Minggu, 02 Desember 2007

Microsoft Challenges the iPod (Again)

Microsoft Challenges the iPod (Again)


Published: November 29, 2007

(Page 2 of 2)

Here are some of the iPod features that the Zune lacks: Games, alarm clock, stopwatch, world clock, password-protected volume limiter, graphic equalizer, notepad, auto-synched copy of your computer’s calendar and address book, and Disk Mode, which lets an iPod serve as an external drive for carrying around computer files.

If you use the Zune’s wireless features, you’ll also get much worse battery life: 19 hours of music playback on the 80-gig Zune versus 30 on the equivalent iPod. The 80-gig Zune is still thicker and chunkier than its iPod rival, too.

Above all, you may miss that thriving virtual bazaar of iPod accessories: more than 3,000 stereo docks, cases, car adapters, and so on, compared with only a handful for the Zune.

Here are some of the iTunes software features missing in the Zune’s software: Smart Playlists, which assemble groups of songs based on criteria that you specify (“80’s up-tempo songs I haven’t heard in three months”), choice of visualizers (screen-saver effects that dance to the music), closed captioning for videos and TV, Cover Flow view, and a graphic equalizer.

The Zune store is missing a lot of iPod features, too: TV shows, movies, audio books, monthly allowances and comprehensible pricing.

At the iTunes store, you pay $1 a song. But on the Zune store, you pay using Microsoft Points, which are sold in blocks of 400 ($5). Songs cost 79 to 129 points, which means 99 cents to $1.61. Suddenly, you’re a currency trader.

This absurd system serves nobody except Microsoft. First, it’s a ham-handed effort to make you lose track of how many dollars you’re actually spending. Second, you can’t just buy one song; the least you can spend is $5. And finally, you’ll inevitably waste money, since it’s unlikely that Microsoft’s various song prices will divide evenly into 400.

The bottom line: the iPod is still a more versatile, compact and beautiful machine. But the Zune has come a long way in very little time. Already, its potential audience is no longer limited to a sect of irrational Apple haters. It’s now a candidate for anyone who values its unique powers — excellent built-in FM radio, scratchproof case and wireless auto-synching — more than they value the richness and choice of the iPod universe.

E-mail: Pogue@nytimes.com

Vivendi to Acquire Control of Activision

Vivendi to Acquire Control of Activision


Published: December 3, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO, Dec. 2 — In a deal that creates the biggest independent video game publisher in the world, Vivendi announced Sunday it plans to acquire a controlling stake in Activision.

Under the arrangement, the companies said Vivendi would pay $1.7 billion in cash and fold its games operations into Activision’s. The deal will leave Vivendi with a 68 percent share of the combined company, to be called Activision Blizzard.

The companies said the new entity would continue to trade publicly on Nasdaq. Blizzard Entertainment is the name of the most successful game studio in Vivendi’s game operations.

Under the deal, Vivendi, based in Paris, will pay $27.50 a share for Activision, a 24 percent premium over Friday’s close of $22.15.

The deal combines companies with different areas of strength in the booming video game business. Activision’s emphasis is on making games for consoles, like the Sony PlayStation 3 and Microsoft Xbox 360. Its game franchises include the Tony Hawk skateboarding games, the Call of Duty war game series and one of the industry’s current best sellers, Guitar Hero, which allows players to strum along on a plastic guitar to tunes played on the television.

Vivendi’s strength is in online multiplayer games, such as World of Warcraft, which has more than nine million players worldwide.

The two companies said that their combined revenue for the 2007 calendar year would be $3.8 billion. The new entity will surpass Electronic Arts, with annual revenue of about $3 billion, as the largest video game publisher in the world that is not affiliated with a console maker, like Microsoft or Nintendo. The two companies said they expected operating income for the new company of $1.1 billion, or $1.20 a share, in the 2009 calendar year and also said it would have the highest profit margins in the industry.

In the merger, expected to be completed in the first half of 2008, shares of Vivendi Games will be converted into 295.3 million new shares of Activision common stock, a transaction that values Vivendi Games at $8.1 billion. Vivendi will also buy 62.9 million newly issued shares of Activision for $1.7 billion in cash.

The two companies also said that within five business days after closing the transaction, Activision Blizzard would begin a $4 billion all-cash tender offer to purchase up to 146.5 million Activision Blizzard common shares at $27.50 a share. If the tender offer is fully subscribed, Vivendi said it would own 68 percent of Activision Blizzard on a fully diluted basis.

Despite Vivendi’s taking the larger stake in the new company, Robert A. Kotick, chief executive of Activision, will remain as chief executive of the combined companies. Bruce Hack, the chief executive of Vivendi Games, will become vice chairman and chief corporate officer and lead the merger integration as well as head finance, human resources and legal functions, the two companies said.

Even as the deal puts Activision Blizzard in the top spot in terms of revenue, the question that will face investors is whether Activision can duplicate the business model of Electronic Arts.

Electronic Arts has built its business on creating numerous game franchises that deliver reliable streams of annual revenue. For instance, in its 2007 fiscal year, the company had 24 titles that sold more than a million copies each, and four games — Madden NFL 07, Need for Speed Carbon, FIFA 07, and The Sims 2 Pets — that sold more than five million copies.

It has done that, in part, by buying studios with popular games. Compared with its competitors, Electronic Arts has invested relatively heavily in the new platforms of casual and mobile games, and popular multiplayer games, industry analysts said. The investments have yet to pay off, but if they do, they could be a big boost to Electronic Arts, analysts said.

In recent years, there have been many examples of major publishers’ buying video game development studios. But the Activision Blizzard merger represents a substantially more significant deal, and one with immense stakes. The video game software industry is poised for a record year, driven by the recent introduction of the PlayStation 3, Nintendo Wii and Xbox 360 game consoles.

But the industry also needs companies to create hits and be able to sustain them. Mr. Kotick has said he is eager for Activision to catch Electronic Arts and become the largest video game company. “By joining forces with Vivendi Games, we will become the immediate leader in the highly profitable online games business and gain a large footprint in the rapidly growing Asian markets, including China and Korea, while maintaining our leading operating performance across North America and Europe,” Mr. Kotick said in a statement Sunday morning.

Activision, based in Santa Monica, Calif., has been an industry darling of late, in large part because of the popularity of Guitar Hero III, the latest iteration of the franchise. It was introduced on Oct. 28, and sold 1.3 million copies within seven days. Through October, Activision had three of the eight best-selling games in the United States this year, according to NPD Group, which compiles sales data.

Activision’s sales and stock have risen with the momentum. The company’s revenue for the 2007 fiscal year was $1.5 billion, a 74 percent increase from 2003. During that same period, Electronic Arts’ revenue rose 25 percent to $3.1 billion. This year, Activision’s stock is up about 28 percent to $22, while E.A.’s is up 13 percent. And since March 2003, Activision’s shares are up nearly sixfold from $3.68 (on a split-adjusted basis).

But even as Activision has been on a roll, industry analysts have questioned whether it can build the kind of library of franchises to compete with Electronic Arts. The addition of Vivendi Games gives Activision access to Vivendi’s portfolio of multiplayer games.

Mr. Kotick also said that because Vivendi owns the Universal Music Group, the transaction “will benefit Guitar Hero and further extend our sizable leadership position in music-based games.”

For the 2008 Race, Google Is a Crucial Constituency

For the 2008 Race, Google Is a Crucial Constituency

Kimberly White/Getty Images

Senator Barack Obama, left, speaking to Google employees. Eric E. Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, asked questions of Senator Obama.


Published: December 2, 2007

LAST century, General Motors assembly plants were a regular stop on the itineraries of presidential candidates. This election cycle, Google headquarters in Mountain View, Calif., has become a favorite destination.

Hillary Rodham Clinton made the pilgrimage in February. Then came John McCain, Bill Richardson, John Edwards, Ron Paul, Mike Gravel and most recently, Barack Obama.

In terms of theatrical symbolism, the trip to Google is similar to the G.M. plant visit. In both cases, the visits gave the candidate the chance for a photo opportunity at the most technologically advanced edge of the economy, “signaling identification with the future,” said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication.

On a more mundane level, candidates in the pre-mass-media era were concerned with reaching as many prospective voters as possible in one place, and any large factory would do. At Google, the number of employees who can see the candidates in person is limited: the largest space at the Googleplex holds only a few hundred people.

Everyone in the 16,000-employee company can watch the event in real time over the company’s internal network in their offices scattered around the globe. But Google employees, like almost everyone else, prefer the live version. At Senator Obama’s talk last month, the atrium and overhanging balcony filled well in advance, and streams of employees poured into the building and then had to be turned away.

The politicians visiting auto plants could control what was said during the event. Today, candidates must place themselves at the tender mercies of the audience. Those who go to Google sit exposed on the stage, without the protective lectern provided in a debate, answering questions for 45 to 60 minutes. But without the escape hatch of a timekeeper’s buzzer, and as the only speaker, the candidate cannot evade uncomfortable questions. Eric E. Schmidt, Google’s chairman and chief executive, for example, asked Senator Obama for his views on Iran, Pakistan, and Guantánamo — and that was a single question.

The proceedings at Google are not unremittingly serious affairs. Mr. Schmidt asked Senator McCain, “How do you determine good ways of sorting one million 32-bit integers in two megabytes of RAM?” Immediately signaling that the question was asked in jest, Mr. Schmidt moved on. Six months later, Senator Obama faced the same question, but his staff had prepared him. When he replied in fluent tech-speak (“A bubble sort is the wrong way to go”), the quip brought down the house.

Among the seven visiting candidates, only Senator Obama used his Google visit to announce details of policy proposals related to technology. Until his visit, he and Senator Edwards were widely viewed among technology bloggers as the two candidates who had the strongest positions on Internet neutrality, expanded broadband access and other technology issues. With his Google visit, however, Senator Obama succeeded in drawing attention to his plans for using technology to make government more accessible and transparent with, for example, live Internet feeds of all executive branch department and agency meetings. This was old-school campaigning, organized around a company visit, done well.

Though all of the candidate sessions at Google are available on YouTube, they are not YouTube-like: they require an investment of time that, by YouTube viewer standards, is inconceivable. A 43-minute video of Senator Clinton’s Google session has been available since February and has drawn only about 54,000 “views,” which count as soon as the video is begun but leave unknown the more interesting number: completed views.

Senator Edwards’s and Senator Obama’s videos, both of which run longer than an hour, have not been up as long and have still fewer viewers. The biggest draw has turned out to be Representative Ron Paul, whose July visit has been viewed, or at least started, more than 350,000 times.

For perspective, consider the numbers that short-form videos of a less serious nature draw. Search for “Barack Obama” on YouTube and you will find that the most-viewed video is titled “I Got a Crush ... on Obama.” It lacks narrative, content and anything other than a young woman with large breasts lip-synching, but it has tallied more than four million views. The most-viewed video that turns up for a “Hillary Clinton” search is “Vote Different,” a dark parody of Apple’s “1984” commercial that portrays the senator most unflatteringly, as a giant TV image that is shattered. It is also approaching four million views.

YouTube has a separate section, “YouChoose ’08,” that gives each candidate a protected space for more serious discourse, similar to the way the broadcast networks give Sunday mornings over to civic uplift. YouChoose also provides access to last Wednesday’s CNN/YouTube debate with the Republican candidates, and the earlier one in July with the Democrats.

Professor Jamieson credits YouTube with broadening the range of questions in the debates, making them more memorable by having users submit the questions in the form of personal videos, and making everything searchable afterward. In the past, she said, “if you missed a debate, you missed it.”

The ability to select for playback any question in the debate and the candidates’ responses provides easy, precise access to the contents, sliced and diced, that was never possible before. But it also contributes to a shortening of our collective attention span.

THIS is hardly new — we’ve already come a long way from the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 for a Senate seat, which held the audience rapt, on one occasion, for three hours — then everyone dispersed for dinner and came back for the four-hour rebuttal. The contrast with the public’s attenuated attention in the age of television, which Neil Postman pointed out in his 1985 book “Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business,” was great. The contrast is all the greater today, with the advent of the short, nonlinear clips of YouTube.

It is easy to forget that this is YouTube’s first presidential campaign: the company was founded in only 2005 and acquired by Google in 2006. By the time the next campaign cycle rolls around in 2011, YouTube’s influence on the culture may be so complete that a 45-minute linear video of a question-answer session will seem to most people to be about 43 minutes too long.

A midcampaign trek to Google headquarters in Silicon Valley may soon seem no less quaint than one to a G.M. plant in Flint, Mich. The candidates need not seek out the cameras — from now on, the cameras will always find them.

Randall Stross is an author based in Silicon Valley and a professor of business at San Jose State University. E-mail: stross@nytimes.com.

If the Shoe Fits, Wear It. If Not, Design One That Does.

If the Shoe Fits, Wear It. If Not, Design One That Does.

Kirk Condyles for The New York Times

Robert Klemm, who has 60 pairs of shoes in his own collection, went to the Steve Madden Web site to design the gingham pumps that his girlfriend, Kate Feehan, is wearing.


Published: December 2, 2007

EVEN for the most dedicated shopper, finding just the right pair of shoes can be elusive. A store-to-store search — whether on the Web or at the mall — can take hours. Shoppers may think they’ve found the perfect pair, only to be stymied by a problem with fit, style or color.

Skip to next paragraph

If you don’t like the shoes you find in the stores, you can go to a Web site like Stevemadden.com and choose your own color, pattern, style and size.

It’s not that retailers don’t try, as the huge shoe sections in department stores like Saks and Nordstrom, and Web sites like Zappos and Shoes.com, attest. But for those with very individual or exacting tastes — and with money to spare — some Internet retailers offer design-it-yourself options in footwear. Customization is more common with athletic shoes, but fashion footwear is beginning to catch up.

Makers like Vans and Nike are among the companies that offer customized shoes, allowing both women and men to create their own look from existing styles, colors and materials.

Cale Valdez, a college student in Huntington, Calif., went to vans.com to find a memorable look for his wedding last month. He designed some red and black canvas slip-ons for the wedding party, including matching lace-ups for his father-in-law.

“My groomsmen had black tuxes and red vests, so we thought it would look great to have red shoes,” he said of the slip-ons, which cost $40 a pair.

Nikeid.com, which attracts almost as many women as men, has customers who order hundreds of pairs. The hip-hop disc jockey known as Clark Kent, of Brooklyn, has designed 350 pairs of shoes on the site, including his favorite, a pair of purple, black and teal Air Force 1’s, which cost him about $275.

“The biggest attraction is the ability to shock,” he said. “You want a pair that people notice so they ask you: ‘Where did you get those?’”

While customized sneakers are available on many athletic shoe Web sites, fashion shoes are harder, although not impossible, to find.

For women who are willing to spend a hefty sum, there is Tupli, started three years ago by two women who were leaving careers in banking.

“This is ideal for the woman who can imagine the perfect shoe but can’t find it,” said Kathy Myczowski, 34. She went into the individual shoe design business with Tamara Chubinidze, 26, who is from the Republic of Georgia, where such shoemaking is more prevalent and where Tupli’s shoes are made.

Clients can browse tupli.com for ideas and then send in their measurements, or be measured personally in New York. Tupli had a by-appointment shop in Manhattan for a couple of years, but switched to online last year because its customers were far flung, Ms. Myczowski said.

Amolyn Peart, a banking manager who has purchased three pairs of shoes from the company, became intrigued with the idea after spotting a woman wearing Tupli footwear (a name derived from the Russian word for shoe) at a business gathering.

“The shoes were so gorgeous and unusual, so I immediately asked her where she got them,” said Ms. Peart, of West Orange, N.J. Like many people, she is hard to fit: her shoe size is between 8 1/2 and 9, and ready-made shoes are often too tight in the toe.

Tupli’s clients — who include the actress Susan Sarandon — have a choice of leather and suede, as well as embellishments like rhinestones and personal logos, and initials on the upper or even on the sole, said Ms. Myczowski.

The first made-to-measure Tupli shoe that Ms. Peart designed for herself was a black and red pump for an event at work. “Everyone noticed it, especially because they were all wearing black shoes,” she recalled.

Since then, she has ordered another pair of shoes and a pair of boots.

Prices for Tupli shoes start at a hefty $750 for shoes and $1,450 for boots, and customers must wait six to eight weeks for them.

Those who want a less expensive made-to-order shoe that won’t take as long to arrive can turn to Stevemadden.com. Steven Madden, founder of the company, says more than 100,000 pairs of design-your-own shoes have been sold through the site, where the prices range from $90 to $170.

That’s what Robert Klemm, 27, a loan officer in Bethpage, N.Y., did last summer after he learned about Steve Madden Ltd.’s “Design Your Own Collection.” A shoe aficionado — he owns 60 pairs — he wanted to create some shoes to surprise his girlfriend, Kate Feehan, for her birthday.

Starting with her size, 9, he clicked through the site to select a style, heel and color, putting together a navy gingham open-toe pump with a cork heel and sole that Mr. Klemm thought “would look good with everything from jeans to dresses.”

He spent $150 plus shipping and tax. The site charges a 20 percent premium for made-to-order shoes, which are assembled in China and are not returnable. The turnaround time is three weeks, according to the site.

RIGHT now, Stevemadden.com has almost no online competition. But Jeffrey Van Sinderen, apparel analyst for B. Riley & Company in Los Angeles, predicted that other makers would not be far behind, despite the large investment needed to set up a factory to make the shoes and a system to distribute them.

Made-to-order shoes are profitable, he said, and “it answers the question of how you make the product more compelling to the consumer, and that’s to give them the power to design it.”

In shoes, passion often trumps the practical. To Mary A. Johnson, 22, online design is about owning something unique.

Ms. Johnson, a student at West Los Angeles College, owns 200 pairs of shoes, but that didn’t stop her from going to Stevemadden.com recently to design some ballet flats in a purple shade and trimming them in red.

“This is something you make yourself,” she said, “instead of settling for what’s out there.”

Lots of Little Screens: TV Is Changing Shape

Lots of Little Screens: TV Is Changing Shape

An episode of “Backpack Picnic” on ON Networks.


Published: December 2, 2007

INEXPENSIVE broadband access has done far more for online video than enable the success of services like YouTube and iTunes. By unchaining video watchers from their TV sets, it has opened the floodgates to a generation of TV producers for whom the Internet is their native medium.

Skip to next paragraph

A scene from “Quarterlife” on its own Web site.

And as they shift their focus away from TV to grab us on one of the many other screens in our lives — our computers, cellphones and iPods — the command-and-control economic model of traditional television is being quickly superseded by the market chaos of a freewheeling and open digital network.

According to Move Networks, a company based in Utah that provides online video technologies, more than 100,000 new viewers jump online every 24 hours to watch its clients’ long-form or episodic video. During the first two weeks of November alone, more than twice the number of Americans were watching TV online than in the entire month of August.

The shift is proving quite inspirational to digital media entrepreneurs.

“What absolutely convinced me to start a company in this area was when I realized just how large the disruption was,” said Kip McClanahan, the co-founder and chief executive of ON Networks, an online studio in Austin, Tex. “It touches everything — how video content is created and monetized, how it’s distributed and consumed. And it’s a half-trillion-dollar market, if you include the advertising that supports it and the revenue associated with subscriptions, tickets and so on.”

A market that size provides plenty of room for experimentation. Many flavors of technology and programming are being tested, as are some changes in traditional revenue models.

Vuze, based in Palo Alto, and Joost, based in Leiden in the Netherlands, for example, have both developed proprietary software that must be downloaded to view their video programming. In addition to providing programming from established brands like PBS, Showtime, the BBC and A&E, the start-ups encourage new producers to make deals with them and upload new programs to their sites.

ON does not distribute any traditional TV shows. Instead, it works with professional content creators who develop original programs in HDTV. So far, it has produced hundreds of episodes for 25 programs, all of which are available at the ON Web site, as well as through iTunes and AT&T, its distribution partners. They include a dating show, produced in partnership with NBC, and a home-building show called “Mainstream Green.”

Blip Networks, based in New York, is another company working to create its own established brands, providing thousands of short-form videos from all comers. In addition to one-off documentaries like “Gotham Girls Roller Derby,” Blip’s library includes weekly news satires like “Goodnight Burbank,” which drew favorable notice from several mainstream media outlets, including USA Today and The Los Angeles Times.

Blip syndicates its programming to America Online, Yahoo, Google, iTunes, Facebook and other big Web distributors. Vuze, Joost, Blip and ON all share as much as 50 percent of their revenue with the content producers, regardless of distribution medium. “If that model existed today, writers wouldn’t be on strike,” said Mr. McClanahan.

René Pinnell, the director of “Backpack Picnic,” a popular sketch comedy show that came to ON after the troupe produced two pilots that were never shown by MTV, said the online environment is a “really good deal” for many reasons.

“The biggest one is that it allows us a tremendous amount of creative freedom we wouldn’t get in a more traditional media environment,” he said. “The investment is low for them — nowhere near the $500,000 a network will spend on one episode. They can afford to trust us.”

For its part, Hulu of Los Angeles has turned a traditional TV library into a promotional vehicle for, well, more TV. The joint venture between NBC Universal and the News Corporation offers scores of popular prime-time shows from all the major networks and channels, as well as past hits like “Buffy the Vampire Slayer.”

“Because people can watch TV shows when and where they want, they can sample a lot more shows,” said Jason Kilar, chief executive of Hulu.

As a means to that end, Hulu may have persuaded the industry to relax a bit. Hulu’s player allows viewers to create short video clips from the shows they watch and put them in e-mail messages or on Web sites, including blogs, an activity that in the past has drawn nasty letters from copyright lawyers. “This is a key way that we can make sure the content finds the audience,” said Mr. Kilar.

But what happens to the television industry when the traditional way for content to find its audience becomes obsolete?

“There’s a lot of rewriting of the concept of windows in the TV network world today — the timing of when and where shows appear,” said Allen Weiner, the managing vice president for media and consumer technologies for the Gartner Group in Scottsdale, Ariz.

In the old days, after something appeared on TV, its release to other distribution channels was carefully staged — from the timing of reruns to the DVD release to when it would be available on-demand. “We’re seeing all kinds of new windows occurring, and no one knows what the magic formula will be,” he said. “A lot depends on advertiser reaction and on user behavior.”

One closely watched approach is the new online series “Quarterlife,” by Marshall Herskovitz and Edward Zwick, who produced “My So-Called Life.” Episodes first appear on MySpace TV, then are available the next day on Quarterlife.com, and a week later on YouTube, Facebook and Imeem. There is talk that they may even appear later on network TV — but as the last window, rather than the first.

As far as ON is concerned, Mr. McClanahan intends to put his programs in every single window he can find. Unlike other companies, ON optimizes all its shows for viewing on any video-capable device, a feature he calls “lifestyle distribution.”

That’s why he has deals with partners like iTunes and AT&T’s Television, Broadband and Wireless Services, both of which can deliver video programs to multiple devices, from plasma TVs to computer screens and cellphones.

“You can’t expect to control consumers and force them to come to prime time at 7 p.m. on a Monday night,” said Mr. McClanahan. “If the consumer wants it on their phone at 3 p.m. while they’re on the golf course, then that’s where we have to deliver it.”

Denise Caruso is executive director of the Hybrid Vigor Institute, which studies collaborative problem-solving. E-mail: dcaruso@nytimes.com.

21st Century HealthCare, Inc - Commercial Success in Iraq

Commercial Success in Iraq

21st Century HealthCare vitamins on display in Iraq.
21st Century HealthCare vitamins on display in Iraq.
21st Century HealthCare vitamins on sale in a local drug store
21st Century HealthCare vitamins on sale in a local drug store. (November 2004, Mosul, Iraq)

21st Century HealthCare, Inc.
2119 S. Wilson
Tempe, AZ 85282

Contact: Craig R. Rochette, Director of International Sales
Tel: (480) 966-8201 x16
E-mail: crochette@21stcenturyvitamins.com
Website: http://www.21stcenturyvitamins.com

21st Century HealthCare, Inc. has made 5 shipments of vitamin supplements since February 2004, totaling close to $200,000 to Iraq through a local distributor, who has obtained 21st Century Healthcare products in Jordan in the past. Craig Rochette, Director of International Sales states, “there is a cosmopolitan sector of Iraqi society which is educated and aware of the growing popularity of our natural products. We have considerable distribution in the Mid-East, and combined with my familiarity of the region and personal relationships forged over several trips, we have cemented our distributor relations.”

Headquartered in Tempe, Arizona, 21st Century HealthCare, Inc., is one of the largest manufacturers of dietary supplements in the United States today. The company manufactures a full line of nutritional supplements, vitamins, minerals, herbal extracts and specialty formulations, from their corporate facilities in Tempe, Arizona using U.S. raw materials, and packaging/labeling components.

Advanced Technology Systems - Commercial Success in Iraq

Commercial Success in Iraq

Advanced Technology Systems

6775 Daly Road

Suite 101

West Bloomfield, Michigan 48322

Congressional District: MI-14

Contact: Saad Hajjar, Chief Operating Officer

Tel: 248-538-7300; Fax: 248-538-1662

E-mail: saad.hajjar@atsiraq.com

Website: http://www.atsiraq.com

Advanced Technology Systems, a small-size Michigan telecommunications firm, is currently providing broadband Internet service via satellites in Baghdad. It also provides Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP), which allows individuals to use the Internet for spoken conversations. The firm has become one of the largest providers of broadband Internet services for businesses and universities in Baghdad. With a potential Iraqi market of 25 million customers, it has been entering into a deal every two days and expects to expand its services in coming months. Advanced Technology’s anticipates its Iraqi sales to total more than $2 million in 2004.

The firm, led by Iraqi-Americans, is dedicated to aiding in the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Iraq. “We believe in the potential of Iraq,” explains chief operating officer Saad Hajjar. “We share the vision that a free and democratic Iraq is the best chance for change and prosperity.” In support of this initiative, Advance Technology’s Baghdad office employees 14 people, 9 of whom are Iraqis. Advanced Technology Systems is witnessing an increase in demand for its services and anticipates employing many more Iraqis.

Advanced Technology Systems recognizes Iraq’s market potential. According to Mr. Hajjar, “Iraq is rich in mineral and human resources. In addition to oil, sulfur, phosphate and natural gas, it has highly educated and experienced technocrats. The more secure Iraq becomes, the more we and other businesses will expand and increase employment. Iraq will become a center of commerce, industrial development, investment and tourism for the Middle East.”

Hit Counter

Arsip Blog