Now, though, there's a new wave of interest, sparked by the proliferation of smartphones with bigger screens, notably the iPhone.
While few people are watching live television, more and more seem to be putting programmes on their phones to watch on the move, and it seems the BBC's iPlayer service for mobiles has also proved quite popular.
Some dedicated gadget fans are also using Slingbox's technology to deliver their home television service to their mobile phones. But this week, Sky launched a mobile TV service aimed specifically at iPhone users, and it set me wondering whether at last someone was going to crack the live TV conundrum..."
"ComScore’s October search market analysis is in and it’s good news for two of the Big Three search engines. Google and Microsoft both posted gains for the month, while Yahoo suffered a decline.
Google (GOOG) claimed 65.4 percent of the domestic search market in October, up from 64.9 percent in September, according to comScore. Meanwhile, Microsoft’s (MSFT) share rose to 9.9 percent from 9.4 percent in September. A modest bit of growth for the month, but quite impressive year over year. Search volume was up 30.8 percent from October 2008..."
from All Things Digital
But now, a major company have filed a patent application for technology that will force consumers to watch ads, using what they’re calling an ‘enforcement routine.’ The technology will apply to almost anything that has a screen – computers, phones, televisions, media players, game devices etc etc.
If and when the new technology is introduced, messages will crop up on the screen, demanding clicks from the consumer. Questions about the advert may be asked, ensuring that you’ve been paying full attention to the message being delivered by the advertiser.
...
Mr Hector Sants,
Chief Executive,
The Financial Services Authority
25 The North Colonnade
Canary Wharf
London E14 5HS
15th November 2009
Dear Mr Sants
I am writing to the FSA today to complain in the strongest terms about the behaviour of the Chief Executive Officer and management team of a company in which I am invested - Blinkx, listed on AIM.
Back in January 2008 the Blinkx CEO, Suranga Chandratillake, was at the DLD08 conference when he was asked by Martin Sorrell of WPP about the Blinkx business model. Mr Chandratillake replied that Blinkx was ‘very close to break-even’. This was, in my view, a very clear representation of Blinkx’s financial position, stated in public and on the record. It also happened to be untrue.
There are of course many definitions of break-even, and a company’s position can of course change (for example a company may be on target for break-even, but then execute a takeover which saddles it with debt and postpones that break-even point).
However, as recently as the interims for the 6 months ended 30th September 2009 (online at Investegate - http://www.investegate.co.uk/Article.aspx?id=200911030700118192B ) there is not, to my inexpert eye, any indication that any kind of break-even has been reached – and this more than 20 months after Mr Chandratillake’s reply to Mr Sorrell.
This is not a matter of memory or contemporary reporting, Mr Sants – unfortunately for Mr Chandratillake the exchange with Mr Sorrell was caught on video, and can be viewed here:
http://criticaldistance.blogspot.com/2008/01/blinkx-business.html
The exchange betweenMr Sorrell and Mr Chandratillake begins at about 43 minutes into the video, and at about 44m 20s Mr Chandratillake quite clearly says – in public, on the record and on video – that Blinkx is “very close to breakeven”.
As I say, there may of course be legitimate reasons why Mr Chandratillake said what he did and why the company did not then achieve break-even: but I’m sure I’m not the only shareholder who increased their shareholding in the company as a result of that statement; and having made the statement, if circumstances then changed surely it was incumbent on Mr Chandratillake and the management team to explain what had changed and why. As it is we are now nearly two years down the road with no explanation whatsoever of why Mr Chandratillakie’s very clear representation of fact has not, so far as I can tell, been borne out by the company’s published figures.
On a separate but related note, Mr Sants, I understand that it is a requirement of being listed on AIM for a company to keep available an up-to-date list of major shareholders. Blinkx, despite repeated requests from myself and other shareholders, had consistently failed to do so. Their list of shareholders on the Blinkx website (at http://www.blinkx.com/investors?category=Shareholder%20Information) is out-of-date – the company, has, for example, recently completed a share placing that took Autonomy’s stake to 13.6% (from memory). The list of shareholders does not reflect this change, nor many others.
I would ask that the FSA investigates these matters and, if it agrees with my interpretation, that it should censure Mr Chandratillake and Blinkx to the greatest possible degree. The company and its management team seems to have forgotten its responsibilities to shareholders – I think they need reminding of their obligations.
TR-1: notification of major interests in shares
1. Identity of the issuer or the underlying issuer of existing shares to which voting rights are attached: | Blinkx plc | |
2. Reason for the notification (please tick the appropriate box or boxes) | ||
An acquisition or disposal of voting rights | X | |
An acquisition or disposal of financial instruments which may result in the acquisition of shares already issued to which voting rights are attached | ||
An event changing the breakdown of voting rights | ||
Other (please specify):___________________________________________ | ||
3. Full name of person(s) subject to the notification obligation: | Autonomy Corporation plc | |
4. Full name of shareholder(s) (if different from 3.): | ||
5. Date of the transaction (and date on which the threshold is crossed or reached if different): | 6 November 2009 | |
6. Date on which issuer notified: | 6 November 2009 | |
7. Threshold(s) that is/are crossed or reached: | 13% | |
8. Notified details: | ||
A: Voting rights attached to shares | |||||||
Class/type of shares if possible using the ISIN CODE | Situation previous to the Triggering transaction | Resulting situation after the triggering transaction | |||||
Number of Shares | Number of Voting Rights | Number of shares | Number of voting rights | % of voting rights | |||
Direct | Direct | Indirect | Direct | Indirect | |||
Ordinary 1p | 27,510,046 | 27,510,046 | 42,497,166 | 42,497,166 | 13.8% | ||
B: Financial Instruments | ||||
Resulting situation after the triggering transaction | ||||
Type of financial instrument | Expiration date | Exercise/ Conversion Period/ Date | Number of voting rights that may be acquired if the instrument is exercised/ converted. | % of voting rights |
- | ||||
Total (A+B) | |
Number of voting rights | % of voting rights |
42,497,166 | 13.8% |
9. Chain of controlled undertakings through which the voting rights and/or the financial instruments are effectively held, if applicable: |
Proxy Voting: | |
10. Name of the proxy holder: | |
11. Number of voting rights proxy holder will cease to hold: | |
12. Date on which proxy holder will cease to hold voting rights: | |
13. Additional information: | |
14. Contact name: | Frances Smith |
15. Contact telephone number: | 01223 488500 |
