SI
SI
discoversearch

 Technology Stocks | Apple Tankwatch


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: zax who wrote (16803)2/18/2012 6:38:17 PM
From: Sr K
   of 30036
 
"iPad" is at the left of the Status bar.

Otherwise, even

iPad from Apple and not from Proview

would work.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: sylvester80 who wrote (16800)2/18/2012 7:56:48 PM
From: zax
   of 30036
 
Allegedly, the Nokia Lumia 805 - Message 27958304

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


From: sylvester802/18/2012 8:19:36 PM
   of 30036
 
Google, Safari, and a Clamor of Cookie Confusion
February 18, 2012
lauren.vortex.com
A technological smoking gun is indeed present in this case. But it's not the gun being implied by confused headlines and the pronouncements of some commentators who appear to perhaps be out of their technical depths in this situation.

Thinking about it all these years later, I can't remember when I first ran across the term "cookie" in a computing sense. And offhand, the origins of this term as an "intermediate storage" element are somewhat hazy.

I do vividly recall that my first active entanglement with these babies was in the context of so-called "Magic Cookies" used by many early CRT data display terminals as a memory minimization technique -- to provide for character enhancement functions like blink, underline, bold, and so on. We Computer Science types have long been enamored of "magical" terminology - Magic Cookies, Magic Packets, Magic Words (e.g. "XYZZY" - "PLUGH"), and so on.

Even the "magic cookies" of CRTs were much maligned. Of course this wasn't really the cookies' fault. Memory was expensive and often minimal in these displays, and magic cookies actually used up one (or even more) spaces on the screen, making really clean layouts impossible. Display terminals that featured magic cookies were considered "terminally" brain dead by those of us in the know, and were typically assigned to the lowest ranking faculty, staff, and students. Some colorful disputes ensued.

Flash forward to the Web. The essentially "stateless" nature of basic HTTP transactions needed a mechanism to provided session-based coordination, and browser cookies stored on users' local computers quickly became the mechanism of choice to hold the intermediate data for this purpose.

As in the case of those magic cookies long ago, there is nothing inherently good or evil about Web cookies. They are simply local containers of data that can (subject to various rules) be written and read by Web sites.

But in the real world of the modern Web, the proper implementation of those "rules" by browsers and Web sites alike can become fiendishly complex.

OK, back to the current dramatic brouhaha over Google, Safari, cookies, and privacy. There's no way to deal with this accurately without getting somewhat technical, so please bear with me if you will.

Since the handling of browser cookies has long been complicated and controversial, all manner of methodologies to deal with them have emerged over the years.

At one time, I actively micromanaged virtually all of my browser cookies. But as Web systems became more intricate, such a detailed hands-on approach becomes decreasingly practical (these days I use browser extensions to maintain a relatively course control of cookies at the site level, but I would not recommend even this to most users).

One of the most common problems that Web users get themselves into is following simplistic advice about "blocking" cookies, and then becoming confused when they can no longer log into desired sites because the necessary session state cookies cannot be processed properly.

The proper handling of so-called "third-party cookies" by browsers and sites can be particularly challenging to implement. Such cookies are associated with domains other than that with which the user is primarily communicating at that moment.

Traditionally, browsers have accepted the reading and writing of third-party cookies by default, in some cases providing user controls for more fine-grained management of these cookies related to particular sites.

Third-party cookies have become controversial since they are sometimes viewed as being associated with "secretive" tracking practices. But there is nothing inherently wrong with third-party cookies. Like all browser cookies, it's what Web sites specifically do with them that matters, and especially with the rise of social sharing applications, third-party cookies can play important and utterly benign roles.

Now we reach that smoking gun of which I mentioned earlier.

Safari browser designers sometime back decided to diverge from common Web practice and block all third-party browser cookies by default.

The underlying rationales for this decision are not entirely clear and are a matter of some controversy. Even within the Safari developer groups themselves it's clear there was conflict about whether or not this actually was a useful, truly privacy-positive move.

But one thing quickly became clear. The default blocking would have the effect of breaking important functionalities on which many Web users depended.

Now, please permit me to introduce you to WebKit Bugzilla Bug 35824: Relax 3rd party cookie policy in certain cases, dating from March 2010.

WebKit is the common core implementation code used by Safari and various other browsers. Bug 35824 is at the heart of the entire Google/Safari cookie controversy.

Contrary to the assertions of some observers, Bug 35824 was not a leak involving third-party cookies being accepted inappropriately. It was not a loophole that needed to be closed.

In fact, it was exactly the opposite! Bug 35824 represented the realization that the existing WebKit implementation for third-party cookies, in conjunction with Safari's change to "no third-party cookies accepted by default" was too limiting, too closed, and needed to be loosened to restore key user functionalities.

The resolution of Bug 35824 involved doing just that, and the discussions associated with that Bug make for fascinating (and delightfully geeky) reading.
One particularly insightful quote from the associated dialogue:

- - -

"Alright, I'm regretting stepping into the morass that is third-party cookie blocking. The overarching problem is that third-party cookie blocking can't actually provide decent privacy benefits without breaking sites. We can machinate around the privacy / compatibility trade-off forever. Compatibility always has a stronger pull because you can see that XYZ works after you bolster compatibility whereas you don't see the privacy costs because they're harder to measure."

- - -

At the time, those discussions were most focused on problems that sites such as Facebook and Microsoft would have with the new Safari policy, before Bug 35824 was revolved. Google+ would not go public for more than another year.

But when Google+ did appear, Google quite appropriately used the provided mechanism of the 35824 bug fix, for key functionality related to Google+ on Safari browsers, in very much the same way intended for Microsoft, Facebook, and other sites.

It's at this juncture that the issue of unintended collateral effects comes into play.

As noted above, cookie handling can be very complex. Nowadays, traditional cookies have been joined by other (generally less well known) Web transactional local storage mechanisms, further complicating the picture.

The necessary loosening of Safari default third-party cookie controls associated with the 35824 bug fix even further convoluted the cookie handling process. This ultimately led to some cookies associated with Google's ad delivery network being mistakenly placed on some Safari users' browsers, in conflict with what those users might otherwise have expected from Safari's "no third-party cookies" default (keeping in mind that few Safari users would likely have had any inkling that there was already an exception to that seemingly declarative setting, via the 35824 fix).

The Google ad network cookies in question should not have been placed through the Safari browsers of users with that "third-party cookie blocking" setting. Those cookies were in error, and Google is in the process of removing them.

But those cookies did not contain personal information, nobody was harmed, nothing was damaged, and there is no indication that this event was purposeful subterfuge of any kind by Google.

There is an important lesson to be drawn from all this.

My gut feeling is that we've passed beyond the era where it made sense to concentrate on Internet privacy controls and issues mainly in terms of specific technologies as we've done in the past.

As noted above, cookies are neither good nor bad, neither intrinsically righteous nor evil. Cookies, like the other local storage mechanisms that have now been implemented, are merely tools. And as with other tools, how they are used is under the control of the entities who deploy these complex functionalities.

Ultimately, we expect Web sites to just work. It is unrealistic in the extreme to expect most users to understand and manage the underlying cookie and related systems of their browsers in detail. As new methodologies come online, this will only become ever more true.

What we really need to be concentrating on are the fundamental issues of trust and transparency.

If we as users feel confident that individual firms are doing their best to be transparent about their policies and are handling our data in responsible manners, then putting our trust (and data) in the hands of those firms is a solid bet.

Does this mean that mistakes won't be made and errors won't ever occur with the firms to whom we delegate these responsibilities?

Of course not. We're all merely humans, and true perfection is not within our current realm, nor is it likely ever to be.

But to assume that every error involving extraordinarily complicated software systems is evidence of evil intent is not only inaccurate and inappropriate, by to my way of thinking essentially perverse.

Unfortunately, the political environment in which we live today is replete with character assassinations and toxic "big lie" strategies. It is perhaps unfortunately unavoidable that such perverted approaches would seep into our considerations of highly technical topics as well. We must resist this.

When there are technical challenges we should meet them, when there are technical problems we should solve them. The intersection of technology with social policies is deep and becoming ever more entrenched with every passing day.

The accusatory rhetoric that has wrecked much of our political system cannot be allowed to substitute for reasoned and logical analysis of technical concerns, or the risks to society will be catastrophic.

Whether we're talking about browser cookies or nuclear weapons, the same underlying truth applies.

That's what I believe, anyway.

--Lauren--

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


From: Heywood402/18/2012 10:08:31 PM
   of 30036
 
I've been watching AAPL from a split-adjusted $7.50 (where I bought) to its present $500+

The change over that period has been approximately + 6,600%.

Have you TankWatchers noticed this?

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


From: Heywood402/19/2012 3:57:11 AM
   of 30036
 

Messages from an alternate universe...


I see hope springs eternal for AAPL trolls. Imagine how amusing it is for me to be up 6600% on my AAPL while being serenaded by trolls singing this chorus day in and day out:


Welcome to the top, folks. Apple closed on Wednesday, February 16, 2011 (day 0 of this thread), at $363.13


BREAKING 3/20/2011: SI resident TA guru comes to the party, says AAPL headed down.


BREAKING 4/23/11: Apple plants GPS tracker on iPhone and iPad owners, persistently tracking them. Senators and government agencies worldwide up in arms.


CONVERGENCE COMETH: No Compromise Windows 8-Powered Samsung Tablet Rumored to Debut This Week


Sinofski shows the world that full legacy software and peripheral support in a modern, touch-first OS renders iPad iOS obsolete.



** BREAKING ** Amazon.com rumored to price undercut the entry level iPad this Wednesday, by perhaps 50%.



Kindle Fire released at cost sharply below the iPad. Low-margin iPhone rumored for release this week. Can Apple compete in pre-paid?


Amazon “Punches Apple Hard” With Kindle Fire’s $199 Price. Kindle Fire reportedly selling 50,000 units per day - on a pace to sell2.5 Million units by Nov 15 launch date, demolishing the opening month of the iPad and iPad 2.


*** Apple Misses it Numbers ***

Remarkable run of exceeding estimates has officially come to a glorious end.


Apple extensively advertises beta software* Siri voice command product, as complaints of horrendous battery life on the brand new (3.5 inch screen, 3G) iPhone 4S flood in and no solutions are offered.


Motorola Mobility can now bar Apple from selling any of its mobile devices in Germany."... this decision can be executed "preliminarily", which means under German law that Motorola Mobility can enforce this injunction against Apple from now on even if Apple appeals the ruling"


Investors Dump Apple Stock Amid Broad Market Rally
Additional cutbacks in production, like those preceding Q3 miss reported from channel.


$200 Kindle Invades Day Early: Expected to Dominate Holidays, Sell 5 Million Units Amid Softening Demand for $500-$700 iPad. Price cuts on the iPadexpected; production cuts on iPhone 4S reported mere weeks after it's release.


EU Sales in Doubt
Bad Faith FRAND Negotiation leads Apple to Landmark Loss in German Courts to Motorola


Samsung surpasses Apple in public perception as stereotype of fanboys camping for 3G, small screen phones strikes a chord. European iPhone market share plummets.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (3)


To: Heywood40 who wrote (16807)2/19/2012 6:54:44 AM
From: sylvester80
   of 30036
 
Apple knows no shame: steals ICS camera unlock for iOS
Discuss [47] 17 FEBRUARY 2012 BY MICHAEL CRIDER
androidcommunity.com
“Good artists copy. Great artists steal.” A certain megalomaniacal CEO is famous for this phrase, though the company that he co-founded seems to have forgotten the often-repeated mantra in the last few years. There seem to be plenty of “great artists” left at Apple: In addition to basically lifting Android’s notification system and slapping it into iOS 4, then copying homescreen folders for iOS 5, it looks like they’re planning on yet another misappropriation for iOS 5.1. BGR caught an early glance at the new lockscreen for the March update, which has an “innovative” feature added: users can either swipe right to unlock the phone, or swipe up to go straight to the camera app.



Yup, it’s a tongue-in-cheek copy of Ice Cream Sandwich’s new unlock screen, which offers the same two functions in right and left swipes, respectively. This wouldn’t be aggravating, or even notable, if it weren’t for the fact that Apple’s suing the pants off of absolutely everyone it can drag into a courtroom over its original slide-to-unlock patent. They’re suing Motorola in Germany and Samsung right here in the good old US of A… for the Ice Cream Sandwich unlock screen. The same exact feature that they’re copying for an OS release four months later. Stay classy, Apple.

It’s not as if Android hasn’t used other mobile OS platforms as an influence. The app switch feature in Ice Cream Sandwich is basically a version of WebOS’ card system originally developed by Palm. And speaking of Palm, the iPhone homescreen grid that Apple has so staunchly refused to change is a carbon copy of PalmOS’s launcher that goes back to the early 90s. It really doesn’t bother us if Apple wants to use good (if less than original) ideas to make their products better – that’s part of the consumer electronics world. But to bust out the lawyers to sue a companies that are improving on your idea, then steal it anyway? That’s just downright hypocrisy.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


From: sylvester802/19/2012 7:05:31 AM
   of 30036
 
Kids, Google + And The Increasing Speed Of Innovation
Posted on February 18, 2012
towriteistothink.com
When I started my career on Wall Street in the 80's, I remember reading everything I could about Peter Lynch and his “invest in what you know” strategy. Peter managed the Fidelity Magellan Fund from 1977 to 1990, during which time the fund’s assets grew from $20 million to $14 billion. More importantly, Lynch beat the S&P Index in 11 of those 13 years, achieving an annual average return of 29%.

Two of his most successful investments of all time were Hanes (yes, the same one Michael Jordan pitches) and Dunkin’ Donuts. Lynch invested in Hanes in the 1970s because his wife bought and loved its new L’Eggs pantyhose line — the first department-store-quality pantyhose sold to American women via supermarkets. According to Lynch, “I did a little bit of research. I found out the average woman goes to the supermarket or a drugstore once a week. And they go to a woman’s specialty store or department store once every six weeks. And all the good hosiery, all the good pantyhose is being sold in department stores. They were selling junk in the supermarkets. They were selling junk in the drugstores.” Lynch knew Hanes had a winner. L’Eggs became a huge success, and Hanes became Magellan’s biggest position. He did the same with Dunkin’ Donuts, “I loved their coffee and so did all my friends, the lines were out the door.”

So what does all this have to do with Google+? If you’re reading this, you’re probably a user of social media and if you are, you’ve undoubtedly seen a good deal of negative sentiment surrounding G+.

Let me share a story with you. I’ve got a 13-year old daughter who’s in 7th grade. Six months ago she didn’t text, didn’t IM, and didn’t really spend any significant time in front of a computer or phone. Then she entered junior high school. Fast forward to today: She’s got the outline of her phone permanently etched into the back right pocket of her jeans and she spends a great deal of time at night with her friends on group IM chats. To those with younger (or no) kids who believe “that won’t be my child,” I’ve got one thing to say to you – good luck with that and let me know how it turns out.

Last week, I was lying on the floor of her room doing math homework with her with Rihanna blaring in the background (see my quote above young parents, it’s a new world – she’s a straight A student, who am I to argue with those results?) when I said to her “So you’re 13 now. I’m surprised you haven’t asked me for a Facebook page yet, how come?”

“Facebook? That’s for adults. We use Google +.”

My mind was fully blown. As a VC who is supposed to be spun up on trends in technology, this one caught me as off-guard as Jeremy Lin. I tried as best I could to hide my incredulity and asked her to show me her Google+ page. Sure enough, she and dozens of her friends had the whole thing dialed. Different circles for different classes of friends, the whole shebang.



Try wrapping your head around that. Just a few years ago, Facebook didn’t exist. Now nearly 15% of the people on this planet use it, except that is for my 13 year-old daughter and her group of friends. Frank Sinatra begat Elvis Presley who begat the Beatles. Teenagers eschewing their parents’ ways is as certain as the sun rising tomorrow. A year ago my kids bought all their music through iTunes. Now they both have Rdio accounts and unused iTunes gift cards from the holidays lie untouched on their desks.

Peter Lynch became one of the greatest investors in history in spotting trends before others. Are my daughter and her friends a blip or a trend? And if it’s a trend, what are the implications for Facebook and Google in the next year or two? What other social platform exists in a dorm room today that will displace these giants? One thing is for certain. Innovation is happening faster than ever and I’ll be watching my kids behavior closely to try and keep up with it.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


From: sylvester802/19/2012 9:00:21 AM
   of 30036
 

Samsung Galaxy Note available today on AT&T for $299
m.androidcentral.com
by Phil Nickinson on 2/19/2012 | Filed Under: Smartphones, News; Tags: android, samsung, smartphone, at&t, note, stylus, galaxy note, samsung galaxy note, s pen, at&t galaxy note, galaxy note available | 11 comments


The the Samsung Galaxy Note is finally available in the United States, hitting Best Buy and AT&T's websites right this second, and brick-and-mortar stores just as soon as the sun rises. (And, you know, the stores actually open.)

The Galaxy Note is no stranger to these parts. We reviewed the European version some months ago -- it's already shipped more than 1 million units worldwide -- and we've had the AT&T version for a few days now. They're larger the same (large) smartphone. It's got a hulking (but beautiful) 5.3-inch Super AMOLED display -- with a whopping 800x1280 resolution -- powered by a 1.4 GHz dual-core processor running Android 2.3.6 Gingerbread.It's got an 8-megapixel camera in the back, and a 2MP shooter ujp front.

The AT&T version varies slightly by switching to the traditional 4-butoon scheme below the display, whereas the Euro version opts for a larger, centered home button. That's not unusual -- the Galaxy S and Galaxy S II lines did the same. AT&T's Galaxy Note also throws in a 4G LTE radio in addition to the HSPA+ radio. (Take that, Europe!)

It's a smartphone, to be sure. Makes phone calls and everything. But the noted feature of the note -- and really the reason it's so big -- is the included stylus, called the S Pen. It brings a whole 'nother level of functionality to the traditional Android experience. And when not needed (or wanted), it tucks away neatly into the phone itself, out of sight, out of mind.

There's your teaser. We've got lots more coming in our full AT&T Galaxy Note review. If you're the early adopting type, head into a store today, or hit the links below.

Buy the Samsung Galaxy note: AT&T, Best Buy
More: Galaxy Note forums

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


From: zax2/19/2012 9:04:07 AM
   of 30036
 
Steve Jobs is gone, Windows 8 is coming and Apple panics
By Robert Johnson

betanews.com



I was surprised Apple announced the developer preview of OS X 10.8 yesterday. There is something curiously odd how they went about this, and I believe it has everything to do with the company everyone loves to hate on -- Microsoft.

Anyone following Apple for any length of time should know they are the king of secrecy. Products are announced when they're ready (there are few public betas), usually during invite-only media events. But not this time. Apple claims they did not want to overdo the whole "announcement event" especially having just hosted the iBooks event. That sounds like a pile of crock to me.

According to those in the know, the company hosted private demos among pro-Apple bloggers and journalists -- and as long as two weeks ago. Apple more typically announces a new OS version months before it's made available to anyone, typically during their Worldwide Developer Conference. But with 10.8 things are different. The timing allowed Apple to preempt the release of Windows 8 Consumer Preview, which Microsoft announced in January would be the end of this month.

PC-plus Era

What is so different about today that caused such a drastic change in the way Apple announces and delivers a new operating system? They saw what Microsoft is doing with Windows 8 and panicked.

Say what you want about Microsoft’s Windows 8 strategy, there’s no denying it is aggressive and constitutes one of the biggest shifts in computing the tech industry has seen in almost a decade. Microsoft knows the personal computer's relevance is declining -- hence their use of term "PC-plus" when describing this new era of computing. What we know about Windows 8 and leaked information about Windows Phone 8 confirms their PC-plus mentality. As we will see in Windows 8, the PC becomes a key player along with the phone and TV (Xbox) in productivity and communications.

Apple and Microsoft are attempting to arrive at the same destination from different directions. That destination is mobile computing through device agnostic services and software. The goal: That we as users be able to consume and create content regardless of whether we are mobile or stationary.

Microsoft and Apple have invested much resources in developing continuous services such as sync, continuous communications like FaceTime and Skype and powerful mobile computing capabilities. Microsoft, in making Windows the hub for their PC-plus strategy, instantly has an advantage: Incumbency. Add to that cloud connectivity and sync, parity with Windows Phone and Xbox and ability to run powerful applications, and multiplayer gaming among devices.

The Cat Behind Windows

Take a look at the 10 features Apple revealed about Mountain Lion and compare those Microsoft boasts about Windows 8. Apple is trying to do everything in their power to keep Mac, iPad and iPhone relevant. If that means going to market quickly with features that were planned further down the pipeline, then that’s what they have to do.

Notice how much of iOS they are integrating into OS X: Game Center; Messages; Notification Center; and Reminders. Microsoft has already demoed or mentioned similar services in Windows 8. Game Center is the most telling. Apparently Apple is planning for real-time multiplayer gaming between Apple devices. I don’t believe they are simply copying Microsoft here because this seems to be the way the industry was headed.

My theory is that Apple needed to do something quickly to respond to what Microsoft is doing with Windows 8. This is why we are seeing this new operating system announced as a developer preview in February with a general release in “late summer”.

Windows 8 and its bundled services suddenly makes the iPad, and Mac look less attractive. This smells of panic on the part of Apple, who wants to stay ahead or at least have parity with Windows 8. I think what Microsoft demoed about Windows 8 in September and what has been leaked so far about Windows Phone 8 caused many people to realize OS strategy is not only on the right track but is moving quickly and aggressively to advance the platforms.

Apple will probably release OS X 10.8 long before Windows 8 ships. I can already hear the Apple pundits screaming about how Microsoft overtly copied features of 10.8 that had already been announced for some time. It seems odd to me that the company that coined the term “Post-PC era” is suddenly so “PC-plus” in their strategy.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: sylvester80 who wrote (16806)2/19/2012 1:24:13 PM
From: zax
   of 30036
 
Vibrant Media, Media Innovation Group and PointRoll, Google and others took advantage of the cookie handling code Apple implemented in Safari. It should amuse those using Safari (iPhone, iPad or Mac owners) to no end that they' are being tracked and their web-viewing habits recorded and sent to many different companies.

Users of Internet Explorer, Firefox and Chrome were not affected. Thats right, no other major browsers. Not even browsers like Chrome and the Android browser, which share Safari's WebKit.

Check out the graphics Apple submitted with their new OS-X/ / iOS anti-malware patent application, describing how these OS's now automatically prevent these attack vectors. An interesting read follows...






Who are Vibrant Media, WPP and PointRoll?
Steve White/THE CANADIAN PRESS - Google is one of four advertisers to circumvent Safari’s privacy settings.

By Hayley Tsukayama,

washingtonpost.com



Google may be facing the bulk of the backlash over a bit of code that went around Safari’s privacy settings to attach cookies to users’ devices, but it was not the only company to do so. Here’s a quick look at the other companies that used the same tactics.

Vibrant Media: Vibrant Media is known for its in-text ads, aka those double-underlined mouseover ads that pop up in the text of articles on the Web. According to Vibrant, its ads reach 250 million unique users per month working with partners including Microsoft, Unilever, Chrysler and AT&T.
According to researcher Jonathan Mayer, Vibrant — along with Google — purposefully tried to circumvent Safari’s privacy settings. In a statement to the Wall Street Journal, Vibrant Media said that it used a “workaround” to “make Safari work like all the other browsers” and that it did not collect personally identifiable information.

WPP: WPP is one of the largest advertising groups in the world, earning $7.4 billion in revenue in 2011. There are more than 150 companies in WPP’s group, including advertisers such as JWT and Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide, as well as policy and lobbying firms such as Burston Marsteller.

The company that is said to have circumvented Safari’s settings is the WPP’s Media Innovation Group, part of WPP’s digital group. The MIG is known for its B3 advertising tool, which lets advertisers track the effectiveness of ads and allocate funds to the most successful ones. The Journal reported that the group declined to comment on Mayer’s research.

PointRoll: PointRoll is a Gannett company, specializing in digital circulars and other “rich media” ads such as videos. PointRoll says that it is the leading rich media advertiser on the Web and works on mobile and Web ads.

Web analytics firm Quantcast estimates that PointRoll powers more than 50 percent of all rich media campaigns online. In a company blog post, PointRoll said that it does not “currently employ” the technique mentioned in Mayer’s research. “PointRoll conducted a limited test within the Safari browser to determine the effectiveness of our mobile ads,” wrote Rob Gatto, PointRoll’s chief executive. “The test did not involve the collection, retention or resale of any specific user information. The limited test ended on February 8, 2012, and we made the decision not to employ this practice further.”

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.