Koby Menachemi, CTO Seeking Alpha

Making Sense of Google's AdMob Acquisition

"...What is interesting is that Facebook gets this, which is why it is pursuing Facebook Connect. Google gets this, which is why it bought AdMob, developed Adsense etc., and Twitter has this through its open strategy. However, Microsoft and Yahoo do not seem to playing in this game for some reason..."

Totally agree!

More - gasp! - Twitter Doubts

I find it hard to believe they got this valuation without *future* revenue model. It's okay not to have any revenues today as long as you know how to make money of your users/business in the future.

At least according to their internal documents they *think* they will make money: "By the end of 2010, Twitter expected to be at a $140 million revenue run rate." and "the numbers they were targeting for the end of 2013: 1 billion users, $1.54 billion in revenue, 5,200 employees and $1.1 billion in net earnings." (bit.ly/bKaWb)

But time will tell ;-)

SA Site Status Update, 8/23/09

We are investing a lot of resources in securing our site. Together with that, the first things we've checked to be on the safe side were the security of the site and DNS cache poisoning (maybe you are not an expert but you sure talk like one ;-) and everything was clean (we used local DNS servers for this testing and we were able to reproduce this bad behavior)

We almost certain it's an ad issue as once we took all ads down we didn't get anymore complains... Then we've identified the bad ad and got confirmation from Google about it as well. I truly believe this will solve the issue but we will be smarter tomorrow after we bring all the ads back to the site ;-)


On Aug 23 05:03 PM H. T. Love wrote:

> Thanks for the update. Although I'm not "expert", have you checked
> out the possibility of DNS cache poisoning or "man in the middle"?
>
>
> Both can be extremely difficult to spot because of the number of
> remote nodes that make up the path from any user to the server. All
> it takes is one of them to be corrupted to see what I've observed.
>
>
> IOW, you can't presume that it's the servers of the facilities which
> you contract. Although I can't state how likely what I mention above
> is, get your security consultants to think outside of the current
> box.
>
> One more possible clue: after I successfully get out of that malware
> loop and click the same link again, all operates normally. This implies
> that some type of "cookie" may be involved.
>
> I'll be glad to e-mail mine if you think it might help.
>
> HardToLove

Twitter Theft: It's Really All About Google

You would never trust small startup with your online documents but when it comes to Google, you trust them 100%.

The funny part is that Google SLA is poor but we still trust them...

Reminder: seekingalpha.com/artic... (only 4 months ago)

Internet Explorer Loses 11.4 Percent Share to Firefox, Safari, and Chrome

Amazing. The most important thing is IE6 losing market share!

The new threat to smarthpones?

You forgot the most important thing about it... The Modu Jackets ;-)

The Yahoo-Google Ad Test: Does It Amount to Collusion?

Good question... Does US Justice Department has a say if it's non American users (or doesn't it matter because it's a US companies)?

Apple Can't Hold $200; Wii 'Best of 2007'

Does PS3 is closing the gap from WII?
Is it matter of price or is WII is really better console than PS3/XBox?

CNET Loss Widens; Sells Webshots Unit for $45M

"CNET had acquired the business in 2004 for $60 million in cash and $10 million in deferred compensation."

from: seekingalpha.com/artic...

Interactive Q&A: Jeffrey L. Feldman, Creator of HealthShares and Founder and Chairman of XShares Group LLC

"Vertical Investing": This sounds like a fancy way to leverage ETFs by rotating into hot sectors. Is this really different from what's already out there? And why would someone who prides himself on being a stock picker want to use an ETF to capture a theme -- in healthcare, isn't it frequently "one winner take all"?