At a time when the Apple Maps and Google Maps brouhaha is being discussed by everyone everywhere, one iOS hacker offers a glimpse at a temporary solution. While iOS 6 users wait for either Apple to hire engineers to fix all the issues, for Google to stop focusing just on Android and save the day, or for Microsoft to wake up and smell the coffee, Ryan Petrich has a video that shows Google Maps running on iOS 6.
At a time when the Apple Maps and Google Maps brouhaha is being discussed by everyone everywhere, one iOS hacker offers a glimpse at a temporary solution. While iOS 6 users wait for either Apple to hire engineers to fix all the issues, for Google to stop focusing just on Android and save the day, or for Microsoft to wake up and smell the coffee, Ryan Petrich has a video that shows Google Maps running on iOS 6.
1000 years of war in 5 minutes
21st September 2012
This is a time lapse world map showing all the battles that have occurred in the past 1000 years. Worth sitting through the whole thing to see Europe go absolutely bonkers in the late 1930s.
Politicians be forewarned! Remember to renew your website’s domain name on time, otherwise you may fall victim to URL thieves.
Puerto Rican Governor Luis Fortuño is learning that lesson this week after his website, LuisFortuno.com, expired and his opponents, the Popular Democratic Party (PPD), swooped in and snatched up the name.
As Latino Rebels reports, the Republican incumbent used LuisFortuno.com for his 2008 gubernatorial campaign, however the website appears to have changed hands this week and is now sponsored by the PPD (as seen at the bottom of the site). The home page, which features a photo of Fortuno with arms crossed above the message “Hazme Tus Preguntas” or “Ask Me Your Questions,” opens with an incendiary video that slams Fortuno.
PPD, also known as the Populares, added insult to Fortuno’s injury, posting a photo of the receipt for the purchased domain name on the party’s official Twitter account. The cost? $12.17 for the domain name and $6.99 for private registration services — even though the PPD is certainly not holding anything back in its claims of ownership.
Former Puerto Rican governor Anibal Acevedo Vila, a member of PPD, responded to the party’s takeover of LuisFortuno.com in a tweet, writing: “Not renewing luisfortuno.com, when LF used it in his campaigns in 04-08 is the best example of incompetence. Failed campaign and government!”
No re-comprar luisfortuno.com, cuando LF lo uso en sus campañas 04-08 es mayor muestra de incompetencia. Campaña y gobierno colapsados!
— anibalacevedo (@anibalacevedo) September 11, 2012
While it appears Fortuño allowed the domain name to expire, trading in LuisFortuno.com for PorPuertoRico2012.com, the domain name may have changed hands as early as October 2011, according to data from GoDaddy.com.
Why Fortuno’s opponents chose to wait until this time to announce their take over is anyone’s guess, but the Sept. 10 launch — on the eve of Fortuno’s first debate — was likely a strategic move.
Watch the main video below and click over to the website to see the other videos the PPD posted.
(h/t Latino Rebels)
What do smoke signals, drums, books, the telegraph, telephone, fax, mobile phones, and the Internet have in common? They have incrementally enabled us to connect with more people and access more information in more rapid, easy, and less costly ways. Each advancement changed our lives in ways manifest and subtle, direct and indirect, predictable and unexpected. This technology may be the most powerful tool in our lives today, with personal, informational, economic, social, cultural, and political impact.
What lies at the heart of this evolution is the way we perceive time, distance, and relationships. Each iteration of this technology has involved a shift in how we experience time and distance, and how each influences us. Time has shrunk (not literally, of course) as communication has become instantaneous. Distance also seems to have grown shorter (again, not literally) as we are able to connect with people in the far corners of the Earth. We are no longer bound by our physical limitations. Our relationships, because of the changes in time and distance, are no longer limited to people in our immediate surroundings. We are able to connect to, interact with, and build relationships with people as many and diverse as there are countries in the world.
These changes in how we look at time, distance, and relationships have produced a fundamental shift in our expectations about these three areas. These expectations, in turn, circle back to alter our relationship with technology. In previous generations before the Internet, mobile phones, text messaging, and Twitter, we simply knew we couldn’t be reached readily by anyone except in person or by landline telephone. The default was disconnectivity, so being disconnected was the norm. Our comfort zone was that of disconnectivity and any ability to connect beyond that was a bonus.
These days, the expectation is that we can be connected in numerous ways with anyone at any time instantaneously. Our default is connectivity, so being connected has become the norm and our comfort zone. Any break from that norm, whether a loss of Internet connection, the absence of a cellular signal, or simply forgetting our mobile phones, takes us out of that comfort zone and can create real feelings of loss and anxiety.
Children and Technology Today
“Shock” is the best word I can think of to describe my reaction when I read the results of the latest Kaiser Foundation survey of technology use by young people ages 8 to 18. The 2009 study was a follow-up to an identical survey it conducted in 2005. In the previous survey, the researchers found that, on average, young people spent more than five-and-a-half hours a day interacting with technology unrelated to school. At the time, they assumed that given the busy schedules that young people have these days, an increase in their use of technology was impossible. How wrong they were!
The latest survey revealed that in 2009 this same age group spent more than seven-and-a-half hours a day involved with non-school-related technology. That’s an increase of more than one third in just four years! Speaking of shocked, the researchers themselves were astounded at the increase as, between school, homework, extracurricular activities, socializing, eating, sleeping, and family time, there simply didn’t seem to be enough time in a day. When multitasking was included, meaning the time when, for example, young people were watching YouTube videos, listening to music, and text messaging, the total time immersed in technology rose to ten-and-three-quarter hours. That didn’t even include the use of technology for school.
Let’s look at what specific technology consumed so much time: 1) television: 4:29; computer: 2:31; video games: 1:13; reading: 0:28 (reading isn’t dead yet!); and movies: 0:25. Of the time spent on a computer, social networking made up 25 percent, playing games accounted for 19 percent, video sites counted for 16 percent, and instant messaging 13 percent. I find it surprising that, despite being oh-so-20th century, the “idiot box” is still much beloved and much used by this generation. The survey revealed that 64 percent of families watched TV during meals, it was left on when no one was watching by 45 percent of families, and, remarkably, 71 percent of children had TVs in their bedrooms.
Other research has found that 97 percent of children ages 12 to 17 play video games. Contrary to the perception held by many that video games are a solitary pursuit, almost two-thirds play video games with family and friends, and more than a fourth play with people on the Internet. Here’s a eye-opening statistic: The average young person spends up to 10,000 hours playing video and online games by age 21. That’s about the same amount of time that they devote to their middle and high school years!
The research also reported that almost a quarter of teenagers access social media sites at least 10 times a day, and more than 50 percent use social media once a day. Additionally, 75 percent of teens own mobile phones (up from 45 percent in 2004), texting was a dominant form of communication for children and teens with girls, on average, sending 80 text messages a day and boys sending 30 a day. Fifty-nine percent of girls text their friends many times a day “just to say hello.” One girl sent more than 2,000 messages in one day. Additionally, 83 percent take photos and 64 percent share them with their friends using social media. Finally, 50 percent of the teenagers with driver’s licenses indicated that they sent and read text messages while they were driving.
The impact of technology on studying and grades was significant. Thirty-one percent of children said they multitasked while doing their homework most of the time and another quarter indicated they did 25 percent of the time. This despite a growing body of evidence that multitasking interferes with learning. Additionally, 66 percent of light users reported good grades and only 23 percent indicated fair or poor grades. With moderate use, the percentage with good grades stayed about the same (65 percent), but there was a substantial increase in the percentage of students with fair or poor grades (31 percent). The effect of heavy use of technology was even more pronounced, with only 51 percent of heavy users reporting good grades and 47 percent indicating fair or poor grades.
Now here is where it gets really shocking. How much has technology taken over the lives of children and their parents’ priorities today? A study by AVG, the Internet security company, found that young children are more likely to master tech skills than life skills. For example, while 58 percent of 2- to 5-year olds can play a computer game, only 43 percent can ride a bike. Of children in that age group, 10 percent can use a smartphone application, while only 9 percent can tie their shoes. Here’s a scary statistic: more young children can open a web browser than swim.
This post is excerpted from Dr. Jim Taylor’s new parenting book, Raising Generation Tech: Preparing Your Children for a Media-fueled World.
Bestselling, award-winning crime author R.J. Ellory has been caught faking Amazon reviews for both his own books and the books of his competitors.
Ellory was caught writing the fake Amazon reviews by fellow author Jeremy Duns, according to ABC News. Such an act is dubbed “sock-puppeting,” or writing anonymous online reviews praising one’s own work.
Gawker posted the complete Twitter thread written by Duns, via Storify, in which the author describes the posts Ellory wrote about his own works.
“Ellory writes 5-star reviews of his own work on Amazon. Long, purple tributes to his own magnificent genius,” Duns tweeted. “RJ Ellory also writes shoddy, sh—-y sniping reviews of others authors’ work on Amazon, under an assumed identity.”
Adding, “Prasing [sic] yourself is pathetic. Attacking other writers like this? I have no time for it, and have no time for anyone who defends it.”
Ellory posted one of the fake Amazon reviews under the pseudonym “Nicodemus Jones,” writing: “I don’t need to really say anything about the plot of this book. All I will say is that there are paragraphs and chapters that just stopped me dead in my tracks. Some of it was chilling, some of it raced along, some of it was poetic and langorous and had to be read twice and three times to really appreciate the depth of the prose…it really is a magnificent book. Ignore all dissentors and naysayers, this book is not trying to be anything other than a great story, brilliantly told. Just buy it, read it, and make up your own mind. Whatever else it might do, it will touch your soul.”
“Nicodemus Jones” also wrote a negative review about Stuart MacBride’s “Dark Blood.” It was in this review that Duns caught onto Ellory’s fraudulent reviews. He noticed that one particular Nicodemus Jones thread had postings by user “RJ Ellory,” according to the Guardian.
Ellory issued a statement to the Guardian, offering his apologies for sock-puppeting.
“The recent reviews – both positive and negative – that have been posted on my Amazon accounts are my responsibility and my responsibility alone. I wholeheartedly regret the lapse of judgment that allowed personal opinions to be disseminated in this way and I would like to [apologize] to my readers and the writing community.”
Ellory, who won the Theakstons Old Peculier Crime Novel of the Year award in 2010 for “A Simple Act of Violence,” is not the only author guilty of writing fake reviews.
Orlando Figes, a leading historian, admitted to writing anonymous Amazon reviews celebrating his own work and condemning the work of his competitors in 2010, according the BBC. He was sued by two historians and ordered to pay damages.
One of the United Kingdom’s most successful thriller writers, Stephen Leather, also admitted to sock-puppeting and claimed the practice is commonplace.
“I’ll go on to several forums … and post there, under my own name and under various other names and various other characters,” Leather disclosed at the Harrogate Crime Writing Festival, according to the Telelgraph. “You build this whole network of characters who talk about your books and sometimes have conversations with yourself … I have friends who are sockpuppets … One person on their own, difficult to create a buzz. If you’ve got ten friends, and they’ve got friends, and you can get them all as one creating a buzz, then hopefully you’ll be all right.”
John Locke, a successful self-publisher and author of “How I Sold One Million E-Books In Five Months,” admitted to buying five-star reviews to boost his Amazon visibility, The New York Times reports.
Sam Millar was accused of the act earlier this year. Science fiction and fantasy authors also found that frustrated writer Robert Stanek was sock-puppeting in 2009.
The Telegraph’s Jake Kerridge questioned if the Ellory scandal is just the tip of the iceberg.
“Already other publishing practices are coming under scrutiny. Do too many crime writers provide quotes for the jackets of their friends’ books?” he asked, adding, “Most of the crime writers I know are genial, friendly souls (Ellory has long been regarded by many in the community as atypically self-aggrandising and chippy), so perhaps not. But since Amazon is unlikely to discontinue its practice of allowing pseudonymous reviews, the industry needs to get to work on regaining readers’ trust.”
Authors have already publicly condemned Ellory for abusing online anonymity by “misusing these channels in ways that are fraudulent and damaging to publishing at large.” Notable authors who have signed the petition against sock-puppeting include Karin Slaughter, Ian Rankin, Jo Nesbo and Val McDermid.
Building on the success of the WiFi Nexus 7 model, Google is reportedly working closely with Asus to launch a 3G model of the Nexus 7 tablet. The rumored time frame as of now stands at mid-October, which puts the 7 inch device in market right before the pivotal Holiday season.
The report surfaced courtesy of Paul O’Brien of MoDaCo, who claims the 3G tablet is only six weeks away from launch. We’re not sure how much the device will cost and which carriers it may launch in conjunction with. There is also no word on whether it will feature 4G LTE connectivity or just 3G.
We’ll keep our eyes peeled for any further developments regarding the 3G Nexus 7 from Asus.
[MoDaCo]
Through a recent press release, Samsung confirmed its new and revamped Galaxy Player boasting a 5.8 inch touch screen display. Previously, we heard about a leaked Galaxy Player about ten days ago and today the rumor has been confirmed.
Expected to officially debut at IFA 2012, the Galaxy Player operates on Android 4.0, includes a 2500 mAh battery, TouchWiz, 16GB or 32GB of storage space, an unannounced processor, WiFi, and a front facing camera. Within the next couple of days, I am sure we will find out further information regarding its processor, availability, and pricing.
It will likely launch in Korea, but markets after that remain uncertain at this time. Is anyone interested in a PMP with a 5.8 inch display?
[SamsungTomorrow]
“When people say that college isn’t worthwhile and paying all this money isn’t worthwhile, I really disagree,” says Systrom. “I think those experiences and those classes that may not necessarily seem applicable in the moment end up coming back to you time and time again.”
“When people say that college isn’t worthwhile and paying all this money isn’t worthwhile, I really disagree,” says Systrom. “I think those experiences and those classes that may not necessarily seem applicable in the moment end up coming back to you time and time again.”
Tennis: it’s been boring us for generations. The only thing that kept us watching Wimbledon this year was Kim Sears’ sad face.
All that has finally changed now, thanks to the Slo Mo Guys. The secret to making anything more interesting is as old as time itself: FIRE.
Via Neatorama
The HTC One X and One S are both stellar phones that re-establish HTC’s place as a company capable of great design and focus. But the HTC One V, the smallest of HTC’s 2012 portfolio, is also a testament to that focus.
The One V doesn’t have the industry leading specs of its bigger brethren, but its resume is more than qualified for the job that it’s applying – an entry-level or midrange smartphone capable of the basic smarts and style consumers expect. The only difference is that it’s in a body more compact than they anticipated.
HARDWARE
The HTC One V, available now at U.S. Cellular, is a chic phone. The phone has the aluminum unibody design favored by HTC, but the 3.7-inch Super LCD screen is a noticeable departure from the trend of supersized displays. The aluminum makes the phone feel valuable, but the 4.05-ounce device is still very light. With its smaller frame and curves that lead to pointy edges, as well as a chin at the bottom, the One V is reminiscent of the HTC Legend. That’s slightly disappointing because the transition from the metal frame to the glass portions of the device is abrupt and not as smooth as other phones. Holding the V for making phones calls feels fine since fingers bend securely around the edges, but tapping the capacitive buttons or other areas of glass that stick out is not as comfy.
Internally, the One V has some familiarly unspectacular specs. A single core 1 GHz processor and 512 MB RAM immediately let users know not to expect much horsepower. Potential buyers should also know that they have to get reacquainted with their microSD cards because the One V has less than 1 GB of internal storage. This lack of impressive hardware is to be expected considering the One V’s position as a midrange phone. On the bright side, plenty of people actually prefer an expansion slot because they are not limited or pressed for internal storage space. While that means activities like high-end gaming are obviously out of the question, casual staples like Temple Run and Angry Birds play just fine.
SOFTWARE
HTC built its reputation on squeezing the most it could out of average hardware. The One V runs the same hardware that was average 18 months ago, but it’s still turning lemons into lemonade with Android 4.0.3 software. That’s no small feat considering devices with similar specs released last year will not receive Ice Cream Sandwich because of poor performance. The Sense 4.0 overlay isn’t always refreshing, but there are certain apps and elements that are solid performers. The keyboard for instance does a decent job of text correction and prediction for being on such a small screen. The messaging, dialer/contacts, and launcher apps all deliver nice touches that diverge from standard ICS but are at least good enough to hold their own.
Software and hardware mostly work well. There are occasions when users notice that they could use a little more oomph when switching between apps or using the camera; however, the basics of web browsing, social networking, and messaging happen smoothly. The inclusion of Beats Audio provides a bass boost when listening to music through headphones, and there’s also the inclusion of very good camera software that provides a ton of options for enhancing or customizing images. The 5 MP camera and HTC ImageSense processing software work in concert to produce solid photos with surprisingly decent balance. Video capture is less serviceable because the lens is slow to focus and lacks steadiness or fluidity.
It’s a good thing that Android 4.0 allows users to disable apps because the One V hordes preloaded software like it’s a precious commodity. There are almost 20 non-essential apps that ship with the One V, and users will most likely wish to disable almost all of them with the exception of Facebook, Polaris Office, and Soundhound. After deciding which of the bloatware survives, buyers better fall in love with HTC’s implementation of ICS because it’s probably the most they can hope for on this device. Given the limited hardware capabilities and investment that the One V can count on, I wouldn’t bet on this phone being updated to Android 4.1, though I’d love to be surprised.
CONCLUSION
Bigger and better phones than the HTC One V are released all the time. However, that doesn’t mean that the phone won’t have an audience. The HTC One V is a phone released for a very targeted group of people – first time smartphone buyers. Anyone with experience using a smartphone probably shouldn’t purchase this phone unless they can deal with a phone that can only handle the basics.
I would caution all potential buyers that this is a starter phone – something to get you comfortable using Android before you decide to get a smartphone with a bit more smarts. It’s a solid performer with a limited shelf life that falls short of all the bells and whistles available on other phones that cost a little more. Grab this phone only if you’re looking to save some money or start a new relationship with Android.
The One V is sold for $129 on a two-year agreement and is available now at U.S. Cellular. Off-contract pricing of $249 also makes this an appealing buy for prepaid customers.
CAMERA SAMPLES
– 
– 
– 
– 
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZxYbNAausw
Somewhere between grueling workouts and setting world records, some of the 2012 Olympics’ youngest athletes still find the time to be normal teenagers. They lip-sync to “Call Me Maybe,” get excited about photo ops with Michael Phelps, and Instagram photos with their friends. And just like teens everywhere, they’re avid Twitter enthusiasts. Click through the slideshow below for 10 of our favorite teen Olympians on Twitter, plus with updates straight from the London Olympics!
Which Olympian is your favorite? Are you following any of these athletes on Twitter? Sound off in the comments below or tweet @HuffPostTeen!
Need to take some time off your phone? A Bay Area company called Digital Detox is there for you.
Facebook’s stock fell 8.5 percent during the regular session Thursday, then dropped further in extended trading after the company reported quarterly earnings for the first time as a public company.
The stock has been up on 20 trading days and down on 28 since its initial public offering.
Facebook began trading publicly in mid-May following one of the most anticipated stock offerings in history. The IPO priced at $38, at the top of a projected range that Facebook had already boosted just days earlier.
Although many investors had hoped for a big first-day pop, Facebook’s stock opened on May 18 at $42.05 and fluctuated between $45 and $38 throughout the day. It closed barely above its IPO price, at $38.23.
The stock had fallen sharply in the weeks following the IPO, going as low as $25.52.
Investors have been concerned about its ability to keep increasing revenue and make money from its growing mobile audience, though many analysts hold positive long-term opinions.
The company, along with the investment banks that led the IPO, is the subject of dozens of shareholder lawsuits. They allege that analysts at the large underwriting investment banks cut their financial forecasts for Facebook just before the IPO and told only a handful of clients. Facebook and the banks overseeing the IPO insist that nothing about its IPO process was illegal or even out of the ordinary.
Here’s how Facebook’s stock has traded since the IPO:
— Friday, May 18: Closed at $38.23, up 0.6 percent from IPO price
— Monday, May 21: Closed at $34.03, down 11 percent for the day, down 10 percent from IPO price
— Tuesday, May 22: Closed at $31, down 8.9 percent for the day, down 18 percent from IPO price
— Wednesday, May 23: Closed at $32, up 3.2 percent for the day, down 16 percent from IPO price
— Thursday, May 24: Closed at $33.03, up 3.2 percent for the day, down 13 percent from IPO price
— Friday, May 25: Closed at $31.91, down 3.4 percent for the day, down 16 percent from IPO price
— Tuesday, May 29: Closed at $28.84, down 9.6 percent for the day, down 24 percent from IPO price
— Wednesday, May 30: Closed at $28.19, down 2.3 percent for the day, down 26 percent from IPO price
— Thursday, May 31: Closed at $29.60, up 5 percent for the day, down 22 percent from IPO price
— Friday, June 1: Closed at $27.72, down 6.4 percent for the day, down 27 percent from IPO price
— Monday, June 4: Closed at $26.90, down 3 percent for the day, down 29 percent from IPO price
— Tuesday, June 5: Closed at $25.87, down 3.8 percent for the day, down 32 percent from IPO price
— Wednesday, June 6: Closed at $26.81, up 3.6 percent for the day, down 29 percent from IPO price
— Thursday, June 7: Closed at $26.31, down 1.9 percent for the day, down 31 percent from IPO price
— Friday, June 8: Closed at $27.10, up 3 percent for the day, down 29 percent from IPO price
— Monday, June 11: Closed at $27, down 0.4 percent for the day, down 29 percent from IPO price
— Tuesday, June 12: Closed at $27.40, up 1.5 percent for the day, down 28 percent from IPO price
— Wednesday, June 13: Closed at $27.27, down 0.5 percent for the day, down 28 percent from IPO price
— Thursday, June 14: Closed at $28.29, up 3.7 percent for the day, down 26 percent from IPO price
— Friday, June 15: Closed at $30.01, up 6.1 percent for the day, down 21 percent from IPO price
— Monday, June 18: Closed at $31.41, up 4.7 percent for the day, down 17 percent from IPO price
— Tuesday, June 19: Closed at $31.91, up 1.6 percent for the day, down 16 percent from IPO price
— Wednesday, June 20: Closed at $31.60, down 1 percent for the day, down 17 percent from IPO price
— Thursday, June 21: Closed at $31.84, up 1 percent for the day, down 16 percent from IPO price
— Friday, June 22: Closed at $33.05, up 3.8 percent for the day, down 14 percent from IPO price
— Monday, June 25: Closed at $32.06, down 3 percent for the day, down 16 percent from IPO price
— Tuesday, June 26: Closed at $33.10, up 3.2 percent for the day, down 13 percent from IPO price
— Wednesday, June 27: Closed at $32.23, down 2.6 percent for the day, down 15 percent from IPO price
— Thursday, June 28: Closed at $31.36, down 2.7 percent for the day, down 17 percent from IPO price
— Friday, June 29: Closed at $31.09, down 0.9 percent for the day, down 18 percent from IPO price
— Monday, July 2: Closed at $30.77, down 1 percent for the day, down 18 percent from IPO price
— Tuesday, July 3: Closed at $31.20, up 1.4 percent for the day, down 18 percent from IPO price
— Thursday, July 5: Closed at $31.47, up 0.9 percent for the day, down 17 percent from IPO price
— Friday, July 6: Closed at $31.73, up 0.8 percent for the day, down 17 percent from IPO price
— Monday, July 9: Closed at $32.17, up 1.4 percent for the day, down 15 percent from IPO price
— Tuesday, July 10: Closed at $31.47, down 2.2 percent for the day, down 17 percent from IPO price
— Wednesday, July 11: Closed at $30.97, down 1.6 percent for the day, down 19 percent from IPO price
— Thursday, July 12: Closed at $30.81, down 0.5 percent for the day, down 19 percent from IPO price
— Friday, July 13: Closed at $30.72, down 0.3 percent for the day, down 19 percent from IPO price
— Monday, July 16: Closed at $28.25, down 8.1 percent for the day, down 26 percent from IPO price
— Tuesday, July 17: Closed at $28.09, down 0.6 percent for the day, down 26 percent from IPO price
— Wednesday, July 18: Closed at $29.11, up 3.6 percent for the day, down 23 percent from IPO price
— Thursday, July 19: Closed at $29, down 0.4 percent for the day, down 24 percent from IPO price
— Friday, July 20: Closed at $28.76, down 0.8 percent for the day, down 24 percent from IPO price
— Monday, July 23: Closed at $28.75, down a penny for the day, down 24 percent from IPO price
— Tuesday, July 24: Closed at $28.45, down 1 percent for the day, down 25 percent from IPO price
— Wednesday, July 25: Closed at $29.34, up 3.1 percent for the day, down 23 percent from IPO price
— Thursday, July 26: Closed at 26.84, down 8.5 percent for the day, down 29 percent from IPO price
Facebook’s stock fell 8.5 percent during the regular session Thursday, then dropped further in extended trading after the company reported quarterly earnings for the first time as a public company.
The stock has been up on 20 trading days and down on 28 since its initial public offering.
Facebook began trading publicly in mid-May following one of the most anticipated stock offerings in history. The IPO priced at $38, at the top of a projected range that Facebook had already boosted just days earlier.
Although many investors had hoped for a big first-day pop, Facebook’s stock opened on May 18 at $42.05 and fluctuated between $45 and $38 throughout the day. It closed barely above its IPO price, at $38.23.
The stock had fallen sharply in the weeks following the IPO, going as low as $25.52.
Investors have been concerned about its ability to keep increasing revenue and make money from its growing mobile audience, though many analysts hold positive long-term opinions.
The company, along with the investment banks that led the IPO, is the subject of dozens of shareholder lawsuits. They allege that analysts at the large underwriting investment banks cut their financial forecasts for Facebook just before the IPO and told only a handful of clients. Facebook and the banks overseeing the IPO insist that nothing about its IPO process was illegal or even out of the ordinary.
Here’s how Facebook’s stock has traded since the IPO:
— Friday, May 18: Closed at $38.23, up 0.6 percent from IPO price
— Monday, May 21: Closed at $34.03, down 11 percent for the day, down 10 percent from IPO price
— Tuesday, May 22: Closed at $31, down 8.9 percent for the day, down 18 percent from IPO price
— Wednesday, May 23: Closed at $32, up 3.2 percent for the day, down 16 percent from IPO price
— Thursday, May 24: Closed at $33.03, up 3.2 percent for the day, down 13 percent from IPO price
— Friday, May 25: Closed at $31.91, down 3.4 percent for the day, down 16 percent from IPO price
— Tuesday, May 29: Closed at $28.84, down 9.6 percent for the day, down 24 percent from IPO price
— Wednesday, May 30: Closed at $28.19, down 2.3 percent for the day, down 26 percent from IPO price
— Thursday, May 31: Closed at $29.60, up 5 percent for the day, down 22 percent from IPO price
— Friday, June 1: Closed at $27.72, down 6.4 percent for the day, down 27 percent from IPO price
— Monday, June 4: Closed at $26.90, down 3 percent for the day, down 29 percent from IPO price
— Tuesday, June 5: Closed at $25.87, down 3.8 percent for the day, down 32 percent from IPO price
— Wednesday, June 6: Closed at $26.81, up 3.6 percent for the day, down 29 percent from IPO price
— Thursday, June 7: Closed at $26.31, down 1.9 percent for the day, down 31 percent from IPO price
— Friday, June 8: Closed at $27.10, up 3 percent for the day, down 29 percent from IPO price
— Monday, June 11: Closed at $27, down 0.4 percent for the day, down 29 percent from IPO price
— Tuesday, June 12: Closed at $27.40, up 1.5 percent for the day, down 28 percent from IPO price
— Wednesday, June 13: Closed at $27.27, down 0.5 percent for the day, down 28 percent from IPO price
— Thursday, June 14: Closed at $28.29, up 3.7 percent for the day, down 26 percent from IPO price
— Friday, June 15: Closed at $30.01, up 6.1 percent for the day, down 21 percent from IPO price
— Monday, June 18: Closed at $31.41, up 4.7 percent for the day, down 17 percent from IPO price
— Tuesday, June 19: Closed at $31.91, up 1.6 percent for the day, down 16 percent from IPO price
— Wednesday, June 20: Closed at $31.60, down 1 percent for the day, down 17 percent from IPO price
— Thursday, June 21: Closed at $31.84, up 1 percent for the day, down 16 percent from IPO price
— Friday, June 22: Closed at $33.05, up 3.8 percent for the day, down 14 percent from IPO price
— Monday, June 25: Closed at $32.06, down 3 percent for the day, down 16 percent from IPO price
— Tuesday, June 26: Closed at $33.10, up 3.2 percent for the day, down 13 percent from IPO price
— Wednesday, June 27: Closed at $32.23, down 2.6 percent for the day, down 15 percent from IPO price
— Thursday, June 28: Closed at $31.36, down 2.7 percent for the day, down 17 percent from IPO price
— Friday, June 29: Closed at $31.09, down 0.9 percent for the day, down 18 percent from IPO price
— Monday, July 2: Closed at $30.77, down 1 percent for the day, down 18 percent from IPO price
— Tuesday, July 3: Closed at $31.20, up 1.4 percent for the day, down 18 percent from IPO price
— Thursday, July 5: Closed at $31.47, up 0.9 percent for the day, down 17 percent from IPO price
— Friday, July 6: Closed at $31.73, up 0.8 percent for the day, down 17 percent from IPO price
— Monday, July 9: Closed at $32.17, up 1.4 percent for the day, down 15 percent from IPO price
— Tuesday, July 10: Closed at $31.47, down 2.2 percent for the day, down 17 percent from IPO price
— Wednesday, July 11: Closed at $30.97, down 1.6 percent for the day, down 19 percent from IPO price
— Thursday, July 12: Closed at $30.81, down 0.5 percent for the day, down 19 percent from IPO price
— Friday, July 13: Closed at $30.72, down 0.3 percent for the day, down 19 percent from IPO price
— Monday, July 16: Closed at $28.25, down 8.1 percent for the day, down 26 percent from IPO price
— Tuesday, July 17: Closed at $28.09, down 0.6 percent for the day, down 26 percent from IPO price
— Wednesday, July 18: Closed at $29.11, up 3.6 percent for the day, down 23 percent from IPO price
— Thursday, July 19: Closed at $29, down 0.4 percent for the day, down 24 percent from IPO price
— Friday, July 20: Closed at $28.76, down 0.8 percent for the day, down 24 percent from IPO price
— Monday, July 23: Closed at $28.75, down a penny for the day, down 24 percent from IPO price
— Tuesday, July 24: Closed at $28.45, down 1 percent for the day, down 25 percent from IPO price
— Wednesday, July 25: Closed at $29.34, up 3.1 percent for the day, down 23 percent from IPO price
— Thursday, July 26: Closed at 26.84, down 8.5 percent for the day, down 29 percent from IPO price
How can these companies afford all the time it takes to comply with these requests? They can afford it, it seems, because the law enforcement agencies pay them. Your tax dollars at work!
Media buyers and brands are turning to real-time bidding (RTB) more often for video, says Forrester Research in a new report on the real-time market, releasing today. Beet.TV spoke to
We’re addicted to our Twitter feeds and our palms start to sweat if we go more than 15 minutes without refreshing our inbox.
But it’s summer, the long days and warm evenings are beckoning, and it’s high time we traded our screens for sunscreen.
Even the world’s most wired people need to unplug now and again, so we asked some of the techiest people we know — startup CEOs, app developers, social media mavens, and entrepreneurs — to tell us how they disconnect.
Here’s what they said:
SAN FRANCISCO — Netflix shares surged by more than 14 percent Thursday as investors bet the growing popularity of the company’s Internet video service will translate into higher profits.
THE SPARK: The gains extended a rally that began Tuesday after Citigroup analyst Mark Mahaney released an upbeat report on Netflix’s future. Netflix CEO Reed Hastings then reinforced the good vibes by revealing that Netflix subscribers collectively watched more than 1 billion hours of video streamed over high-speed Internet connections in June.
That’s a new monthly record for Netflix and may validate a decision to increase spending on licensing rights during the past two years to expand its Internet video library as it phases out DVDs. The 1 billion-hour milestone indicated Netflix’s 26.5 million steaming subscribers worldwide are now watching an average of about 38 hours per month, up from 28 hours per month late last year.
The increasing usage of the video service suggests Netflix Inc. might have an easier time retaining existing customers.
THE BIG PICTURE: Netflix is still trying to recover from its decision last year to sell its streaming and DVD plans separately, a move that raised its prices by as much as 60 percent for U.S. subscribers that still wanted both formats. The change triggered mass customer cancellations and ignited an investor sell-off that caused Netflix’s stock price to plunge by more than 75 percent.
The company, which is based in Los Gatos, Calif., is also trying to regain its footing financially. The spending spree on Internet video rights will likely saddle Netflix with an annual loss this year – the first time that has happened in a decade.
THE ANALYSIS: The latest streaming data suggests Netflix’s video service would rank as the seventh-most watched network among all broadcast- and cable-TV channels, according to BTIG Financial analyst Rich Greenfield. That’s up from the 15th-most watched network in October, based on Greenfield’s calculations.
As its service becomes more deeply immersed in more homes, Netflix may be able to attract even more subscribers.
But Wedbush Securities analyst Michael Pachter is worried TV and movie studios will increasingly see Netflix’s commercial-free service as a threat to their lucrative sources of revenue from advertising and cable-TV fees.
If it appears Netflix is causing viewers to spend less time watching cable-TV channels and advertising-supported programming, Pachter suspects content providers will demand even higher licensing fees from Netflix to help make up the difference. That could force Netflix to accept lower profit margins and risk alienating subscribers with another price increase. Netflix currently charges $8 per month for its streaming service.
SHARE ACTION: Netlfix’s stock gained $10.24 to $82.28 in afternoon trading. The shares have ranged from $60.70 to $304.79 during the past year.