Air France Flight 447: Three and a Half Minutes of Terror
The people behind the Nova documentary on this flight seem to have gotten it mostly right. It likely that the autopilot reduced the engine thrust in anticipation of entering the thunderstorms. Shortly after this, the autopilot kicked off. It seems likely that the pilots did not realize that the autopilot reduced thrust, since they pulled the nose up and ascended. This caused a catastrophic reduction in airspeed that caused the wings to stall. The plane dipped to the side and entered an unrecoverable descent.
What most people don't realize is that at altitude, a deviation in airspeed of plus or minus 5 knots will cause the wings to stall. It would take less than a minute of inattention to the engine thrust level to enter an unrecoverable stall. So is this pilot error? To me, it seems partially so. However, the design of Airbus planes would have made it difficult for the pilots to notice the engine thrust level changes made by the autopilot. On the Airbus, when the autopilot reduces engine thrust, the control levers don't physically move, unlike Boeing aircraft. The only reflection of engine thrust changes is on a small monitor. This seems to me to be a design shortcoming. In addition, the disappearance of airspeed data is also a fault in the airplane design...this should never happen.
This crash was likely caused by a series of unfortunate events.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Report Details Last Minutes of Doomed Air France Jet
<>
Misconceptions in the posted comments:
1) GPS speed indications could be used to replace "antiquated" pitot tubes
Of course airliners have a GPS speed readout. However, this indicates, and can only indicate, the aircraft's speed relative to the ground. This has no aerodynamic use. If an airplane is flying into a 50 mph headwind at 50 mph airspeed, the GPS speed readout over the ground will be 0 mph. Is the airplane flying 0? No. The wings, as far as they know, are flying at 50 mph. The AIR speed is what is important in control of maneuver of the airplane. This is what relates to speeds that the wing will stall and lose lift, maximum speeds for the structure, for extending the wheels, etc. The only way to measure airspeed is with a sensor that measures differential pressure--a pitot tube. They are amazingly accurate, and heated to prevent icing. Unfortunately, this design seems to have been defective in that regard.
2) An aerodynamic stall is related to the engines
It has nothing to do with the engines. Stall refers to a loss of lift from a reduced airflow over the wing, usually due to an excessively low speed. There is a reason you have to speed up on the runway before you take off into the air. This confusion has, amazingly, existed in almost every single piece of air-crash-related journalism ever recorded.
3) The pilots stalled the airplane because they didn't know the rules of a Cessna 172.
A large Airbus airliner is not the same as a Cessna. Actual stalls in heavy, swept-wing aircraft are not simple recoveries where you point the nose down, and in fact are often entirely unrecoverable. Therefore, all training is focused on imminent-stall or near-stall recovery, not on actual stall recovery. This often, and particularly since the simulated scenarios are almost always low-altitude, involves maintaining the nose at some nose-up attitude while applying maximum engine thrust. In Airbus airplanes, computers are designed to prevent the airplane from reaching a critical, stalling nose-up angle, and therefore the pilots are trained to raise the nose as much as the computer will allow while increasing the engine thrust. In addition, as some have pointed out, the envelope between minimum and maximum airspeeds at high altitudes is not tremendously wide. Having said that, there doesn't seem to be much doubt that having the nose at a 16 degree up angle in this case was fatal. Just keep in mind things that you don't know before you rush to judgment on pilots' actions in a terrifying, confusing situation with faulty and misleading indications in the cockpit, turbulence, and a suddenly disengaged autopilot.
4) Jet airliners sink like stones with no engine thrust.
This is not really related to this crash, but it's nonetheless been thrown out there a few times. Glide ratios in airliners are up to around 20-1, depending on loads and such... for every 1000 feet you lose, you glide 20000 feet (4 miles) forwards. Descent rates would probably be between 1000-2000 feet per minute with no engine power, leaving more than 15 minutes and quite a few miles before touching down.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Report Details Last Minutes of Doomed Air France Jet
<>
To the comments here claiming that "any pilot knows" to put the nose down in a stall, this isn't a Cessna 172 at 9500 ft. At the altitude this plane is flying, small deviations in airspeed stall the wing. Pushing the nose down here can result in a stall and possibly structural failure.
The problem was that the pilots didn't know their airspeed because the pitot tubes were iced over. So, how were they supposed to know which side of their 10 kt flight envelope they were at?
I feel terrible for these pilots, who were trying to fly out of trouble right to the end. The fact is, the airplane they were piloting can enter conditions where a human can't fly it safely. If the autopilot can't handle it because the measuring instruments fail, what chance do they have?
Even worse, these pitot tubes were known to be susceptible to icing problems. Air France apparently took their time replacing them with a new model that was proven to perform better. Instead of blaming the pilots, blame the accountant who decided to save a few euros.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Report Details Last Minutes of Doomed Air France Jet
<>
I am a pilot of over 40 years flying experience, much of that in aircraft with
highly advanced avionics similar to this Airbus. The Air France pilots
demonstrated a shocking lack of basic airmanship. They still had attitude
reference instruments and engine power indications. In this situation you fly
the airplane to wings level, nose on the horizon, and reduce power slightly to
take about 50 knots off the cruise speed. You let the airplane find its own
speed and hold altitude, using GPS altitude reference if necessary. ABSOLUTELY
DO NOT make any abrupt control inputs. Only when the situation is stable do you
try to isolate the problem.
Contrary to others' thoughts, GPS speed is
very useful in this situation. The pilots would have been noting their
groundspeed off the GPS, and could have used that as a rough indicator of
airspeed.
What likely happened was that the pilots let all the advanced
avionics and warning systems distract them from their basic task of simply
flying straight and level. Task saturation is a terrible thing. I have
experienced it in simulated emergencies more than once, and I can see how it
happened here.
Think back to what Sullenberger did when he put that
Airbus in the Hudson. He stayed calm, focused on flying what he had left, kept
the wings level, and made a remarkable landing on water. That's how a real pro
handles a major malfunction. These Air France pilots could have saved that
airplane.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/ Crash report shows confused cockpit
<>
Most crash investigators will tell you that there is never any one single cause for an accident of this nature. A "speed sensor" failure did not cause this aircraft to crash into the ocean from 38,000 feet.
It seems asinine to conclude that one of the most modern aircraft in the world would not have, say, redundancies in the form of GPS feeds to the FMS and even an inertial guidance system to indicate velocity. It's further silly to think that a single sensor failure -- a "single fault condition" -- would inevitably lead to a crash.
This does sound a lot like Birgenair 301 but ultimately blame for that crash was placed at the feet of the pilots for failing to understand and react properly to a stick-shaker (indicating a stall...) In other words, a blocked pitot tube did not cause that aircraft to crash into the ocean, rather, failure to fly the aircraft on the part of the pilots did.
I think there will be additional findings coming out of this investigation. This reporting strikes me as premature and incomplete.
Read the article CNN/Air France crash pilots lost vital speed data, say investigators
<>
Something a lot of people seem to be forgetting is the situation around the pilots. This was not a clear, sunny day. This was night, in the middle of a massive storm, with no outside visual frame of reference. Outside the windows would have been pitch black. There would be constant pressure changes and shifting lateral and vertical wind speeds, possibly in excess of 100 mph, all around the aircraft. The instrument readings very likely would have been bouncing all over.
If the pitot tubes were iced over, airspeed could have read very low would could result in a stall warning.
If other airspeed systems were reporting regular airspeed, lets say 300 knots, the pilots might not have wanted to use max thrust to counter the stall warning and instead pull the aircraft up.
If the actual speed of the plane was below stall speed, given the weather conditions and turbulence, it's quite possible the pilots could not feel the plane descending and the definitely could not look out the windows and see it.
So it's possible to get a situation where they are pulling up on the nose, throttle set low, conflicting airspeed readings, low actual airspeed, plane buffeted on all sides by greatly varying winds and up drafts, high turbulence, leading to a belly flop into the ocean
Read the article CNN/Air France crash pilots lost vital speed data, say investigators
U.S. Debt Limit Hits the Ceiling
How to Get a Clean Bill Raising the Debt Limit
If Republicans want to play a game of Hostage, President Obama should call their bluff.
Two or three weeks before Secretary Geithner runs out of tricks to extend the drop-dead date for raising the debt limit, President Obama should go on the teevee and explain to the American people what's going on. Right now most Americans think raising the debt ceiling is increasing spending -- thanks to Republican flimflam. The public doesn't understand raising the debt limit is just providing a means of paying for what Congress has already authorized in the past -- like Social Security payments and military salaries.
President Obama should further explain that Congress isn't doing its job. Congress passed laws to authorize spending of the money; now it's refusing to sign the checks to cover the expenditures it approved. Obama should also explain that one of the reasons the government can't meet its debt obligations is that Republicans insisted on extending the Bush tax cuts for rich people, so there's just not enough money coming in. And he can toss in any other little thing he can think of to place the blame where it ought to rest.
Then -- in view of the emergency created by the Congress -- he should sign an executive order to initiate a rolling default. And the very first thing he should default on is salary payments to members of Congress.
I think that would get him a clean bill raising the debt ceiling. Right quick.
The Constant Weader at www.RealityChex.com
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/Paul Krugman: America held hostage
<>
We need to raise the ridiculously low 2.6% tax rate on the lowest 50%, 70
million taxpayers, and go after the 47% who pay no fed income taxes on wages
they earn. When true "fairness" is returned we will no longer have a problem.
We'll be amazed what skin in the game does to demands for handouts when
freeloaders actually must pay for them. Having 14 million taxpayers, top 10%,
paying 70% of fed income taxes and supporting over 300 million people is not
fair under any reasonable person's view.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/As debt limit reached, agreement still far off
<>
"The U.S. government is expected to hit the $14.294 trillion debt ceiling
Monday, setting in motion an uncertain, 11-week political scramble to avoid a
default"
Whatever. Political melodrama, nobobdy believes default is
possible, and even if a technical default happened, the market would see it as a
good thing provided Republicans stand firm on cutting spending.
"And
taxes remain a roadblock. Republican leaders say tax increases can't be part of
any deficit plan, but White House officials have said any plan must include
revenue increases."
We can pay for a tax increase by decreasing
transactional costs of the tax code. Americans will pay less total cost for tax
compliance and taxes combined if real tax simplification is part of the deal. www.SUNSETtheIRS.org/please-raise-my-taxes
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/As debt limit reached, agreement still far off
<>
Finally someone has come up with a solution to our debt problems. First, sell
all the gold in Fort Knox. I am sure Glenn Beck could help market it. Then sell
the national parks. Think of all the neat rides Disney could put into
Yellowstone Park. And the Washington Monument could become the Washington
Monument presented by Donald Trump or just Trump Tower II.
Then sell the
national forests--who needs trees and wild animals? Then privatize the armed
forces, something we have already begun to do. Then a really big yard sale. I
bet we could pay off the whole national debt.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/As debt limit reached, agreement still far off
<>
It takes great courage to say what must be said, Professor - you're a hero.
Our situation was not not not created by the people who have lost jobs, houses, and are now being threatened over a debt which has been increased by 40% due to Wall Street's de-regulatory nosedive.
The people who created the problem, benefitted from being bailed out, and got their taxes lowered in December are tne same ones threatening us again.
It would be wrong to not deal with the black-mailers now; to not deal with them now, to let them weaken us with one more of a thousand cuts, is to leave them to devour the next generation(s).
It matters not whether they realize what they are doing - it matters that we who see it stop it to preserve the future; at this point it is up to them whether the cease and desist will be accomplished in an orderly manner or in chaos.
The Democrats can't surrender the country's soul in black-mail.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/Paul Krugman: America held hostage
<>
We have a spending problem, but equally we have a revenue problem brought about by a failure to pay as we go and failure to raise revenue strategically with long term goals in mind, e.g. capital gains taxes vs. business taxes have different results.
As things stand, for 30-40 years now the public has been in favor of big government programs--social security, medicare, defense--while the political leadership has consistently used trickle-down voodoo to pretend that tax cuts can be used to pay for...See More spending increases; e.g. 2 - 2 = 4!
The Democrats are ignoring the writing on the wall, but the Republicans are equally in fantasy land with continued adherence to supply-side gibberish.
Read the article WASHINGTON POST/Treaasury to tap pensions to help fund government
Microsoft to Acquire Skype for $8.5 Billion in Cash
Skype makes a lot of sense in a number of ways to me.
- in the living room, Microsoft can integrate Skype with Live on many more devices than the Xbox. Already Skype software is tied into many TVs and STBs. MS now has a new client base to grab and something else to link users to their ecosystem. It also means XBOX to Skype calls are more likely.
- In the Enterprise, Lync is a UC platform, not just IM. It includes enterprise telephony features and can even act as an IP PBX with video. Again, Skype would extend Lync with better client support (including third party) and better codec support.
Cisco has often been rumored as buying Skype for their voice codecs as well.
Lastly, Google has entered this space with G talk. Doing video on your handset, PC, and Google TV is where Google is heading with the Google Voice integration working well. MS may see this as a way to jump ahead of Google in this area for whatever that strategy is.
Apple is also pushing hard with Facetime. Skype allows MS to ward off any play by Apple to offer Facetime for Windows by having a cross platform IM and Video client on every platform on day one. Considering there is no Live Messenger client for anything but WP7 and Windows, this is huge. If they add Lync support, it means they have MAC clients for Lync too.
I like it.
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/WSJ:Microsoft to buy Skype
<>
Well, certainly keeping it out of Google's hands would be reason enough for Microsoft; its not new for them either, and in the past they've actually been decently successful with that kind of approach. ...Whole thing brings back sorrowful memories of Apple's Lala purchase, though.
On a slightly more logistical note, this certainly spells an end for Skype on Linux and Mac, though the former was hardly even there in the first place. To be honest, I can't help but think it spells an end for Skype on Windows too, and that's probably for the better.
(Call me what you want, I would prefer to just download WLM and get Skype's existing user base as opposed to having to have both. Heck, let's have Google buy up Yahoo Messenger and AIM. I'd be happy.)
Also, as per the above comments, isn't the Skype client for Linux already closed source? The only different between it and, say, a fictitious closed source Microsoft Office for Linux is one is incredibly good, the other isn't.
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/WSJ:Microsoft to buy Skype
<>
Microsoft would have a service that could enable ubiquitous communications using the best option (voice vs video) that would work virtually all possible scenarios. And with the services that Skype already has (Qik, apps on Linux, iOS+MacOS, PSP, etc) Microsoft has a huge club to wield against Google's communications offerings.
My bet would be Microsoft using Skype as a tool for getting strategic partnerships with telecoms like Sprint has done with Google Voice; port your Verizon number to Skype for instance and get access to your telephone through Facebook, Live/Hotmail, Xbox Kinect, Lync+Office, Windows, Windows Phone, Sync type services..., in other words.. one number anywhere, anytime (as long as Microsoft can provide it).
I think it would be entirely possible that in the future, especially with all the doubt around about net neutrality, that Microsoft would offer a service that would be a monthly subscription that provided all-you-can-eat access to Microsoft's online services such as Zune, Xbox Live, Xbox Live's rumored TV offering and Skype, while being wrapped up in a shiny coat of a subscription plan, and sold to the world through partnering FiOS+LTE telecoms, replacing current services of cable+telephone. (They would also keep their normal, current offerings for those without those ISPs...)
This would be quite interesting... Microsoft provides you services ranging from vehicles to media+gaming to e-mail+telecoms to office+Skype/Lync to online search/msn type web portals in addition to their OS services
...the ultimate paranoid dreams of anyone anti-MS and anti tracking/advertisements would indeed be terrifying...
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/WSJ:Microsoft to buy Skype
It is now MicroSkype! Microsoft, it's been the king of the computers for some 25 years, and now that Skype is coming, the new version of MSN will be better in lots of important and I'm sure very interesting ways.
(+1 to anyone who knows the Top Gear reference I just made)
Calm down people, Linux and Mac and Mobile are going to be supported, seriously why kill off an incredible amount of market share? The only thing is that Microsoft owns skype instead of eBay, that's the nutshell of it all... It's not going to become Microsoft Skype or anything like that, everything Skype has will still be Skype which will still be developed and maintained by the Luxembourg HQ.
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/WSJ:Microsoft to buy Skype
<>
I would like to see the business case for this deal.
In the last quarter of 2008, ebay reported Skype sales of $145 million for the quarter, up 26 percent year-over-year, but only $2 million higher than the prior quarter.
Skype’s net loss in 2010 was $6.91 million compared with a $368.8 million loss in 2009, when it took a $344 million impairment charge.
It would be hard to predict a rapid upward trajectory of earnings based on this history. And Microsoft has no history of being able to create new and innovative ideas that might light a fire under Skype.
Looks like Jack trading the cow for magic beans, but with no bean stalk.
If I were a stockholder of Msoft I would rather have an increased dividend.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Microsoft seals deal to acquire Skype
<>
Beyond Smartphones, another vision for Skype is to expand into the $200+ billion market for corporate telecommunications. The company will have to gain the trust of companies, which largely rely on dedicated fiber optic networks for their communications. Enterprises aren’t completely comfortable bringing in a consumer Internet company that’s mostly used for chitchat. MSFT already has relationships with tens of thousands of companies. Just look at their MS-Exchange customer base. This is where MSFT will leverage its existing corporate customer base to multiply the existing Skype efforts to disrupt an existing, and very expensive, technology (dedicated fiber) with an open technology (the internet) that can provide similar levels of reliability (dedicated fiber's last strong hand) at a cheaper price and with more scalability and flexibility.
What’s also valuable about Skype is having two-thirds of a billion existing connected users, more than FaceBook, Twitter, and MySpace combined. And it has a platform for delivering all these other services, and that’s a massive threat to traditional phone companies. Skype makes money by charging about 2 cents a minute for calls to people that do not use the service. Skype is the No.1 provider of cross-border calls, with 12 percent of the market (as of January 2010, the latest data I could find). The company also collects fees for voice mail, text messaging and other services.
The latest valuation of Skype, based upon eBay selling 70%, was $2.7billion. That was in 2009, at or near the bottom of the financial crisis. I suspect that that valuation was skewed toward the low end, and Skype has continued to grow exponentially since.
In my judgement, MSFT, by bringing Skype to it's existing huge corporate customer base, has a chance of getting a great return on their $8.5billion investment.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Microsoft seals deal to acquire Skype
Sony Breach Highlights Need for Tighter Data Security Standards
As with most public hacking cases you have to remember that it is only the
ones that are noticed that come to light initialy. Now that they are doing a
full forensics upon it they may indeed find that whoever hacked them was not the
first to do so.
I was personaly involved in doing forensics on a major website hack many
years ago and what I found was:
(1) The aforementioned server had been hacked at least 4 times in the past
year prior to the defacement.
(2) What is publicly announced is a lighter side of the story as to what
actualy happened, ie no customer data involved officialy were infact customer
data was found.
(3) The server was procured and put in place by a internal department using
external suppliers and not the formal internal approved ones.
So it is very much possible that there were credit card information
unencrypted, indirectly stored in other cache area's or from online petitions
for ID verification or indeed in the verifications system buffer. Remember that
they have admited that email and favorite pet name and adress and DOB
information has already passed away so with that it wouldn;t be hard to control
that email address without its password and assuming its not one of the types
that have one password fits all approach.
Sony may very well of had a internal security division more than able to
prevent this but internal politics prevented them from being involved! Indeed
the fact it was at a data center not located near there main offices would be
some indication, indeed some of the best ways to hack somebody is get a box in
same datacenter/colo and route via there central backup servers, which
remarkably enough seem to almost always allow such sillyness.
For what it's worth Sony are doing all that they can now, and for most users
that will be enough but for others it was one straw too many. I'm also supprised
the USA etc don't appear to have the same level of data protection laws afforded
us UK/EU people. Given how long ago the original data protection act was put in
place. So at least thats one area that will help others when the USA
changes/add's law's to accomodate this oversight.
I just hope Sony are honest and in a timely manner as to what went were it
shouldn't of gone and fairly protect users accordingly from the fallout were
applicable.
Sadly a gobal biometric ID card system would be useful but everybody is
paranoid about being tracked so much they ignore the fact they use credit cards
and store loyalty cards without even thinking.
Read the article THE REGISTER/Sony calls in data Sherlocks to unpick megahack disaster
<>
I have no problem with Rep. Mary Bono Mack's statements. If anything, the Representative is spot on in her criticism of Sony & Epsilon's handling of the breaches.
Why do these companies continue to go into lockdown & days of silence instead of owning up to it immediately? You can make an initial statement at the beginning & proactively update the information as it becomes available. When consumers are alerted about a situation with immediate & repeatedly updated information, the more likely consumers will for the most part work with a company instead of blasting them.
For Sony or Epsilon not to show up really makes them look more like irresponsible fools. Epsilon has had plenty of time to prepare. So has Sony. I completely disagree with Karoch Sharon statements that it's a personal beef or just plain Jane political theater. These kinds of hearings are exactly what I expect from the House & Senate when something major goes wrong at a corporation. Ignoring the politics for the moment, the public absolutely has a right to have the heads & CIO's of major corporations answer to the subcommittees & committees when private information is breached.
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/House hearing blasts Sony's "half-hearted, half-baked" hack response
<>
Instead of worrying about the politics, lets get the facts in the open. Let's see what we can do to tighten the laws. Then we need to bring Sony along with other parties into a courtroom to answer for their failures to be good security minded companies. Its hard to know what they should do about this. Clearly Sony's system was held together with chewing gum. I expect it was a proof of concept system that went live. Given that Sony's system had a wallet/account system built in then I think they should have been held to higher standards. However, there really isn't anyone to hold them to the higher standards besides the now no doubt incredibly untrusting public.
However, as it stands it was still the hackers that committed the crime and the US government can try and bluster all they want but the internet has been around for 17+ years and why do they only worry about it the week after a high profile hack. Politicians are 98% a waste of valuable oxygen.
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/House hearing blasts Sony's "half-hearted, half-baked" hack response
<>
I am going to play Devil's advocate here and argue that Sony did the right thing with their response.
Let me explain myself. I use individualized addresses for every site I provide my email to (like
pavon.arstechnica@example.com
). It is not uncommon that I will start getting spam on one of these accounts. Not newsletters I didn't sign up for, or advertisements from their partners, but penis enlargement and other clearly botnet-generated junk. So obviously these guys have had their systems compromised, yet I never got any sort of notice from them, and when I contact them to let them know what is happening, I never get any response. Thus in my experience my data is compromised regularly but most companies are either oblivious to the fact or chose to sweep it under the rug.
In comparison, Sony immediately took down their network to prevent further intrusion, and hired outside consultants to determine what was compromised and how to correct it. Having the network down for such a long time cost them a huge amount of goodwill, but it was the right thing to do. As they came to understand the depth of the attack, they fully disclosed what information had been compromised, which is the right thing to do. And once it was all sorted out they offered compensation, even to people who don't pay for the service, which is again the right thing to do.
I think their lack of security was appalling and they diverse to be criticized for that, but I don't see anything wrong with how they handled the aftermath.
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/House hearing blasts Sony's "half-hearted, half-baked" hack response
<>
These are all really good suggestions and points. Everyone keeps worrying about the credit card numbers themselves being stolen, which Sony has said they aren't sure if that information was even obtained for United States accounts.
The real danger lies with your username, email address, and passwords being obtained. They absolutely were stolen for more than 100 million users. They were unencrypted and the passwords were unsalted. This is undoubtedly a huge negligence by Sony, and should not be overlooked in indicting Sony on criminal charges in my opinion (they violated their own privacy policy and agreement with their customers to keep their information private to the best of their ability, yet they employed sub-industry standard security precautions). However, the fact remains that the hackers have that information.
Given that the vast majority of Internet users use the same email address and password to sign up for most services they use, these hackers now have access to all of those services. Some of those services are most certainly tied to your financial accounts. So while they might not have your credit card numbers directly, they might as well have them.
Don't be ignorant to think that because Credit Card numbers aren't guaranteed to be stolen, that you don't have to worry about any financial repercussions.
Read the article PC Magazine/Sony Accounts Hacked? Here's What You Should Do Now, Soon, and Later
Ford Comes Shining Through
Allan Mulally is just a great leader. His delivery of the 777 project at Boeing seems a kind of pinnacle of human mastery over technological complexity - after that, I'd think that running Ford would be a doddle. Except I'd be wrong; it's not - it is likely more complex, if that's possible. Regardless of technology - you've got to bring your people along with you, and he's doing that all day every day it seems. I think he's one of the best execs running anything, anywhere.
Read the article GUARDIAN/Ford drives home biggest first-quarter profit in 13 years
<>
Ford is an interesting case in the automotive landscape and one that certainly seems to be doing well in recent months.
However, I think longer term they may well be at quite a disadvantage when compared to GM and Chrysler who have also shown some good progress. GM and Chrysler were able to make some incredibly dramatic changes while in chapter 11 which the unions either had to swallow or there was no jobs the next day.
Ford refused to go into chapter 11 which gave them some cache and momentum from the American buying public as they could have potentially been the only show left in town. As an automotive journalist in North America I know there are still a lot of ongoing concerns about Ford's liabilities in terms of excessively high allowances for working conditions, time off and not to mention pension and healthcare liabilities.
This is really a case of making hay while the sun shines but when GM get back up to speed and are able to produce cars at lower cost than Ford then the outlook may well be very different. America is buying into the new Fiesta as it is a good car and gas prices are a concern.
On another note it is interesting that Toyota is often seen as a green company but in March it sold only 10,000 more Prius' than it did 5.7 liter V8 Tundra pick-ups. On the subject of gas guzzlers, for every one of the top two selling cars in the U.S sold in March (Accord and Altima) Ford and GM sold over one and a half full size trucks.
Read the article GUARDIAN/Ford drives home biggest first-quarter profit in 13 years
<>
Ford has two things going for them, a balanced product line and a sense of the
economy. Both GM and Chrysler would do well to take a close look at Ford's
marketing plan.
As for foreign manufacturing, they all do it and it is costing
them market share against the foreign brands. Regarding quality of engineering
and manufacturing, our colleges and universities still put out the best
mechanical engineers world wide.
Manufacturing may be a different story since it
is dependent upon the country of origin but the major variation from country to
country is wages and benefits, not the skill level
Read the article MARKET WATCH/Ford earns $2.6 billion
READ MORE COMMENTS: APRIL 2011
Standard & Poor's Wags a Finger APRIL 2011
True or False? Exploring the Nine Biggest Tax Myths APRIL 2011
Some See Red When J. Crew Ad Paints Boy's Toenails Pink APRIL 2011
The Rich Get Richer - Faster APRIL 2011
Jobs: A Good Sign on the Long Road Back APRIL 2011
8.8%
The Old Gray Lady Gets a New Girdle APRIL 2011
<>
What is very interesting about this is that many of the users of Skype are not users of the MSN client. Sure we may have started there after the great ICQ migration but the lack of support for features on other platforms like Mac and mobile were a large reason that we left.
With the new horrible interface for the new Mac client, the lack of video support for ANY android including the Xoom and international carriers that support it on phones as well as the now daily spam that people are getting for ‘Russian hotties’, there may be another migration. All that is needed now is for a service like Google Talk to catch on with the non-techies and we will see it happen again.
Microsoft I think has made a serious mistake here. Sure it may broaden their current services but I think with Google becoming the big communication player with Talk and Voice (please Google, bring Voice to Canada) that many of the existing ones are simply going to slink away. Especially since the majority of students and small businesses are now using all the other Google services.
Read the article WIRED/Microsoft Buys Skype for $8.5 Billion. Why, Exactly?
<>
Skype has 5 keys that Microsoft probably wants but it's hard to think that these (other than possibly # 5) are worth $8 billion.
1. Multiplatform Clients that work even on iPhone, iPad, and Android devices. MSN Messenger and Lync can't come close to Skype's platform ubiquity.
2. A distributed call control model that's very robust without needing a centralized data center and it's associated overhead.
3. A call-in call-out model that's very cost effective for International users who want to talk to the "old" phone network. Everyone compares their International prices against Skype and most International callers (in places with decent Internet) use Skype.
4. A codec and transport mechanism that's more robust than other proprietary technology and far more usable on the public Internet than SIP or other standards based combinations. You can compare their client obfuscation practices to malware but I say it's to protect their "secret sauce" and this sauce works better from a Wi-Fi hotspot that's double NAT'ed than anything else.
5. Connectivity to PBX's (corporate phone systems) that allow calls between Skype users and company call centers. With Lync and Skype, Microsoft is now the 800 pound Gorilla in this arena. If they want to kill this feature for Cisco and Avaya phone systems, they can now do it. If they want to increase fees for this feature, they can now do it. This alone may drive more corporate customers to Lync as they abandon their "old" Cisco phone systems.
You have to admire Silver Lake, they bought Skype and in 2 years or so they sell it for $5+ billion more than they paid. Curiously, this would not seem to bode well for Avaya which is also owned by Silver Lake. Silver Lakes seems to manage smart enough that I'm guessing they've got language in the deal that protects Avaya's interests in leveraging Skype technology or will otherwise make Silver Lake come out OK in the final analysis. For now, $8 billion in cash should sound good to just about any seller.
Read the articleWIRED/Microsoft Buys Skype for $8.5 Billion. Why, Exactly?