called a "national epidemic," he said at a distracted-driving summit in San Antonio, Texas, that drew doctors, advocates and government officials. Sec LaHood said it is important for the police to have "the opportunity to write tickets when people are foolishly thinking they can drive safely or use a cell phone and text and drive." Sec LaHood said his department was researching the effect that hands-free devices and new systems like Ford Motor Company's Sync have on distracting drivers. He said he has called the CEOs of major car companies and encouraged them to "think twice" before placing too many Internet-based systems into new cars.

Even if carriers don’t like network neutrality, their investors should

AT&T’s shareholders didn’t require the telecommunications giant to implement network neutrality on its wireline and wireless networks.

The proposal lost with a mere 5.9 percent of the vote. But based on an interview I had two weeks ago with Jonas Kron, Vice President of Trillium Asset Management, the goal of the shareholder proposal was to get 3 percent of the vote so they could bring it back next year. So in that case, Trillium and other shareholders in favor of the proposal (including Mike D of the Beastie Boys) won. In fact Kron told me that anything over 5 percent would be a substantial victory because it means that the company would have to pay attention to the issue. Regardless of change coming from this particular vote, in our talk Kron offered me something far more interesting, an economic justification for broadband companies to embrace network neutrality. So despite Wall Street analysts who argue that such rules would turn the nation’s largest wireline and wireless phone companies into commodity utilities with the profit margins to match, Kron explains why American’s capitalists should be fine with network neutrality.

Free Community Wi-Fi Coming to an End in Seattle

Seattle is pulling the plug on its free community Wi-Fi program.

The wireless connectivity service has served the city’s University District and Columbia City neighborhoods and four downtown parks since 2005. The system will be shut down on Sunday, April 29. A public statement on Seattle’s website said the decision to end the free Wi-Fi — which was still classified as a pilot project by the city — was primarily due to the prohibitive costs of replacing outdated equipment and the increased widespread availability of Internet access through smartphones and businesses. David Keyes, community technology program manager with Seattle’s Department of Information Technology, said use of the free Wi-Fi program stayed fairly consistent over the last few years. He added that the connectivity helped increase the number of customers in the business districts. Despite the usefulness of free Wi-Fi, Keyes said that feedback received from businesses and residents indicated an understanding on why the city had to shutter the program. “People have certainly enjoyed having the convenience of the service, but I think most people are pretty realistic about recognizing the challenge the city had had [to maintain it],” Keyes said. “We have had some outages as a result of the equipment getting old.”

Court Sides With Cablevision In Neutrality Dispute

Cablevision was sued by two consumers -- Alyce Serrano and Andrea Londono. They accused the company of violating a federal anti-hacking statute by accessing their computers without authorization in order to throttle peer-to-peer traffic.

Serrano and Londono, who sought class-action status, also alleged that Cablevision violated consumer protection laws by using phrases like "blazing fast speed" in its ads. The company insisted that the lawsuit against it should be dismissed. Late last month, U.S. District Court Judge Dora Irizarry in Brooklyn (NY) agreed with Cablevision. Judge Irizarry granted the ISP summary judgment, ruling that its terms of service gave it the right to take action to prevent consumers from using "excessive" bandwidth. "Plaintiffs cannot now claim that Cablevision acted 'without authorization' when it restricted their bandwidth," Judge Irizarry wrote. The judge also dismissed the consumer protection claims, ruling that Cablevision's statements about its fast speeds were "mere puffery," as opposed to legally binding terms. Now the consumers filed an appeal. It could take the appellate court more than a year to issue a decision. Meanwhile, the case shows that consumer lawsuits against individual ISPs are anything but a surefire way of enforcing neutrality principles.

Get Rich U.

If the Ivy League was the breeding ground for the élites of the American Century, Stanford is the farm system for Silicon Valley.

When looking for engineers, Google starts at Stanford. Five per cent of Google employees are Stanford graduates. The president of Stanford, John L. Hennessy, is a director of Google; he is also a director of Cisco Systems and a successful former entrepreneur. Stanford’s Office of Technology Licensing has licensed eight thousand campus-inspired inventions, and has generated $1.3 billion in royalties for the university. Stanford’s public-relations arm proclaims that five thousand companies “trace their origins to Stanford ideas or to Stanford faculty and students.” They include Hewlett-Packard, Yahoo, Cisco Systems, Sun Microsystems, eBay, Netflix, Electronic Arts, Intuit, Fairchild Semiconductor, Agilent Technologies, Silicon Graphics, LinkedIn, and E*Trade. John Doerr, a partner at the venture-capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, which bankrolled such companies as Google and Amazon, regularly visits campus to scout for ideas. He describes Stanford as “the germplasm for innovation. I can’t imagine Silicon Valley without Stanford University.”