Dell has been working hard on their latest offering of professional quality tower workstations. They promise their new Dell Precision series will deliver fast, versatile solutions optimized for innovators in the design and creation industry. Not only do they perform at optimal levels, but service and maintenance features have also been streamlined to decrease extended downtimes and make them more user friendly.
Adam Watkins, Computer Graphics Supervisor at Pixomondo comments on the new Dell workstations:
“Dell Precision workstations are the number one recommendation I’ve made to other visual effects professionals over the years. We need cutting-edge technology and performance while working tough deadlines,”
“I have been delighted –and sometimes saved — by every Dell workstation I’ve ever used for more than 20 shows! It’s one technology that I know I can consistently count on and I’m looking forward to the new design and performance of Dell’s new workstations.”
Marc Meadows, P.E., President of Meadows Analysis and Design also comments on the new Dell workstations:
“We rely on Dell Precision workstations to run our 3D modeling and real-time analysis software to verify designs for our customers in oil and gas, water waste treatment, aerospace engineering and other industries. Since switching to Dell Precision workstations, we’ve experienced 12-fold faster 3D analysis and reduced a 19 hour simulation to 1.5 hours, enabling faster turnaround and improved accuracy.”
Check out these cool videos on the design and capabilities of these new workstations:
Here are some highlights from the new Dell Precision workstations:
* Externally Removable Power Supply – Dell is offering the industry’s only tool-less externally removable power supply on a mainstream tower workstation². The power supply is lockable and has a built-in handle that lights up green when functioning properly which decreases downtime spent detecting and servicing issues.
* Front Accessible Hard Drives – The new efficient chassis design on the T7600 provides one of the only front accessible quick release hard drives on a tower workstation. Designed for customers in data intensive fields like video editing who need to swap out hard drives easily and military and research organizations who need to store sensitive data in a secure location at the end of the day, it comes with up to four 3.5-inch hard drives or eight 2.5-inch hard drives.
* Remote Access – The Dell Precision T7600 easily converts to a rack solution, which can be mounted to any standard Dell PowerEdge server rack. By centrally locating the workstations, businesses can help maintain a clean and quiet work environment, keep hardware safe and give remote workers access via a Dell Precision FX100 zero client.
* Reliable Memory Technology – Another industry first is Reliable Memory Technology (RMT), a Dell patented code programmed at the BIOS level that eliminates virtually all memory errors on high-end workstations. RMT extends the capability of ECC memory by detecting the location of the corrected memory error and prevents the system from writing to that spot again following a reboot. Available on the T36003, T5600 and T7600, RMT increases the reliability of the workstations and eliminates the need for extensive full memory tests, IT support calls and memory DIMM replacement.
Kirk Schell, vice president of Computing Products at Dell comments on the new additions to the company’s lineup:
“These new Dell Precision workstations deliver on the promise of a new era of speed and productivity for millions of design and creative professionals, with an outstanding range of NVIDIA Quadro and Tesla professional GPUs to choose from,”
“With NVIDIA Maximus technology, which revolutionized the workstation last fall with simultaneous visualization and rendering or simulation, professionals are empowered to design and create like never before with these latest workstations from Dell.”
Bahman Dara, director of AMD FirePro Graphics also comments on the new Dells:
“We congratulate Dell on their strong new line-up of performance workstations and look forward to providing Dell customers with the brilliant graphics they have come to expect from the AMD FirePro™ line of professional graphics products,”
“AMD’s high-performance graphics processors, with support for AMD EyeFinity multi-screen display technology, are an ideal complement to Dell’s workstation offering and reflect AMD’s commitment to creating focused solutions designed to best meet the needs of Dell’s clients.”
Here’s what these new devices will cost you:
* The Dell Precision T7600 pricing starts at $2,149 USD
* The Dell Precision T5600 pricing starts at $1,879 USD
* The Dell Precision T3600 pricing starts at $1,099 USD
Former Halo 4 creative director turned gaming entrepreneur Ryan Payton is taking on a huge challenge with his upcoming project Republique. After leaving Microsoft, Payton created the development company Camouflaj, and is now turning to KickStarter to help fund his first project.
The idea is simple. Will gamers pay higher prices for a “full scale” legitimate game for iOS, a platform that is typically reserved for 2D platformers, puzzle games, and games that don’t use a lot computing power?
That is the plan with Republique, an action/stealth/paranoid fiction game in which you control a network of cameras, lights and electronic security measures to keep the main character (Hope) safe from a dystopian overlord.
Payton describes his concept in the trailer: “From the very beginning we set out to design a game and write a story specifically for mobile devices, because last year i decided that i was going to stop complaining about the lack of real games on mobile and start making one.”
Camouflaj has teamed up with Logan on the project and features industry veterans from such projects as Metal Gear Solid, Halo, F.E.A.R., and Kinect.
The concept is pretty interesting, fitting perfectly with the iOS platform. Rather than controlling the main character like a puppet, the way you would with most games, you witness Hope’s story and participate in her survival. In the game, you are Big Brother, controlling elevators, tapping phone calls, and closing doors on Hope’s pursuers. What better platform than an iPhone for this type of game? The iPhone is already a personal device; bringing a personal, engaging story to the device will win a lot of people over.
Pledges of $10 on KickStarter will get you the game when it’s scheduled to come out next summer. $1,000 will get your name integrated into the story and fiction. $5,000 will get your likeness in the game world.
Here’s a sample of what Dell will inherit with the acquisition of Wyse:
* Cloud clients : Wyse offers a wide selection of secure, reliable, cost-effective thin and zero clients designed to easily integrate into any virtualized or web-based infrastructure, while meeting the budget and performance requirements for any application.
* Cloud software : Technology powering a new world of cloud connected smart devices.
Management software – Secure, easy and scalable remote device management for the extended enterprise.
* Virtualization software – The best user experience with Microsoft, Citrix and VMware virtual desktop infrastructures.
* Mobility software – Secure mobile connectivity to your personal, private or public cloud for mobile devices.
* Services: Wyse offers a wide range of cloud computing services to complement its cloud clients and software solutions. Services are available for specific or on-going engagements.
Jeff Clarke, president, End User Computing Solutions at Dell commented on the acquisition:
“Desktop virtualization can help organizations streamline IT management, improve productivity and security, and increase cost efficiency for discrete workloads or usage scenarios,”
“The Wyse Technology desktop virtualization capability complements Dell’s strongest-ever device and computing solutions portfolio, and strengthens our position in offering customers among the broadest set of computing choices from the edge to the core to the cloud.”
Tarkan Maner, president and CEO of Wyse Technology also offers his sentiments on the deal:
“The combination of Wyse and Dell provides us with tremendous growth opportunities for our core desktop virtualization business, helps us expand into new and fast-growing market segments including mobility and cloud computing, and provides us with reach and scale we did not previously have,”
“We believe that taking this step with Dell is a very natural progression for our business and offers our customers many great advantages not available to them today.”
An analyst call with Jeff Clarke, president, Dell End User Computing; Dave Johnson, senior vice president, Dell Corporate Strategy; and Tarkan Maner, president and CEO, Wyse Technology;a webcast was broadcast live today at 8:45 a.m. Central Time and archived at www.dell.com/investor.
I’m a borderline luddite. Yes, a borderline luddite tech news writer — I have made my peace with this. But despite the wary glance I cast toward new technological developments, their implications on personal privacy, and on overall quality of life, I’m also pragmatic enough not to want to be left in the dust of economic evolution. I know I need to stay employable both now and in the future, and to do so will require at least basic (and up-to-date) technical competence. Beyond that, I figure if you’re going to be concerned about cyber security breaches, your own compromised data, or devices that insert themselves increasingly into your life, you have a duty to yourself to understand such technology rather than merely embrace or avoid it.
I may be a part of the fringe in that latter line of thinking, but I still refuse to let my preference for traditional skills and a simple life hold me back from future employability. With the lightning speed at which technology develops today and the reliance of nearly every element of business on some degree of technology, your skill set can become obsolete in just a couple of years of stagnancy.
The New York Times reports that this concern is driving more and more laypeople to after hours coding classes. Increasingly, people employed in all variety of industries are looking to learn more than just how to use computers. Instead, they want deeper knowledge of how computers work.
“To be successful in the modern world, regardless of your occupation, requires a fluency in computers,” said Peter Harsha, director of government affairs at the Computing Research Association, to The Times. “It is more than knowing how to use Word or Excel but how to use a computer to solve problems.”
This necessity to understand computers at a higher level has led to a groundswell of free and paid programming classes both online and in classrooms, especially for languages like HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, as well as a general increase (10 percent in 2010, according to the Computer Research Association via The Times) in students enrolling in college computer science programs. But The Times notes that for most aspiring code-learners, the resources and time available to them may be insufficient to gain a solid grasp of programming principles. Many would be programmers learn only snippets of code and simple commands, or simply to “parrot back lines of code,” as programming guide author Juli Meloni told the newspaper. From The Times:
Seasoned programmers say learning how to adjust the layout of a Web page is one thing, but picking up the skills required to develop a sophisticated online service or mobile application is an entirely different challenge. That is the kind of technical education that cannot be acquired by casual use for a few hours at night and on the weekends, they say.
Is that really the point of learning code after work, though? I go to a gymnastics class once a week, but I’m not planning on trying out for the Olympic team any time soon. You don’t have to be able to write complex or elegant code in order to benefit from a knowledge of programming principles. It’s useful enough for the layperson, especially in starting out, to gain an understanding of commands and the general logic of program design. Just that much knowledge, along with a reference manual and an analytic mind, can be enough to read and understand the gist of a program’s code, to troubleshoot small errors, or to write simple applications. It’s kind of like developing passive knowledge of a natural language. You’re never going to write like Thomas Mann, but if you can understand the Deutsche Bahn’s train timetable, you’re doing all right.
Speaking of natural language, The Times suggests that the desiring to learn a computer language is overtaking the desire to learn a natural language:
Parlez-vous Python? What about Rails or JavaScript? Foreign languages tend to wax and wane in popularity, but the language du jour is computer code.
This strikes me as an apples-to-socket-wrenches comparison. They’re both called languages, sure, and in the strict sense have principles of syntax, semantics, and a new lexicon to learn, but they’re very different skill sets that don’t engage all the same areas of the brain. It can be tough to learn one foreign language, but learning two simultaneously is a herculean feat that can lead to a lot of confusion and “code-switching” between languages. By contrast, a foreign language is hard to learn — and a programming language, hard as well — but if you have the time to devote to each, you’re not going to accidentally swap over to HTML when you were just trying to speak French.
Both are legitimate skill sets, and proficiency in both is a growing necessity in our increasingly globalized and technological world. In the next 20 years, you’ll likely have to know at least one foreign language and one programming language (probably more of each) in order to be competitive in the global business world (though native English speakers have at least a bit of a cushion here).
So what languages should you learn? I won’t tell you that. I’ll tell you, though, that Spanish (if you live in the U.S., especially) and Chinese will be good ones to know. (Good luck with Chinese if you’re over the age of 12, but don’t let me stop you from learning.) And how about programming? It’s probably best to take the plunge with a language that’s easy but useful. Many of my coder friends prescribe Python to beginners because of its relative simplicity, its functionality, and the wide variety of free resources available online for the language. If you need to do a lot of web-page formatting or development, consider starting with HTML or JavaScript.
What do you think? Are you learning a programming language, or hoping to in the future? Are programming languages more useful to learn than natural languages these days? Let us know in the comments.
Amazon’s cloud computing operation is estimated to use at least 454,000 servers in seven data center hubs around the world. Data on the matter was offered by Accenture Technology Labs, as Amazon Web Services has yet to disclose details on its infrastructure.
Huan Liu, a research manager at Accenture, analyzed Amazon’s EC2 computing service using internal and external IP addresses – he then extrapolated, came up with estimates on the number of racks in each data center location and took into account the number of blade servers per rack, to come up with his numbers.
Interestingly, Liu’s data shows the concentration of Amazon IP addresses in Northern Virginia, where Amazon keeps several data centers. Liu figures that there are 5,030 data racks in Northern Virginia, roughly 70% of all racks consisting Amazon Web Services. The Amazon U.S. West region in Oregon has only 41 data racks.
Liu’s estimates easily put the size of Amazon’s data structure well above the hosting providers that have publicly disclosed their server counts, but still at about half the estimated 900,000 servers in Google’s data center network.
Yesterday Dell introduced seven new rack and tower servers that are powerful, efficient and innovative. Optimized for collaboration and high-performance computing these are sure to change industry standards for enterprise data management solutions.
Brad Anderson, President of Enterprise Solutions Group at Dell comments on the new additions to their lineup:
“Dell designed the new PowerEdge servers with input gathered from more than 7,700 customer interactions in 17 countries across four continents,”
“Our customers told us that they need end-to-end solutions to handle the complex workload problems they face every day. As such, we built our new generation of servers, systems management and workload solutions to address the needs of business end users who require maximum performance to run mission-critical applications and IT departments which demand more efficient, secure and reliable operations.”
Here’s a list of models that incorporate the latest and greatest technology from Dell for enterprise customers:
Here’s what Dell promises in the way of efficiency with their new servers:
* Reclaim time with agent-free monitoring of over 400 sensors, including memory, RAID, storage and network devices, in multivendor operating system and hypervisor environments without installing software agents or drivers, which can save up to $2.5 million in server maintenance.
* Deploy servers quickly with new bare-metal deployment and provisioning that requires up to 86 percent less engineer time and up to 86 percent fewer manual steps2.
Help improve productivity with the enhanced Lifecycle Controller Log – significant improvements using Dell’s 11th generation embedded server management features saved Virtacore3 up to 43 days of system administrator time per year.
* Remotely enable and configure an extensive selection of network components delivered with PowerEdge 12th generation servers.
* Customize solutions with a new library of more than 65 scripts leveraging industry standard protocols.
* Dell and partners Microsoft, VMware and BMC have integrated iDRAC7 with Lifecycle Controller 2.0 with their systems management frameworks to provide mutual customers the benefits of automated one-to-many embedded management features while preserving their existing IT investments and processes.
Next here’s a list of innovations that they claim help them achieve optimized efficiency:
* Increase performance per watt up to 101 times over Dell servers ten years ago, enabling large data centers to save up to $1.8 million per year on server power alone.
* An expanded Fresh Air offering for all PowerEdge 12th generation servers, based on customer feedback. Operate up to the highest excursion temperature (113° F/45°C) warrantied in mainstream servers in the industry and save up to an estimated (US) $3,000,000 in capital savings.
* Server fans in the R720 and T620 models that use less energy to cool the system than it takes to power a nightlight.
* OpenManage Power Center – leveraging Node Manager developed by Dell and Intel – controls and optimizes energy usage at the server, rack, row and room level from a single interface.
* The industry’s first power supply unit to be awarded the highest level of energy efficiency, the Titanium certification, based on independent testing by 80 PLUS.
* The ability to pack in up to 300 percent more SQL Virtual Machines per rack for higher data center utilization compared to previous generation Dell servers4.
* The unique Select Network Adapter portfolio to protect investments with a choice of networking I/O, connection speed – including 10GbE, across the portfolio – and vendor, without using a valuable PCI slot all deeply integrated with iDRAC7 with Lifecycle controller 2.0.
* New all-in-one appliances built on PowerEdge 12th generation servers. Dell vStart for Dell Private Cloud, including Dell VIS Creator software, enables IT and business end users to accelerate application and IT service delivery. The Dell Quickstart Data Warehouse Appliance, which is based on the new Dell PowerEdge servers, will be the first data warehouse appliance available on Microsoft SQL Server 2012, and will help mid-market and departmental users easily organize, access and analyze data, enabling them to make more informed decisions.
Here’s some commentary on Dell’s new servers from Matt Eastwood, VP & GM of Intel’s Datacenter Infrastructure Group:
“Today’s IT organizations are balancing pressures to become more energy efficient and stretch existing manpower further, while supporting ever increasing amounts of data. Customers are looking to make server hardware investments that deliver the best of management and performance. The 12th Generation PowerEdge servers build on Dell’s early lead in introducing embedded systems management into x86 servers with new features designed to streamline and automate data center operations.”
So if you’re looking to upgrade your technology infrastructure, you should check these new machines out. They could help you stretch your budget a little further and possibly expand your data management capabilities. A little investigation could help you identify unforeseen values.
Well, guess what – that’s hardly the worst of it because apparently apps are also helping themselves to the photos stored on iPhones. Mindful not to omit anybody from this round of privacy non-protection, though, it turns out Android phones also have apps that include a similar photo-accessibility flaw.
It so happens that when iPhone’d people were granting permission for apps to use their current location, some apps conveniently inferred those location details to also include photos. The New York Timesran their own test of the privacy issue by enlisting a developer to create an app that requests permission to use the phone’s current location and thereby also gain access to the phone’s pictures.
When the test app, PhotoSpy, was opened, it asked for access to location data. Once this was granted, it began siphoning photos and their location data to a remote server. (The app was not submitted to the App Store.)
“It’s very strange, because Apple is asking for location permission, but really what it is doing is accessing your entire photo library,” said John Casasanta, owner of the successful iPhone app development studio Tap Tap Tap, which created the Camera+ app. “The message the user is being presented with is very, very unclear.”
Apple didn’t respond to a comment request from the Times, but David Jacobs, a fellow at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, chastised Apple for its failure to yet again ensure iPhone users’ privacy. “Apple has a tremendous responsibility as the gatekeeper to the App Store and the apps people put on their phone to police the apps,” he said.
Jacobs added, “It is pretty obvious that they aren’t doing a good enough job of that.”
Once the Times discovered that Android was also guilty of the photo privacy flaw, they conducted a similar test with an Android developer to see if an app could swipe photos from a phone without the awareness of users. Surprise, surprise – the Times‘ test worked and the decoy app gained access to the phone’s pictures. However, this security breach was more devious because, unlike Apple apps, the Android app didn’t require permission to use the geo-location service in order to access the photos. Instead, as long as the app “has the right to go to the Internet, it can copy those photos to a remote server without any notice.”
A Google spokesperson responded to a request from the Times‘ to explain the security deficiency. Google, as is their wont, responded in typical cagey fashion.
In response to questions, Google acknowledged this and said it would consider changing its approach.
A Google spokesman said that the lack of restrictions on photo access was a design choice related to the way early Android phones stored data. The first Android smartphones could put photos on a removable memory card, which complicated the issue of photo access, he said. For example, a user might grant an app permission to retrieve photos from one card but not want the app to use photos on a card that was in place on another day.
“We originally designed the Android photos file system similar to those of other computing platforms like Windows and Mac OS,” the spokesman said in an e-mail message. “At the time, images were stored on a SD card, making it easy for someone to remove the SD card from a phone and put it in a computer to view or transfer those images. As phones and tablets have evolved to rely more on built-in, nonremovable memory, we’re taking another look at this and considering adding a permission for apps to access images. We’ve always had policies in place to remove any apps on Android Market that improperly access your data.”
Google is “considering adding a permission for apps to access images”? Wow, Google, don’t go breaking your back over making sure that users of your smartphones stay informed over how their information is accessed by the apps they use.
But thanks for keeping us in mind. Really, you’re too generous.
Salesforce released its earnings report for fiscal Q4 and full-year 2011, beating most estimates.
Quarterly revenue was $632 Million, up 38% YoY. Full-year revenue was $2.27 Billion, up 37% YoY.
“Salesforce.com’s 38% revenue growth in the fourth quarter was a spectacular finish to our fiscal year, a year in which we delivered 37% revenue growth and added nearly 2,500 employees, including nearly 2,000 in the U.S.,” said CEO Marc Benioff. “Given the strong customer response to the social enterprise, we’re excited to raise our guidance today, which puts us on pace to exceed the $3 billion revenue run rate during FY13.”
Here’s the release in its entirety:
SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 23, 2012 /PRNewswire/ — Salesforce.com (NYSE: CRM), the enterprise cloud computing (http://www.salesforce.com/cloudcomputing/) company, today announced results for its fiscal fourth quarter and full fiscal year ended January 31, 2012.
“Salesforce.com’s 38% revenue growth in the fourth quarter was a spectacular finish to our fiscal year, a year in which we delivered 37% revenue growth and added nearly 2,500 employees, including nearly 2,000 in the U.S.,” said Marc Benioff, Chairman and CEO, salesforce.com. “Given the strong customer response to the social enterprise, we’re excited to raise our guidance today, which puts us on pace to exceed the $3 billion revenue run rate during FY13.”
Salesforce.com delivered the following results for its fiscal fourth quarter:
Revenue: Total Q4 revenue was $632 million, an increase of 38% on a year-over-year basis. Subscription and support revenues were $594 million, an increase of 39% on a year-over-year basis. Professional services and other revenues were $38 million, an increase of 33% on a year-over-year basis.
For the full fiscal year 2012, the company reported revenue of $2.27 billion, an increase of 37% from the prior year. Subscription and support revenues were $2.13 billion, an increase of 37% on a year-over-year basis. Professional services and other revenues were $140 million, an increase of 32% on a year-over-year basis.
Earnings per Share: Q4 GAAP net loss per share was ($0.03), and non-GAAP diluted earnings per share was $0.43. The company’s non-GAAP results exclude the effects of approximately $70 million in stock-based compensation expense, approximately $20 million in amortization of purchased intangibles, and approximately $4 million in net non-cash interest expense related to the company’s convertible senior notes. Non-GAAP EPS calculations are based on approximately 142 million diluted shares outstanding during the quarter, including approximately 1.7 million shares associated with the company’s convertible senior notes. GAAP EPS calculations are based on a basic share count of approximately 137 million shares.
For the full fiscal year 2012, GAAP net loss per share was ($0.09), and non-GAAP diluted earnings per share was $1.36. The company’s non-GAAP results exclude the effects of approximately $229 million in stock-based compensation, approximately$67 million in amortization of purchased intangibles, and approximately $12 million in net non-cash interest expense related to the convertible senior notes. Non-GAAP EPS calculations are based on approximately 142 million diluted shares outstanding during the year, including approximately 2.8 million shares associated with the company’s convertible senior notes. GAAP EPS calculations are based on a basic share count of approximately 135 million shares.
Cash: Cash generated from operations for the fiscal fourth quarter was $240 million, an increase of 45% on a year-over-year basis. For the full fiscal year 2012, operating cash flow totaled $592 million, up 29% year-over-year. Total cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities finished the quarter at approximately $1.4 billion.
Deferred Revenue: Deferred revenue on the balance sheet as of January 31, 2012 was approximately $1.38 billion, an increase of 48% on a year-over-year basis. Current deferred revenue increased by 41% to approximately $1.29 billion, benefited in part by longer invoice durations. Long term deferred revenue increased by 309% to approximately $89 million. Unbilled deferred revenue, representing business that is contracted but unbilled and off balance sheet, ended the fiscal year at approximately $2.2 billion, up from approximately $1.5 billion at the end of fiscal 2011.
As of February 23, 2012, salesforce.com is initiating revenue and EPS guidance for its first quarter of fiscal year 2013, and initiating EPS guidance for its full fiscal year 2013. In addition, the company is raising its full fiscal year 2013 revenue guidance previously provided on November 17, 2011.
Q1 FY13 Guidance: Revenue for the company’s first fiscal quarter is projected to be in the range of $673 million to $678 million, an increase of 33% to 34%, year-over-year.
GAAP net loss per share is expected to be in the range of ($0.19) to ($0.18), while diluted non-GAAP EPS is expected to be in the range of $0.33 to $0.34. The non-GAAP estimate excludes the effects of stock-based compensation expense, expected to be approximately $79 million, amortization of purchased intangibles related to acquisitions, expected to be approximately $21 million, and net non-cash interest expense related to the convertible senior notes, expected to be approximately $5 million. EPS estimates assume a GAAP tax rate of approximately 3%, and a non-GAAP tax rate of approximately 38%. For the purpose of the non-GAAP EPS calculation, assume an average fully diluted share count of approximately 145 million shares, and for the GAAP EPS calculation, assume an average basic share count of approximately 138 million shares.
Full Year FY13 Guidance: The company is raising its projected full fiscal year 2013 revenue from guidance previously provided on November 17, 2011. Revenue for the company’s full fiscal year 2013 is projected to be in the range of $2.92 billion to $2.95 billion, an increase of 29% to 30%, year-over-year.
For the company’s full fiscal year 2013, GAAP net loss per share is expected to be in the range of ($0.55) to ($0.51) while diluted non-GAAP EPS is expected to be in the range of $1.58 to $1.62. The non-GAAP estimate excludes the effects of stock-based compensation expense, expected to be approximately $368 million, amortization of purchased intangibles related to acquisitions, expected to be approximately $80 million, and net non-cash interest expense related to the convertible senior notes, expected to be approximately $24 million. EPS estimates assume a GAAP tax rate of approximately 8%, and a non-GAAP tax rate of approximately 38%. For the purpose of the non-GAAP EPS calculation, assume an average fully diluted share count of approximately 149 million shares, and for the GAAP EPS calculation, assume an average basic share count of approximately 142 million shares.
The following is a per share reconciliation of GAAP EPS to non-GAAP diluted EPS guidance for the first quarter and full fiscal year:
Fiscal 2013
Q1
FY2013
GAAP EPS Range*
($0.19) – ($0.18)
($0.55) – ($0.51)
Plus
Amortization of purchased intangibles
$ 0.15
$ 0.54
Stock-based expense
$ 0.54
$ 2.47
Amortization of debt discount
$ 0.03
$ 0.16
Less
Income tax effect of certain Non-GAAP items
$ (0.20)
$ (1.04)
Non-GAAP diluted EPS
$0.33 – $0.34
$1.58 – $1.62
Shares used in computing basic net income per share (millions)
138
142
Shares used in computing diluted net income per share (millions)
145
149
* For Q1 & FY13 GAAP EPS loss, basic number of shares used for calculation
Quarterly Conference Call
Salesforce.com will host a conference call to discuss its fourth quarter fiscal year 2012 results at 2:00 p.m. Pacific Time today. A live audio webcast of the conference call, together with detailed financial information, can be accessed through the company’s Investor Relations Web site at http://www.salesforce.com/investor. In addition, an archive of the webcast can be accessed through the same link. Participants who choose to call in to the conference call can do so by dialing domestically 866-901-SFDC or 866-901-7332 and internationally at +1 706-902-1764, passcode salesforce.com or 48589774. A replay will be available at 800-642-1687 or +1 706-645-9291, passcode 48589774, until midnight (Eastern Time) March 23, 2012.
About Salesforce.com
With 100,000+ customers, salesforce.com is the enterprise cloud computing company that is leading the shift to the social enterprise. Social enterprises leverage social, mobile and open cloud technologies to put customers at the heart of their business. Based on salesforce.com‘s real-time, multitenant architecture, the company’s platform and application services include:
Any unreleased services or features referenced in this or other press releases or public statements are not currently available and may not be delivered on time or at all. Customers who purchase salesforce.com applications should make their purchase decisions based upon features that are currently available. Salesforce.com has headquarters in San Francisco, with offices inEurope and Asia, and trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol “CRM.” For more information please visithttp://salesforce.com, or call 1-800-NO-SOFTWARE.
Non-GAAP Financial Measures: This press release includes information about non-GAAP EPS and non-GAAP tax rates (collectively the “non-GAAP financial measures”). Non-GAAP EPS estimates exclude the impact of the following non-cash items: stock-based compensation, amortization of acquisition-related intangibles, and the net amortization of debt discount on the company’s convertible senior notes, as well as the tax consequences associated with these items. The purpose of the non-GAAP tax rate is to quantify the excluded tax consequences of the excluded expense items. These non-GAAP estimates are not measurements of financial performance prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. The method used to produce non-GAAP financial measures is not computed according to GAAP and may differ from the methods used by other companies. Non-GAAP financial measures are not meant to be considered in isolation or as a substitute for comparable GAAP measures and should be read only in conjunction with the company’s consolidated financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP.
The primary purpose of these non-GAAP measures is to provide supplemental information that may prove useful to investors who wish to consider the impact of certain non-cash items on the company’s operating performance. Non-cash stock-based compensation, amortization of acquisition-related intangible assets, and the net amortization of debt discount on the company’s convertible senior notes are being excluded from the company’s FY12 financial results because the decisions which gave rise to these expenses were not made to increase revenue in a particular period, but were made for the company’s long-term benefit over multiple periods. While strategic decisions, such as those to issue stock-based compensation, acquire a company, or issue convertible senior notes, are made to further the company’s long-term strategic objectives and impact the company’s income statement under GAAP measures, these items affect multiple periods and management is not able to change or affect these items in any particular period. As such, supplementing GAAP disclosure with non-GAAP disclosure using the non-GAAP measures provides management with an additional view of operational performance by excluding expenses that are not directly related to performance in any particular period, and management uses both GAAP and non-GAAP measures when planning, monitoring, and evaluating the company’s performance.
In addition, the majority of the company’s industry peers report non-GAAP operating results that exclude certain non-cash or non-recurring items. Management believes that the provision of supplemental non-GAAP information will enable a more complete comparison of the company’s relative performance.
Specifically, management is excluding the following items from its non-GAAP EPS for Q4 and FY12 and its non-GAAP estimates for Q1 and FY13:
Stock-Based Expenses: The company’s compensation strategy includes the use of stock-based compensation to attract and retain employees and executives. It is principally aimed at aligning their interests with those of our stockholders and at long-term employee retention, rather than to motivate or reward operational performance for any particular period. Thus, stock-based compensation expense varies for reasons that are generally unrelated to operational decisions and performance in any particular period.
Amortization of Purchased Intangibles: The company views amortization of acquisition-related intangible assets, such as the amortization of the cost associated with an acquired company’s research and development efforts, trade names, customer lists and customer relationships, as items arising from pre-acquisition activities determined at the time of an acquisition. While it is continually viewed for impairment, amortization of the cost of purchased intangibles is a static expense, one that is not typically affected by operations during any particular period.
Amortization of Debt Discount: Under GAAP, certain convertible debt instruments that may be settled in cash (or other assets) on conversion are required to be separately accounted for as liability (debt) and equity (conversion option) components of the instrument in a manner that reflects the issuer’s non-convertible debt borrowing rate. Accordingly, for GAAP purposes we are required to recognize imputed interest expense on the company’s $575 million of convertible subordinated notes that were issued in a private placement in January 2010. The imputed interest rate is approximately 5.9%, while the coupon interest rate is 0.75%. The difference between the imputed interest expense and the coupon interest expense, net of the interest amount capitalized, is excluded from management’s assessment of the company’s operating performance because management believes that this non-cash expense is not indicative of ongoing operating performance. Management believes that the exclusion of the non-cash interest expense provides investors an enhanced view of the company’s operational performance.
Income Tax Effects: The company’s estimated non-GAAP effective tax rate is lower than the estimated GAAP effective tax rate due to the exclusion of the expense items described above.
“Safe harbor” statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: This press release contains forward-looking statements about expected GAAP revenue and GAAP and non-GAAP EPS for the first fiscal quarter of 2013 and the full fiscal year, the company’s expected revenue run rate and revenues in fiscal 2013, the company’s expected tax rates, stock-based compensation expenses, amortization of purchased intangibles and debt discount, and shares outstanding. The achievement or success of the matters covered by such forward-looking statements involves risks, uncertainties and assumptions. If any such risks or uncertainties materialize or if any of the assumptions prove incorrect, the company’s results could differ materially from the results expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements we make.
The risks and uncertainties referred to above include – but are not limited to – risks associated with possible fluctuations in the company’s financial and operating results; the company’s rate of growth and anticipated revenue run rate, including the company’s ability to convert deferred revenue and unbilled deferred revenue into revenue and, as appropriate, cash flow, and the continued growth and ability to maintain deferred revenue and unbilled deferred revenue; errors, interruptions or delays in the company’s service or the company’s Web hosting; breaches of the company’s security measures; the financial impact of any previous and future acquisitions; the nature of the company’s business model; the company’s ability to continue to release, and gain customer acceptance of, new and improved versions of the company’s service; successful customer deployment and utilization of the company’s existing and future services; changes in the company’s sales cycle; competition; various financial aspects of the company’s subscription model; unexpected increases in attrition or decreases in new business; the emerging markets in which we operate; unique aspects of entering or expanding in international markets, the company’s ability to hire, retain and motivate employees and manage the company’s growth; changes in the company’s customer base; technological developments; regulatory developments; litigation related to intellectual property and other matters, and any related claims, negotiations and settlements; unanticipated changes in the company’s effective tax rate; fluctuations in the number of shares we have outstanding and the price of such shares; foreign currency exchange rates; collection of receivables; interest rates; the company’s plans to build and expand its campus in San Francisco, California and the associated costs; and general developments in the economy, financial markets, and credit markets.
Further information on these and other factors that could affect the company’s financial results is included in the reports on Forms 10-K, 10-Q and 8-K and in other filings we make with the Securities and Exchange Commission from time to time, including the company’s Form 10-K that will be filed for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2012. These documents are available on the SEC Filings section of the Investor Information section of the company’s website at www.salesforce.com/investor.
Salesforce.com, inc. assumes no obligation and does not intend to update these forward-looking statements, except as required by law.
Income (loss) before benefit (provision) for income taxes and noncontrolling interest
(7,535)
4,379
(33,317)
104,298
Benefit (provision) for income taxes
3,457
6,491
21,745
(34,601)
Consolidated net income (loss)
(4,078)
10,870
(11,572)
69,697
Less: Net loss attributable to noncontrolling interest
0
43
0
(5,223)
Net income (loss) attributable to salesforce.com
$ (4,078)
$ 10,913
$ (11,572)
$ 64,474
Basic net income (loss) per share attributable to salesforce.com common shareholders
$ (0.03)
$ 0.08
$ (0.09)
$ 0.50
Diluted net income (loss) per share attributable to salesforce.com common shareholders
$ (0.03)
$ 0.08
$ (0.09)
$ 0.47
Shares used in computing basic net income (loss) per share
136,720
132,344
135,302
130,222
Shares used in computing diluted net income (loss) per share
136,720
140,199
135,302
136,598
(1) Amounts include amortization of purchased intangibles from business combinations, as follows:
Cost of revenues
$ 17,132
$ 5,721
$ 60,069
$ 15,459
Marketing and sales
2,751
1,146
7,250
4,209
(2) Amounts include stock-based expenses, as follows:
Cost of revenues
$ 5,283
$ 3,541
$ 17,451
$ 12,158
Research and development
14,670
6,778
45,894
18,897
Marketing and sales
35,706
19,955
115,730
56,451
General and administrative
14,441
11,440
50,183
32,923
salesforce.com, inc.
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations
As a percentage of total revenues:
(Unaudited)
Three Months Ended January 31,
Fiscal Year Ended January 31,
2012
2011
2012
2011
Revenues:
Subscription and support
94%
94%
94%
94%
Professional services and other
6
6
6
6
Total revenues
100
100
100
100
Cost of revenues (1)(2):
Subscription and support
16
13
16
13
Professional services and other
6
7
6
7
Total cost of revenues
22
20
22
20
Gross profit
78
80
78
80
Operating expenses (1)(2):
Research and development
12
13
13
11
Marketing and sales
52
51
52
48
General and administrative
15
16
15
15
Total operating expenses
79
80
80
74
Income (loss) from operations
(1)
0
(2)
6
Investment income
1
2
1
2
Interest expense
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
Other expense
0
0
0
0
Income (loss) before benefit (provision) for income taxes and noncontrolling interest
(1)
1
(2)
6
Benefit (provision) for income taxes
0
1
1
(2)
Consolidated net income (loss)
(1)
2
(1)
4
Less: Net loss attributable to noncontrolling interest
0
0
0
0
Net income (loss) attributable to salesforce.com
(1%)
2%
(1%)
4%
(1) Amortization of purchased intangibles from business combinations as a percentage of total revenues, as follows:
Cost of revenues
3%
1%
3%
1%
Marketing and sales
0
0
0
0
(2) Stock-based expenses as a percentage of total revenues, as follows:
Cost of revenues
1%
1%
1%
1%
Research and development
2
1
2
1
Marketing and sales
6
4
5
3
General and administrative
2
3
2
2
salesforce.com, inc.
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets
(in thousands)
January 31,
January 31,
2012
2011
(unaudited)
Assets
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents
$ 607,284
$ 424,292
Short-term marketable securities
170,582
72,678
Accounts receivable, net
683,745
426,943
Deferred commissions
98,471
67,774
Deferred income taxes
31,821
27,516
Prepaid expenses and other current assets (see additional metrics)
80,319
55,721
Total current assets
1,672,222
1,074,924
Marketable securities, noncurrent
669,308
910,587
Property and equipment, net (see additional metrics)
527,946
387,174
Deferred commissions, noncurrent
78,149
48,842
Deferred income taxes, noncurrent
87,587
41,199
Capitalized software, net (see additional metrics)
188,412
127,987
Goodwill
785,381
396,081
Other assets, net (see additional metrics)
155,149
104,371
Total assets
$ 4,164,154
$ 3,091,165
Liabilities, temporary equity and stockholders’ equity
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable
$ 33,258
$ 18,106
Accrued expenses and other liabilities (see additional metrics)
502,442
345,121
Deferred revenue
1,291,622
913,239
Convertible senior notes, net
496,149
0
Total current liabilities
2,323,471
1,276,466
Convertible senior notes, net
0
472,538
Income taxes payable, noncurrent
37,258
18,481
Long-term lease liabilities and other
48,651
25,487
Deferred revenue, noncurrent
88,673
21,702
Total liabilities
2,498,053
1,814,674
Temporary equity
78,741
0
Stockholders’ equity:
Common stock
137
133
Additional paid-in capital
1,415,077
1,098,604
Accumulated other comprehensive income
12,683
6,719
Retained earnings
159,463
171,035
Total stockholders’ equity
1,587,360
1,276,491
Total liabilities, temporary equity and stockholders’ equity
$ 4,164,154
$ 3,091,165
salesforce.com, inc.
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
(in thousands)
(Unaudited)
Three Months Ended January 31,
Fiscal Year Ended January 31,
2012
2011
2012
2011
Operating activities:
Consolidated net income (loss)
$ (4,078)
$ 10,870
$ (11,572)
$ 69,697
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net
cash provided by operating activities:
Depreciation and amortization
45,901
23,738
157,286
75,746
Amortization of debt discount and transaction costs
3,877
1,982
10,347
19,621
Amortization of deferred commissions
30,742
22,605
107,195
80,159
Expenses related to stock-based awards
70,100
41,714
229,258
120,429
Excess tax benefits from employee stock plans
4,994
10,777
(6,018)
(35,991)
Changes in assets and liabilities:
Accounts receivable, net
(365,099)
(169,833)
(244,947)
(102,507)
Deferred commissions
(86,947)
(56,004)
(167,199)
(121,247)
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
(777)
8,464
(10,736)
2,001
Other assets
2,816
(365)
2,883
(9,770)
Accounts payable
3,716
(5,254)
12,644
1,246
Accrued expenses and other current liabilities
72,628
36,684
67,692
132,004
Deferred revenue
462,474
240,384
444,674
227,693
Net cash provided by operating activities
240,347
165,762
591,507
459,081
Investing activities:
Business combinations, net of cash acquired
(57,914)
(247,994)
(422,699)
(403,331)
Land activity and building improvements
(6,565)
(269,944)
(19,655)
(277,944)
Strategic investments
(2,647)
(13,605)
(37,370)
(20,105)
Changes in marketable securities
(45,608)
179,346
141,679
(270,287)
Capital expenditures
(44,602)
(30,576)
(151,645)
(90,887)
Net cash used in investing activities
(157,336)
(382,773)
(489,690)
(1,062,554)
Financing activities:
Purchase of subsidiary stock
0
(19,721)
0
(171,964)
Proceeds from equity plans
26,203
44,406
116,565
160,402
Excess tax benefits from employee stock plans
(4,994)
(10,777)
6,018
35,991
Contingent consideration payment related to prior business combinations
0
0
(16,200)
0
Principal payments on capital lease obligations
(8,737)
(3,198)
(30,533)
(10,355)
Net cash provided by financing activities
12,472
10,710
75,850
14,074
Effect of exchange rate changes
8,814
290
5,325
2,385
Net increase (decrease) in cash and
cash equivalents
104,297
(206,011)
182,992
(587,014)
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period
502,987
630,303
424,292
1,011,306
Cash and cash equivalents, end of period
$ 607,284
$ 424,292
$ 607,284
$ 424,292
salesforce.com, inc.
Additional Metrics
(Unaudited)
Jan 31,
Oct 31,
Jul 31,
Apr 30,
Jan 31,
Oct 31,
2012
2011
2011
2011
2011
2010
Full Time Equivalent Headcount
7,785
6,953
6,352
5,513
5,306
4,758
Financial data (in thousands):
Cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities
$ 1,447,174
$ 1,296,693
$ 1,286,658
$ 1,522,285
$ 1,407,557
$ 1,802,440
Deferred revenue, current and noncurrent
$ 1,380,295
$ 917,821
$ 935,266
$ 915,133
$ 934,941
$ 694,557
Selected Balance Sheet Accounts (in thousands):
Jan 31,
Oct 31,
Jan 31,
2012
2011
2011
Prepaid Expenses and Other Current Assets
Deferred professional services costs
$ 10,399
$ 13,563
$ 17,908
Prepaid income taxes
12,785
13,137
720
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
57,135
52,728
37,093
$ 80,319
$ 79,428
$ 55,721
Property and Equipment, net
Land
$ 248,263
$ 248,263
$ 248,263
Building improvements
43,868
34,974
10,115
Computers, equipment and software
232,460
223,288
115,736
Furniture and fixtures
25,250
24,622
20,462
Leasehold improvements
137,587
125,838
100,380
687,428
656,985
494,956
Less accumulated depreciation and amortization
(159,482)
(152,158)
(107,782)
$ 527,946
$ 504,827
$ 387,174
Capitalized Software, net
Capitalized internal-use software development costs, net of accumulated amortization
$ 41,442
$ 35,475
$ 29,154
Acquired developed technology, net of accumulated amortization
146,970
163,938
98,833
$ 188,412
$ 199,413
$ 127,987
Other Assets, net
Deferred professional services costs, noncurrent portion
$ 3,935
$ 5,707
$ 10,201
Long-term deposits
13,941
13,887
12,114
Purchased intangible assets, net of accumulated amortization
46,110
45,410
31,660
Acquired intellectual property, net of accumulated amortization
15,020
13,895
5,874
Strategic investments
53,949
55,035
27,065
Other
22,194
22,484
17,457
$ 155,149
$ 156,418
$ 104,371
Accrued Expenses and Other Current Liabilities
Accrued compensation
$ 228,466
$ 145,116
$ 148,275
Accrued other liabilities
121,957
134,741
112,840
Accrued income and other taxes payable
100,471
78,819
49,135
Accrued professional costs
21,993
22,836
12,548
Accrued rent
29,555
27,638
22,323
$ 502,442
$ 409,150
$ 345,121
Selected Off-Balance Sheet Accounts
Unbilled Deferred Revenue, a non-GAAP measure
Unbilled deferred revenue was approximately $2.2 billion as of January 31, 2012 and $1.5 billion as of January 31, 2011. Unbilled deferred revenue represents future billings under our non-cancelable subscription agreements that have not been invoiced and, accordingly, are not recorded in deferred revenue.
Supplemental Revenue Analysis
Three Months Ended January 31,
Fiscal Year Ended January 31,
2012
2011
2012
2011
Revenues by geography (in thousands):
Americas
$ 436,237
$ 308,526
$ 1,540,289
$ 1,135,019
Europe
108,141
82,933
408,456
291,784
Asia Pacific
87,535
65,408
317,794
230,336
$ 631,913
$ 456,867
$ 2,266,539
$ 1,657,139
As a percentage of total revenues:
Revenues by geography:
Americas
69
%
68
%
68
%
68
%
Europe
17
18
18
18
Asia Pacific
14
14
14
14
100
%
100
%
100
%
100
%
Three Months Ended
Three Months Ended
Three Months Ended
January 31, 2012
October 31, 2011
January 31, 2011
compared to Three Months
compared to Three Months
compared to Three Months
Ended January 31, 2011
Ended October 31, 2010
Ended January 31, 2010
Revenue constant currency growth rates (as compared to the comparable prior periods)
Americas
41%
36%
26%
Europe
32%
29%
41%
Asia Pacific
28%
31%
35%
Total growth
38%
34%
30%
We present constant currency information to provide a framework for assessing how our underlying business performed excluding the effect of foreign currency rate fluctuations. To present this information, current and comparative prior period results for entities reporting in currencies other than United States dollars are converted into United States dollars at the exchange rates in effect at the end of each quarter for growth rate calculations presented, rather than the actual exchange rates in effect during that period.
Supplemental Diluted Sharecount Information
(in thousands)
Three Months Ended January 31,
Fiscal Year Ended January 31,
2012
2011
2012
2011
Weighted-average shares outstanding for basic earnings per share
136,720
132,344
135,302
130,222
Effect of dilutive securities (1):
Convertible senior notes
1,700
2,421
2,263
1,561
Warrants associated with the convertible senior note hedges
0
696
553
0
Employee stock awards
3,407
4,738
4,177
4,815
Adjusted weighted-average shares outstanding and assumed conversions for diluted earnings per share
141,827
140,199
142,295
136,598
(1)
The effects of these dilutive securities were not included in the GAAP calculation of diluted earnings/loss per share for the three and twelve months ended January 31, 2012 because the effect would have been anti-dilutive.
Supplemental Cash Flow Information
Free cash flow analysis, a non-GAAP measure
(in thousands)
Three Months Ended January 31,
Fiscal Year Ended January 31,
2012
2011
2012
2011
Operating cash flow-
GAAP net cash provided by operating activities
$ 240,347
$ 165,762
$ 591,507
$ 459,081
Less:
Capital expenditures
(44,602)
(30,576)
(151,645)
(90,887)
Free cash flow
$ 195,745
$ 135,186
$ 439,862
$ 368,194
Our free cash flow analysis includes GAAP net cash provided by operating activities less capital expenditures. The capital expenditures balance does not include any costs related to the purchase and activities related to the building of our campus and strategic investments.
salesforce.com, inc.
GAAP RESULTS RECONCILED TO NON-GAAP RESULTS
The following table reflects selected salesforce.com GAAP results reconciled to non-GAAP results
(in thousands, except per share data)
(Unaudited)
Three Months Ended January 31,
Fiscal Year Ended January 31,
2012
2011
2012
2011
Gross profit
GAAP gross profit
$ 495,568
$ 364,556
$ 1,777,653
$ 1,333,326
Plus:
Amortization of purchased intangibles (b)
17,132
5,721
60,069
15,459
Stock-based expenses (c)
5,283
3,541
17,451
12,158
Non-GAAP gross profit
$ 517,983
$ 373,818
$ 1,855,173
$ 1,360,943
Operating expenses
GAAP operating expenses
$ 501,945
$ 364,947
$ 1,812,738
$ 1,235,829
Less:
Amortization of purchased intangibles (b)
(2,751)
(1,146)
(7,250)
(4,209)
Stock-based expenses (c)
(64,817)
(38,173)
(211,807)
(108,271)
Non-GAAP operating expenses
$ 434,377
$ 325,628
$ 1,593,681
$ 1,123,349
Income from operations
GAAP income (loss) from operations
$ (6,377)
$ (391)
$ (35,085)
$ 97,497
Plus:
Amortization of purchased intangibles (b)
19,883
6,867
67,319
19,668
Stock-based expenses (c)
70,100
41,714
229,258
120,429
Non-GAAP income from operations
$ 83,606
$ 48,190
$ 261,492
$ 237,594
Non-operating income (a)
GAAP non-operating income (loss)
$ (1,158)
$ 4,770
$ 1,768
$ 6,801
Plus: Amortization of debt discount, net
4,144
2,430
12,335
19,079
Non-GAAP non-operating income
$ 2,986
$ 7,200
$ 14,103
$ 25,880
Net income attributable to salesforce.com
GAAP net income (loss) attributable to salesforce.com
$ (4,078)
$ 10,913
$ (11,572)
$ 64,474
Plus:
Amortization of purchased intangibles
19,883
6,867
67,319
19,668
Stock-based expenses
70,100
41,714
229,258
120,429
Amortization of debt discount, net
4,144
2,430
12,335
19,079
Less:
Income tax effect of Non-GAAP items
(28,419)
(18,854)
(103,730)
(57,544)
Non-GAAP net income attributable to salesforce.com
$ 61,630
$ 43,070
$ 193,610
$ 166,106
Diluted earnings per share
GAAP diluted earnings (loss) per share (d)
$ (0.03)
$ 0.08
$ (0.09)
$ 0.47
Plus:
Amortization of purchased intangibles
0.14
0.05
0.47
0.14
Stock-based expenses
0.49
0.30
1.62
0.88
Amortization of debt discount, net
0.03
0.01
0.09
0.14
Less:
Income tax effect of Non-GAAP items
(0.20)
(0.13)
(0.73)
(0.41)
Non-GAAP diluted earnings per share attributable to salesforce.com
$ 0.43
$ 0.31
$ 1.36
$ 1.22
Shares used in computing diluted net income per share
141,827
140,199
142,295
136,598
a)
Non-operating income consists of investment income, interest expense and other income (expense)
b)
Amortization of purchased intangibles were as follows:
Three Months Ended January 31,
Fiscal Year Ended January 31,
2012
2011
2012
2011
Cost of revenues
$ 17,132
$ 5,721
$ 60,069
$ 15,459
Marketing and sales
2,751
1,146
7,250
4,209
$ 19,883
$ 6,867
$ 67,319
$ 19,668
c)
Stock-based expenses were as follows:
Three Months Ended January 31,
Fiscal Year Ended January 31,
2012
2011
2012
2011
Cost of revenues
$ 5,283
$ 3,541
$ 17,451
$ 12,158
Research and development
14,670
6,778
45,894
18,897
Marketing and sales
35,706
19,955
115,730
56,451
General and administrative
14,441
11,440
50,183
32,923
$ 70,100
$ 41,714
$ 229,258
$ 120,429
d)
Reported GAAP loss per share was calculated using the basic share count.
Non-GAAP diluted earnings per share was calculated using the diluted share count.
salesforce.com, inc.
COMPUTATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED GAAP AND NON-GAAP NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
(in thousands, except per share data)
(Unaudited)
Three Months Ended January 31,
Fiscal Year Ended January 31,
2012
2011
2012
2011
GAAP Basic Net Income (loss) Per Share
Net income (loss) attributable to salesforce.com
$ (4,078)
$ 10,913
$ (11,572)
$ 64,474
Basic net income (loss) per share attributable to salesforce.com common stockholders
(0.03)
0.08
(0.09)
0.50
Shares used in computing basic net income (loss) per share attributable to salesforce.com common stockholders
136,720
132,344
135,302
130,222
Three Months Ended January 31,
Fiscal Year Ended January 31,
2012
2011
2012
2011
Non-GAAP Basic Net Income Per Share
Non-GAAP net income attributable to salesforce.com
$ 61,630
$ 43,070
$ 193,610
$ 166,106
Basic Non-GAAP net income per share attributable to salesforce.com common stockholders
0.45
0.33
1.43
1.28
Shares used in computing basic net income per share attributable to salesforce.com common stockholders
136,720
132,344
135,302
130,222
Three Months Ended January 31,
Fiscal Year Ended January 31,
2012
2011
2012
2011
GAAP Diluted Net Income (loss) Per Share
Net income (loss) attributable to salesforce.com
$ (4,078)
$ 10,913
$ (11,572)
$ 64,474
Diluted net income (loss) per share attributable to salesforce.com common stockholders
(0.03)
0.08
(0.09)
0.47
Shares used in computing diluted net income (loss) per share attributable to salesforce.com common stockholders
136,720
140,199
135,302
136,598
Three Months Ended January 31,
Fiscal Year Ended January 31,
2012
2011
2012
2011
Non-GAAP Diluted Net Income Per Share
Non-GAAP net income attributable to salesforce.com
$ 61,630
$ 43,070
$ 193,610
$ 166,106
Diluted Non-GAAP net income per share attributable to salesforce.com common stockholders
0.43
0.31
1.36
1.22
Shares used in computing diluted net income per share attributable to salesforce.com common stockholders
Microsoft has issued a statement expressing their support for international industry standards regarding the licensing of essential industry patents. Calling such standards “vitally important” to the further growth of the internet and of the mobile computing industry, Microsoft pledged to license the essential patents it holds on “fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms.”
While FRAND rules are currently in place in Europe and elsewhere requiring companies to license essential patents to others – even major rivals – the rules are somewhat unclear. Microsoft’s statement lays out the company’s plans for working fairly within the current rules. In the statement, Microsoft pledges to adhere to all prior agreements regarding FRAND licensing, and to refrain from taking legal action against other firms on the basis of essential patents. Microsoft also promises to make all their essential patents available to other companies, and promises not to transfer any of their essential patents without securing agreements from the transferees to abide by similar conditions.
Meanwhile, news came to light yesterday of a letter Apple had sent to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute on November 11, 2011. In the letter, Apple asks the ETSI to enforce “a more consistent and transparent application of FRAND, especially related to the licensing of cellular standards essential patents.” The letter calls on the ETSI to implement basic rules for FRAND licensing, including standard appropriate royalty rates, a common royalty base, and prohibiting companies from seeking injunctions against one another over essential industry patents. A copy of Apple’s letter may be seen here. Late last month Cisco, which also owns a significant number of essential patents, posted their own letter to the ETSI expressing their support for Apple’s position.
While the kinds of rules that Microsoft has set for itself and Apple is calling on the ETSI to set would not eliminate patent litigation, they would certainly reduce it. That would be good news for a lot of tech companies, including Apple. Apple is currently embroiled in a number of legal battles over patent infringement. Motorola, HTC, and Samsung have all sued – and been sued by – Apple for infringement on a variety of patents. Some of these suits deal with the kind of industry essential patents that these new rules would deal with. The European Union already has FRAND licensing rules in place, but companies are inconsistent in adhering to them. In fact, the European Commission recently announced that it was conducting an investigation of Samsung concerning its violation of FRAND agreements. Though the EC’s announcement did not specifically mention Samsung’s patent war with Apple, that is almost certainly the subject of the investigation.
Meanwhile, Motorola recently won injunctions against Apple’s iCloud service, and against the online sale of several of Apple’s 3G-capable iOS devices, including the iPhone 3GS, the iPhone 4, and the 3G-enabled version of the iPad 2. The injunctions required Apple to remove the infringing devices from their online store in Germany and make changes to the way iCloud handles the delivery of email to users’ devices. While the iCloud injunction remains in place, the one requiring the removal of the 3G iOS devices was quickly overturned, prompting Apple to put the devices back up in the online Apple Store quickly.
eBay’s Todd Cohen made a spirited plea to the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary earlier today against the proposed remote sales tax. Were the proposal to pass, Cohen fears that small businesses will suffer the most and, given that small businesses are a thriving market for eBay, they’re right to look out for the little guys. Cohen also voiced his and eBay’s support for H. Res 95, which would protect Internet entrepreneurs and small businesses from the new tax proposals.
In defense of small businesses and what they stand to lose, Cohen explained :
The share of online sales being done by retailers with less than $20 million in sales is falling. Under the current mix of business costs, including the remote sales tax rules, the small business competitors are not taking over the field. Instead, it is the largest retailers that are growing. And not surprisingly, those giant retailers are lined up united in proposing a change in remote sales tax law that will harm the smaller retailers who do not have national physical presence. If small business retailers using the Internet were gaining unfair advantages from current remote sales tax laws, one would expect that their share of Internet sales would be growing. But it is not.
Although Cohen did not identify Amazon.com by name, it’s probably the internet’s worst kept secret that he likely had them in mind as he made these pointed statements. Additionally, Cohen suggested a Small Business Exemption that would reduce the tax burden on small businesses:
A real Small Business Exemption would protect small retailers who are already falling behind. Permanently protecting small business retailers from national remote sales tax collection burdens will promote new retail competition. … Protecting small business from burdens that will undermine their growth and even directly promoting small business operations is not a new or novel concept. There has traditionally been bipartisan support for small business promotion.
Cohen’s full congressional statement can be read below.
Amazon, alternately, has come out in favor of the online sales tax bill. From their official statement:
Amazon strongly supports enactment of the Enzi-Durbin-Alexander bill and will work with Congress, retailers, and the states to get this bi-partisan legislation passed,” said Paul Misener, Amazon vice president, global public policy. “It’s a win-win resolution – and as analysts have noted, Amazon offers customers the best prices with or without sales tax.
If enacted, the Enzi-Durbin-Alexander bill will allow states to require out of state retailers to collect sales tax at the time of purchase and remit those taxes on behalf of customers, and it will facilitate collection on behalf of third party sellers. Thus, this bill will allow states to obtain additional revenue without new taxes or federal spending and will make it easy for consumers and small retailers to comply with state sales tax laws.
UPDATE: Shortly after this story was published, Ashley Morris, CRC Public Relations with Amazon.com, contacted WebProNews and delivered the following statement. It is the testimony given earlier today by Paul Misener, Vice President for Global Public Policy, Amazon.com:
Testimony of Paul Misener, Vice President for Global Public Policy, Amazon.com
Hearing on the Constitutional Limitations on States’ Authority to Collect Sales Tax in E-Commerce
Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States House of Representatives
November 30, 2011
[Also available at www.amazon.com/pr]
“Thank you, Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Conyers, for inviting me to testify. Amazon has long supported an even-handed federal framework for state sales tax collection and, to that end, we have participated in the Streamlined Sales Tax Project for over a decade, and we are pleased to participate in this hearing. Amazon strongly supports enactment of a federal bill with appropriate provisions.
Mr. Chairman, Congress – and only Congress – may, should, and feasibly can authorize the states to require out-of-state sellers to collect the sales tax already owed.
At the Philadelphia Convention, which the Founders convened principally to consider the challenging issue of trade among the states, Congress was granted exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce. Exactly two centuries later, in 1987, North Dakota challenged this exclusivity and, following five years of litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Quill v. North Dakota that requiring out-of-state sellers to collect tax would impose an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce. The Quill court also confirmed that Congress eventually could “disagree with our conclusions” and that this issue is “not only one that Congress may be better qualified to resolve, but also one that Congress has the ultimate power to resolve.”
Far from an e-commerce “loophole,” the constitutional limitation on states’ authority to collect sales tax is at the core of our Nation’s founding principles. For this reason, Amazon has steadfastly opposed state attempts to require out-of-state sellers to collect absent congressional authorization.
Mr. Chairman, Congress should authorize the states to require collection, with the great objects of protecting states’ rights, addressing the states’ needs, and leveling the playing field for all sellers.
States’ rights should be protected. States need the freedom to make their own revenue policy choices. For example, Texas has chosen to eschew personal income tax, and that decision makes the Texas budget particularly sensitive to uncollected sales tax. The right of Texas to make this policy choice effective should be protected. Congress should protect the states’ rights, and authorize them to require collection of sales tax revenue already owed, and doing so would not violate pledges that are limited to questions of income tax rates and deductions.
The states’ financial needs should be addressed. The states face serious budget shortfalls, yet the federal government faces its own fiscal challenges. Congress should help address the states’ budget shortfalls without spending federal funds, by authorizing the states to require collection of the billions of revenue dollars already owed.
Fairness among sellers should be created and maintained. Sellers should compete on a level playing field. Congress should not exempt too many sellers from collection, for these sellers will obtain a lasting un-level playing field versus Main Street and other retailers. Congress should rectify the current imbalance and avoid a future imbalance.
Mr. Chairman, Congress feasibly can authorize the states to require collection. The facts in the Quill decision arose a quarter of a century ago, and the Supreme Court’s decision was rendered a year before the World Wide Web was invented. With today’s computing and communications technology, widespread collection no longer would be an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce, and Congress feasibly can authorize the states to require all but the very smallest volume sellers to collect.
Much attention has been paid to the size of a “small seller exception” threshold in federal legislation – and rightfully so. Such a threshold, which would exempt some sellers from a collection requirement, must be kept very low to attain the objectives of protecting states’ rights, addressing the states’ needs, and creating fairness among sellers.
In this context, several kinds of small volume sellers must be considered.
Foremost are the Main Street small business retailers who, unless the small seller exception threshold is kept very low, will forever face an un-level playing field compared to a newly-created exempt class of out-of-state sellers.
Next are the online advertising affiliates, tens of thousands of whom have lost jobs or income as the result of ineffective, counterproductive sales tax laws recently enacted in a half-dozen states. Congress should act to make such laws uninteresting and irrelevant to the states – and thereby immediately restore the lost jobs and income – by authorizing the states to require collection.
Small volume online sellers have received most of the attention, and not without reason. No one wants these sellers to shoulder alone burdens compared to those faced by the small business retailers who already collect sales tax in our local communities. Yet no one should want these online sellers to take advantage of a newly-created un-level playing field over small Main Street businesses, and no one should want government to pick business model winners and losers this way.
The consequences of the threshold level to states’ rights, the states’ needs, and fairness are very significant, because a surprisingly large fraction of e-commerce is conducted by smaller volume sellers. For example, nearly 30% of uncollected sales tax revenue today is attributable to sellers with annual online sales below $150,000, and only one percent of online sellers sell more than this amount. In other words, a $150,000 exception would deny the states nearly 30% of the newly-available (yet already owed) revenue, but would exempt from collection 99% of online sellers. Any higher threshold would deny the states even more revenue and keep the playing field even more un-level.
Fortunately, today’s computing and communications technology will allow all online sellers to collect and remit tax like Main Street retailers.
Large volume online sellers already have and use this technology. Amazon and Overstock, for example, collect tax on sales to consumers in states where our retail businesses have nexus. And the online arms of large multichannel retailers collect in the states where they have retail stores. Quite obviously, state sales tax can be collected nationwide, at least by larger volume sellers like Amazon, Overstock, and the multichannel stores, for they have the technology.
This technology is not limited to large sellers. Rather, service providers also make the technology available to medium and small volume sellers. Thus, collection is either by sellers or for sellers. There are many service providers already: ADP, Avalara, and FedTax, for example.
Two other examples come to mind: Amazon and eBay.
Both companies use sophisticated computing and communications technology to serve their seller customers. But, while Amazon is prepared to make its technology available as a service to help sellers by collecting sales tax for them, eBay seeks to avoid any role in collection, claiming that small volume sellers will be burdened and, implicitly, that eBay’s technology is not capable of helping its largest sellers to collect. And these claims are made despite the fact that eBay manages to collect the transaction fees it charges its sellers, and despite the fact that eBay already calculates state sales tax for eBay sellers, all the way down to the local jurisdiction level. Amazon and many other service providers will help smaller online sellers collect; surely eBay can as well.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, Congress may, should, and feasibly can attain the objectives of protecting states’ rights, addressing the states’ needs without federal spending, and leveling the playing field for all sellers – but only if any “small seller exception” is kept very low.
The time to act is nigh. Amazon is grateful for this hearing, and we look forward to working with you and your colleagues in Congress to pass appropriate legislation as soon as possible.
This morning we ran a story on a new free search engine, YaCy. YaCy has no web portal like that of traditional search engines, instead it relies on users to download a peer-to-peer software client, which crawls the web from users’ computers, and indexes sites they visit. In the course of preparing that story, I sent a requests for comment to Karsten Gerloff, president of the Free Software Foundation of Europe, a major supporter of YaCy. Since most of the buzz about YaCy has been in terms of its potential challenge to Google, I asked him what his thoughts about YaCy as a credible rival to Google were. He had this to say:
YaCy isn’t a challenge to Google, and is a long way from becoming
one. It’s not even intended to challenge Google. What it is is a
new, exciting approach to web search that empowers users.
Despite the trend in reporting, then, it seems that YaCy is less about displacing the search giants, Google and Bing, and more about doing something new and different. Mr. Gerloff went on to say the following:
Right now, Microsoft and Google are the only two significant
companies left that do web crawling on a massive scale. Even when
you use a different search portal, there’s a fair chance that the
results come from one of those two. Both Google and Microsoft’s
Bing are huge operations, spending hundreds of millions of
dollars each year.
YaCy’s selling point (if you will) is not that it delivers better
results faster than Bing or Google — it currently doesn’t do
that. It’s the fact that it’s a distributed, peer-to-peer system.
With YaCy, there is no central server that can fail. There is no
central instance that can decide to show some results and not
others, or how to rank the results.
Instead, each user gets to make these decisions locally. The
portal at search.yacy.net is just a limited demonstration. To get
the full experience, you have to install YaCy locally (this
usually takes no more than a minute). Then your computer will be
part of the YaCy network, and you will be able to draw on the
whole network for search results.
He went on to explain that the FSFE’s interest in YaCy stems less from its potential to supplant Google, and more for the step forward it represents in distributive systems.
At FSFE, we find YaCy highly interesting because it’s part of a
trend to replace centralised systems with distributed ones. We
have Diaspora and other distributed social networks as an
alternative to Facebook. We have identi.ca and its status.net
platform as an alternative to Twitter, which users can install and
run on their own servers. YaCy is one of less than a handful (to
my knowledge) of distributed search engines.
So, no, YaCy isn’t a “Google killer”, as some of the more
excitable journalists out there have claimed. It’s an innovative,
distributed search engine that empowers users. Neither FSFE nor
YaCy have the desire to “kill” Google. Instead, I’d be happy to
see the company put its massive number of engineers to work on
distributed systems, and its strategy folks to figure out how to
make money from this next great wave, while giving power and
freedom to the users.
In sum, then, YaCy seems to be less about bringing down Google, and more about doing something new and innovative with search in a world that is increasingly dependent on cloud computing.
IBM announced that its board of directors elected Virginia M. Rometty President and CEO. She will assume the role on January 1, 2012. Rometty will also serve on the board itself.
Rometty is replacing Samuel J. Palmisano, but he will continue to serve as Chairman of the Board, a title he already holds in addition to President and CEO.
“Ginni Rometty has successfully led several of IBM’s most important businesses over the past decade – from the formation of IBM Global Business Services to the build-out of our Growth Markets,” says Palmisano.
“Ginni Rometty has successfully led several of IBM’s most important businesses over the past decade – from the formation of IBM Global Business Services to the build-out of our Growth Markets Unit,” he said. “But she is more than a superb operational executive. With every leadership role, she has strengthened our ability to integrate IBM’s capabilities for our clients. She has spurred us to keep pace with the needs and aspirations of our clients by deepening our expertise and industry knowledge. Ginni’s long-term strategic thinking and client focus are seen in our growth initiatives, from cloud computing and analytics to the commercialization of Watson. She brings to the role of CEO a unique combination of vision, client focus, unrelenting drive, and passion for IBMers and the company’s future. I know the board agrees with me that Ginni is the ideal CEO to lead IBM into its second century.”
“There is no greater privilege in business than to be asked to lead IBM, especially at this moment,” said Rometty. “Sam had the courage to transform the company based on his belief that computing technology, our industry, even world economies would shift in historic ways. All of that has come to pass. Today, IBM’s strategies and business model are correct. Our ability to execute and deliver consistent results for clients and shareholders is strong. This is due to Sam’s leadership, his discipline, and his unshakable belief in the ability of IBM and IBMers to lead into the future. Sam taught us, above all, that we must never stop reinventing IBM.”
Some noteworthy tweets about the news:
@martenmickos Mårten MickosWith IBM’s new CEO, we have three women running huge techs: Ursula Burns (Xerox), Meg Whitman (HP) Ginni Rometty (IBM) – via @jonfortt11 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto
@jackschofield Jack SchofieldIBM CEO Virginia Rometty will have one problem. So far Huffington Post, SF Gate and The Atlantic Wire have misspelled her name in headlines.15 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto
With so much hype around how great cloud computing is, it’s hard to imagine it any way other than good. The news is full of stories about what the cloud can do, the increased adoption rate of the cloud, and how more and more businesses are developing cloud applications. As a result, it would be really easy for businesses that are not on board with cloud computing to think that they’re way behind the times.
Is this really true though? Should businesses rush to get involved with the cloud? Let us know what you think.
According to Jason Scott, a digital historian and archivist, “the cloud,” as it is known today, is entirely different from its original meaning. He said that the term was actually used all the way back in the 1980s and was essentially used to describe a “great unknown.”
Back then, when companies dealt with networking issues and used machines outside their control, he explained that they would use a cloud in their diagram in order to send the message that this area was untrustworthy. Sounds a little different from the cloud that we hear so much about today, doesn’t it?
“Somehow we reversed that completely to thinking – what a great, trustable, fluffy thing,” said Scott.
He has written several blog posts expressing his views over the past couple of years but recently updated a post and called cloud computing a “sucker’s game.” In an interview with us, he pointed out that he is not against the cloud itself but is against the way it’s being portrayed.
“When I say I’m against the cloud, I’m against the term and the use of the term,” said Scott.
In today’s world, he thinks that the use of the term “the cloud” is nothing more than a big marketing gimmick. He told us that transparency, open systems, and interoperability are all very good and effective but that the cloud has been in used in relation to all these areas, which he doesn’t think is accurate.
Sales and marketing teams always strive to simplify processes for their customers, and according to Scott, this is exactly how the misinterpretation of the cloud began.
“While I think a lot of ethics are good, the term and the use of the it and the way we’re throwing it around and the way we’re encouraging people to be less informed and less knowledgeable about their environments, is just a terrible trend,” he said.
Scott went on to warn that companies should be very careful to not take the cloud for something that it’s not. He thinks that people should remember when Friendster went down and that there was no recourse for getting data back. Another example is when Ma.gnolia died and the users also lost their data, an issue which is addressed in this video:
When Amazon Web Services went down for 3 days, more recently, a lot of people and businesses saw their sites go down as well. It’s this lack of control that people have that concerns Scott with the current interpretation of what the cloud is.
“At this point, I think the term ‘cloud’ is ruined,” said Scott. “It’s used so much for so many things, [and] it has no meaning whatsoever anymore.”
He said that companies like Salesforce are “taking a big bet” and suggests that they take proactive moves in making sure that anything they put on the cloud has certain stipulations attached. He also believes there should be standards in place that clearly states what is actually represented by a cloud service.
In an effort to raise awareness of his concerns, Scott preserves data to show that there are risks involved with depending on the cloud.
“By bringing those items to light and trying to rescue at least artifacts of that service, we show people that no matter what you’re being told, it’s not permanent,” he said.
“The cloud is a cloud, but clouds fade and clouds drift away,” he added.
Although Scott has some very legitimate points, his perspective throws quite a curveball into the fluffy, trusting representation of the cloud that so many people are pushing.
Which cloud portrayal do you think is more accurate – the fluffy, trusting cloud or the great unknown cloud?
