CompuBrain Social Media 2.0 Best Social Media Agency Website Designing Company Ahmedabad Web Designing Agency Surat Search Engine Optimization Baroda Social Media Marketing Digital Media Agency Rajkot Technology Consultancy Mumbai Internet Reputation Management in Gujarat Hosting Services India

GOOGLE TAX KICKS IN FROM TODAY IN INDIA. The ‘Google Tax’ or ‘Facebook Tax’ which was first announced in the FY17 budget statement by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley will be levied from June 1. Here’s all you need to know about it — what Google Tax is, who will pay it, and its implications — As the name suggests, it’s got something to do with Internet Companies. The Google Tax was announced to introduce a tax on the income as accrue to a foreign Internet Company outside of India. Google Tax or ‘equalisation levy’ as it’s called in India, is expected to impact the bottomlines of giants like Google, Facebook, and others. According to the Budget announcement, any person or entity that makes a payment exceeding Rs 1 lakh in a financial year to a non-resident technology company will now need to withhold 6% tax on the gross amount being paid as an equalisation levy. The said rule is applicable when the payment is made to companies that don’t have a permanent establishment in India. This tax, however, is only applicable when the payment has been made to avail certain B2B services from these technology companies. What are the services that fall under this rule? Specified services include online and digital advertising or any other services for using the digital advertising space. This list, however, may be expanded soon. Why has the tax been introduced? The tax has been aimed at technology companies that make money via online advertisements. Their revenue is mostly routed to a tax haven country. This tax will help bring the said companies under the tax radar in India. With this new tax, India has also joined the list of other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and European countries where a similar tax is already in place. Who will it impact? If you’re a business owner, especially running a small business or an online start up, and you use Facebook or Google for advertising and marketing promotions, then the Google Tax will impact you. Let’s take an example: assume that A runs a company and is liable to pay Rs 5 lakh to a foreign company to advertise with them. With the new tax in place, A will have to withhold 6% of the amount – i.e. Rs 30,000 – and pay the balance Rs 4.7 lakh to the foreign company for its services. The withheld amount will be paid to the government. It remains to be seen whether the foreign company will stand to bear the loss by simply accepting lower margins because of the new tax or will they hike the advertising rate taking the new tax into account? If the latter happens, which is most likely, the Indian business owner, in this case, A, will bear the loss. A’s overall billing will likely shoot up by about 6%, which means he will have to pay Rs 5 lakh plus taxes. So his total payout may go up to Rs 5.3 lakh. What if an Indian business owner or company fails to deduct this tax? The Budget has proposed that any Indian business owner or company that fails to deduct this tax or equalisation levy or doesn’t deposit it with the government, then the company will not be allowed to consider the expenses in calculating taxable profits. This will increase the taxable income, thereby hiking the company’s tax liability. For more details write to us on info@compubrain.in #GoogleTax #IndianEconomy #Taxation

GOOGLE TAX KICKS IN FROM TODAY IN INDIA. The ‘Google Tax’ or ‘Facebook Tax’ which was first announced in the FY17 budget statement by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley will be levied from June 1. Here’s all you need to know about it — what Google Tax is, who will pay it, and its implications — As the name suggests, it’s got something to do with Internet Companies. The Google Tax was announced to introduce a tax on the income as accrue to a foreign Internet Company outside of India. Google Tax or ‘equalisation levy’ as it’s called in India, is expected to impact the bottomlines of giants like Google, Facebook, and others. According to the Budget announcement, any person or entity that makes a payment exceeding Rs 1 lakh in a financial year to a non-resident technology company will now need to withhold 6% tax on the gross amount being paid as an equalisation levy. The said rule is applicable when the payment is made to companies that don’t have a permanent establishment in India. This tax, however, is only applicable when the payment has been made to avail certain B2B services from these technology companies. What are the services that fall under this rule? Specified services include online and digital advertising or any other services for using the digital advertising space. This list, however, may be expanded soon. Why has the tax been introduced? The tax has been aimed at technology companies that make money via online advertisements. Their revenue is mostly routed to a tax haven country. This tax will help bring the said companies under the tax radar in India. With this new tax, India has also joined the list of other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and European countries where a similar tax is already in place. Who will it impact? If you’re a business owner, especially running a small business or an online start up, and you use Facebook or Google for advertising and marketing promotions, then the Google Tax will impact you. Let’s take an example: assume that A runs a company and is liable to pay Rs 5 lakh to a foreign company to advertise with them. With the new tax in place, A will have to withhold 6% of the amount – i.e. Rs 30,000 – and pay the balance Rs 4.7 lakh to the foreign company for its services. The withheld amount will be paid to the government. It remains to be seen whether the foreign company will stand to bear the loss by simply accepting lower margins because of the new tax or will they hike the advertising rate taking the new tax into account? If the latter happens, which is most likely, the Indian business owner, in this case, A, will bear the loss. A’s overall billing will likely shoot up by about 6%, which means he will have to pay Rs 5 lakh plus taxes. So his total payout may go up to Rs 5.3 lakh. What if an Indian business owner or company fails to deduct this tax? The Budget has proposed that any Indian business owner or company that fails to deduct this tax or equalisation levy or doesn’t deposit it with the government, then the company will not be allowed to consider the expenses in calculating taxable profits. This will increase the taxable income, thereby hiking the company’s tax liability. For more details write to us on info@compubrain.in #GoogleTax #IndianEconomy #Taxation

GOOGLE TAX KICKS IN FROM TODAY IN INDIA. The ‘Google Tax’ or ‘Facebook Tax’ which was first announced in the FY17 budget statement by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley will be levied from June 1. Here’s all you need to know about it — what Google Tax is, who will pay it, and its implications — As the name suggests, it’s got something to do with Internet Companies. The Google Tax was announced to introduce a tax on the income as accrue to a foreign Internet Company outside of India. Google Tax or ‘equalisation levy’ as it’s called in India, is expected to impact the bottomlines of giants like Google, Facebook, and others. According to the Budget announcement, any person or entity that makes a payment exceeding Rs 1 lakh in a financial year to a non-resident technology company will now need to withhold 6% tax on the gross amount being paid as an equalisation levy. The said rule is applicable when the payment is made to companies that don’t have a permanent establishment in India. This tax, however, is only applicable when the payment has been made to avail certain B2B services from these technology companies. What are the services that fall under this rule? Specified services include online and digital advertising or any other services for using the digital advertising space. This list, however, may be expanded soon. Why has the tax been introduced? The tax has been aimed at technology companies that make money via online advertisements. Their revenue is mostly routed to a tax haven country. This tax will help bring the said companies under the tax radar in India. With this new tax, India has also joined the list of other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and European countries where a similar tax is already in place. Who will it impact? If you’re a business owner, especially running a small business or an online start up, and you use Facebook or Google for advertising and marketing promotions, then the Google Tax will impact you. Let’s take an example: assume that A runs a company and is liable to pay Rs 5 lakh to a foreign company to advertise with them. With the new tax in place, A will have to withhold 6% of the amount – i.e. Rs 30,000 – and pay the balance Rs 4.7 lakh to the foreign company for its services. The withheld amount will be paid to the government. It remains to be seen whether the foreign company will stand to bear the loss by simply accepting lower margins because of the new tax or will they hike the advertising rate taking the new tax into account? If the latter happens, which is most likely, the Indian business owner, in this case, A, will bear the loss. A’s overall billing will likely shoot up by about 6%, which means he will have to pay Rs 5 lakh plus taxes. So his total payout may go up to Rs 5.3 lakh. What if an Indian business owner or company fails to deduct this tax? The Budget has proposed that any Indian business owner or company that fails to deduct this tax or equalisation levy or doesn’t deposit it with the government, then the company will not be allowed to consider the expenses in calculating taxable profits. This will increase the taxable income, thereby hiking the company’s tax liability. For more details write to us on info@compubrain.in #GoogleTax #IndianEconomy #Taxation

Read More

... Google is buying a seemingly crazy collection of companies ... Take a look at a list of Google’s 144 latest acquisitions and you’ll notice most seem to have little in common. That has a number of technology experts wondering just what the company is up to. This week Google bought SlickLogin, an Israeli startup that uses high-frequency sound waves as the basis of a smart-ID login system. A few weeks ago Google bought Nest, a company that develops thermostats and smoke alarms that are connected to the internet. In December its target was a slew of robotics companies, leading many to jovially question whether or not the company plans to develop an army of robots. Last May, Google purchased a firm called Makani Power that develops airborne wind turbines. In September it acquired a health care company called Calico, which is researching ways to defy aging. The eclectic list goes on. Google has been acquiring companies since 2001, at some points buying one per week. Google has always been much more than a search engine. It’s an advertising company first and foremost - this is where most of its earnings come from. But Google's recent purchases demonstrate the ad-and-search empire may be evolving in a very different direction.

... Google is buying a seemingly crazy collection of companies ... Take a look at a list of Google’s 144 latest acquisitions and you’ll notice most seem to have little in common. That has a number of technology experts wondering just what the company is up to. This week Google bought SlickLogin, an Israeli startup that uses high-frequency sound waves as the basis of a smart-ID login system. A few weeks ago Google bought Nest, a company that develops thermostats and smoke alarms that are connected to the internet. In December its target was a slew of robotics companies, leading many to jovially question whether or not the company plans to develop an army of robots. Last May, Google purchased a firm called Makani Power that develops airborne wind turbines. In September it acquired a health care company called Calico, which is researching ways to defy aging. The eclectic list goes on. Google has been acquiring companies since 2001, at some points buying one per week. Google has always been much more than a search engine. It’s an advertising company first and foremost - this is where most of its earnings come from. But Google's recent purchases demonstrate the ad-and-search empire may be evolving in a very different direction.

... Google is buying a seemingly crazy collection of companies ... Take a look at a list of Google’s 144 latest acquisitions and you’ll notice most seem to have little in common. That has a number of technology experts wondering just what the company is up to. This week Google bought SlickLogin, an Israeli startup that uses high-frequency sound waves as the basis of a smart-ID login system. A few weeks ago Google bought Nest, a company that develops thermostats and smoke alarms that are connected to the internet. In December its target was a slew of robotics companies, leading many to jovially question whether or not the company plans to develop an army of robots. Last May, Google purchased a firm called Makani Power that develops airborne wind turbines. In September it acquired a health care company called Calico, which is researching ways to defy aging. The eclectic list goes on. Google has been acquiring companies since 2001, at some points buying one per week. Google has always been much more than a search engine. It’s an advertising company first and foremost - this is where most of its earnings come from. But Google's recent purchases demonstrate the ad-and-search empire may be evolving in a very different direction.

Read More

:: How Google's Drive helps kill Microsoft's Office :: This is how a search company can steal the productivity business: By storing work, not helping users edit it. Google's hard drive in the sky, Google Drive, is a big threat to other cloud storage products like Dropbox and Box. But it's also a stab straight at the heart of Microsoft's mainstream business software, Microsoft Office. While Google's productivity application suites, Docs (now incorporated into Drive) and Apps (for businesses), have been making some headway into Microsoft Office's territory, the important battlefield is not the application. It's the data. If Google can move the battlefield to a place where it has the bigger army and better weapons, the whole game changes. Google Drive might make that happen. Let's look at the world from behind Google-colored glasses. Every time a user performs a search in the Google search engine, or clicks a link in Chrome, or +1s an item in Plus, Google adds an atom of data to its knowledge of what people like and what they do. This information helps Google index the Web and rank its results when people are searching for something. This is also the Facebook model, by the way. Moreover, every action that generates user data that doesn't touch down in a Google product or service deprives Google of information that it could otherwise use to index and understand the Web of human knowledge and preference. Microsoft Word documents stored on PCs? In the most uncharitable view, every one is money being stolen from Google. All closed, siloed apps, for that matter, remove opportunity from Google. Co-founder Sergey Brin has recently spoken out against apps and companies that wall off data from the open Internet. There is indeed a danger, but it's not just about openness, it's about Google's own ability to index the data. Back to Google Drive: By acting as the substrate for user data -- in other words, the file system -- Google gets exposed to many times more information. Google doesn't need, and in fact has no reason, to make this data public, but having it available to index and cross-reference does make the company's core service, targeted advertising, more valuable. The more data Google has, the more valuable its product becomes. And that product, in case it's not already clear, is you. Your attention, which is sold to advertisers. Microsoft's main product, meanwhile, is software, not data. (And its customers aren't advertisers, but people who buy software.) So why can't Microsoft's model and Google's live in harmony? Because Microsoft's software suite consists of application software and an operating system, and the operating system stores user data, and the data is what Google wants. So Google is undermining that function with Google Drive, and not just by offering a synchronized file system (which, by the way, Microsoft also offers). Once users put their data in Google Drive, they will also find out how easy it is to open these files in non-Microsoft apps. This is one of the reasons Google is launching Google Drive with an API for developers and a suite of partner products that shave off Microsoft customers a bit at a time. One of the most important features that third-party developers are using with Google Drive is the "Open with" feature. If you upload a Microsoft Project file to Drive, for example, you can open it with the Web app SmartSheet, directly on the Web. Similarly, Web apps like SlideRocket can open PowerPoint files. Google's own productivity apps can also open Microsoft files. The more people realize that they don't need Office to access their archives of files from the pre-Google Drive era, the more likely they are to look to Google Drive (or perhaps competing products, if they have similar partners) as primary storage. And Google wins, while Microsoft loses. How can Microsoft counter this market erosion at Google's hands? The company has its own cloud storage product and a strong history with developers. And it has the business customers. But according to a Google Drive developer I spoke with, one who's been dealing also with Microsoft for years, Microsoft is not there yet. It has the centralized storage in SkyDrive and Office 365, but not the infrastructure -- especially the identity and sign-on tools -- that developers need to integrate into the Microsoft cloud. Microsoft also needs to protect its software licensing revenue for Office. Google, the upstart in business software, can undercut Microsoft's prices since all its software sales are incremental on top of its search and advertising businesses. Other companies realize that whoever controls the data controls the market. Box, for instance, just launched OneCloud, which lets you open documents in a variety of apps. It's mobile-only so far, though. It is no longer a PC world, and because of that Microsoft doesn't own the world of work. People do their jobs on their own computers, on the Web, and on mobile devices; and they expect their work to follow them onto whatever hardware they're using. Every major technology company understands this. But only a few have the products, the infrastructure, and the freedom to get ahead of the shift.

:: How Google's Drive helps kill Microsoft's Office :: This is how a search company can steal the productivity business: By storing work, not helping users edit it. Google's hard drive in the sky, Google Drive, is a big threat to other cloud storage products like Dropbox and Box. But it's also a stab straight at the heart of Microsoft's mainstream business software, Microsoft Office. While Google's productivity application suites, Docs (now incorporated into Drive) and Apps (for businesses), have been making some headway into Microsoft Office's territory, the important battlefield is not the application. It's the data. If Google can move the battlefield to a place where it has the bigger army and better weapons, the whole game changes. Google Drive might make that happen. Let's look at the world from behind Google-colored glasses. Every time a user performs a search in the Google search engine, or clicks a link in Chrome, or +1s an item in Plus, Google adds an atom of data to its knowledge of what people like and what they do. This information helps Google index the Web and rank its results when people are searching for something. This is also the Facebook model, by the way. Moreover, every action that generates user data that doesn't touch down in a Google product or service deprives Google of information that it could otherwise use to index and understand the Web of human knowledge and preference. Microsoft Word documents stored on PCs? In the most uncharitable view, every one is money being stolen from Google. All closed, siloed apps, for that matter, remove opportunity from Google. Co-founder Sergey Brin has recently spoken out against apps and companies that wall off data from the open Internet. There is indeed a danger, but it's not just about openness, it's about Google's own ability to index the data. Back to Google Drive: By acting as the substrate for user data -- in other words, the file system -- Google gets exposed to many times more information. Google doesn't need, and in fact has no reason, to make this data public, but having it available to index and cross-reference does make the company's core service, targeted advertising, more valuable. The more data Google has, the more valuable its product becomes. And that product, in case it's not already clear, is you. Your attention, which is sold to advertisers. Microsoft's main product, meanwhile, is software, not data. (And its customers aren't advertisers, but people who buy software.) So why can't Microsoft's model and Google's live in harmony? Because Microsoft's software suite consists of application software and an operating system, and the operating system stores user data, and the data is what Google wants. So Google is undermining that function with Google Drive, and not just by offering a synchronized file system (which, by the way, Microsoft also offers). Once users put their data in Google Drive, they will also find out how easy it is to open these files in non-Microsoft apps. This is one of the reasons Google is launching Google Drive with an API for developers and a suite of partner products that shave off Microsoft customers a bit at a time. One of the most important features that third-party developers are using with Google Drive is the "Open with" feature. If you upload a Microsoft Project file to Drive, for example, you can open it with the Web app SmartSheet, directly on the Web. Similarly, Web apps like SlideRocket can open PowerPoint files. Google's own productivity apps can also open Microsoft files. The more people realize that they don't need Office to access their archives of files from the pre-Google Drive era, the more likely they are to look to Google Drive (or perhaps competing products, if they have similar partners) as primary storage. And Google wins, while Microsoft loses. How can Microsoft counter this market erosion at Google's hands? The company has its own cloud storage product and a strong history with developers. And it has the business customers. But according to a Google Drive developer I spoke with, one who's been dealing also with Microsoft for years, Microsoft is not there yet. It has the centralized storage in SkyDrive and Office 365, but not the infrastructure -- especially the identity and sign-on tools -- that developers need to integrate into the Microsoft cloud. Microsoft also needs to protect its software licensing revenue for Office. Google, the upstart in business software, can undercut Microsoft's prices since all its software sales are incremental on top of its search and advertising businesses. Other companies realize that whoever controls the data controls the market. Box, for instance, just launched OneCloud, which lets you open documents in a variety of apps. It's mobile-only so far, though. It is no longer a PC world, and because of that Microsoft doesn't own the world of work. People do their jobs on their own computers, on the Web, and on mobile devices; and they expect their work to follow them onto whatever hardware they're using. Every major technology company understands this. But only a few have the products, the infrastructure, and the freedom to get ahead of the shift.

:: How Google's Drive helps kill Microsoft's Office :: This is how a search company can steal the productivity business: By storing work, not helping users edit it. Google's hard drive in the sky, Google Drive, is a big threat to other cloud storage products like Dropbox and Box. But it's also a stab straight at the heart of Microsoft's mainstream business software, Microsoft Office. While Google's productivity application suites, Docs (now incorporated into Drive) and Apps (for businesses), have been making some headway into Microsoft Office's territory, the important battlefield is not the application. It's the data. If Google can move the battlefield to a place where it has the bigger army and better weapons, the whole game changes. Google Drive might make that happen. Let's look at the world from behind Google-colored glasses. Every time a user performs a search in the Google search engine, or clicks a link in Chrome, or +1s an item in Plus, Google adds an atom of data to its knowledge of what people like and what they do. This information helps Google index the Web and rank its results when people are searching for something. This is also the Facebook model, by the way. Moreover, every action that generates user data that doesn't touch down in a Google product or service deprives Google of information that it could otherwise use to index and understand the Web of human knowledge and preference. Microsoft Word documents stored on PCs? In the most uncharitable view, every one is money being stolen from Google. All closed, siloed apps, for that matter, remove opportunity from Google. Co-founder Sergey Brin has recently spoken out against apps and companies that wall off data from the open Internet. There is indeed a danger, but it's not just about openness, it's about Google's own ability to index the data. Back to Google Drive: By acting as the substrate for user data -- in other words, the file system -- Google gets exposed to many times more information. Google doesn't need, and in fact has no reason, to make this data public, but having it available to index and cross-reference does make the company's core service, targeted advertising, more valuable. The more data Google has, the more valuable its product becomes. And that product, in case it's not already clear, is you. Your attention, which is sold to advertisers. Microsoft's main product, meanwhile, is software, not data. (And its customers aren't advertisers, but people who buy software.) So why can't Microsoft's model and Google's live in harmony? Because Microsoft's software suite consists of application software and an operating system, and the operating system stores user data, and the data is what Google wants. So Google is undermining that function with Google Drive, and not just by offering a synchronized file system (which, by the way, Microsoft also offers). Once users put their data in Google Drive, they will also find out how easy it is to open these files in non-Microsoft apps. This is one of the reasons Google is launching Google Drive with an API for developers and a suite of partner products that shave off Microsoft customers a bit at a time. One of the most important features that third-party developers are using with Google Drive is the "Open with" feature. If you upload a Microsoft Project file to Drive, for example, you can open it with the Web app SmartSheet, directly on the Web. Similarly, Web apps like SlideRocket can open PowerPoint files. Google's own productivity apps can also open Microsoft files. The more people realize that they don't need Office to access their archives of files from the pre-Google Drive era, the more likely they are to look to Google Drive (or perhaps competing products, if they have similar partners) as primary storage. And Google wins, while Microsoft loses. How can Microsoft counter this market erosion at Google's hands? The company has its own cloud storage product and a strong history with developers. And it has the business customers. But according to a Google Drive developer I spoke with, one who's been dealing also with Microsoft for years, Microsoft is not there yet. It has the centralized storage in SkyDrive and Office 365, but not the infrastructure -- especially the identity and sign-on tools -- that developers need to integrate into the Microsoft cloud. Microsoft also needs to protect its software licensing revenue for Office. Google, the upstart in business software, can undercut Microsoft's prices since all its software sales are incremental on top of its search and advertising businesses. Other companies realize that whoever controls the data controls the market. Box, for instance, just launched OneCloud, which lets you open documents in a variety of apps. It's mobile-only so far, though. It is no longer a PC world, and because of that Microsoft doesn't own the world of work. People do their jobs on their own computers, on the Web, and on mobile devices; and they expect their work to follow them onto whatever hardware they're using. Every major technology company understands this. But only a few have the products, the infrastructure, and the freedom to get ahead of the shift.

Read More

:: Facebook challenge: Cashing in on mobile devices :: Lots of people love their cellphones. Facebook, so far, is not a big fan. Amid the jaw-dropping financial figures the company revealed last week when it filed for a public offering was an interesting admission. Although more than half of its 845 million members log into Facebook on a mobile device, the company has not yet found a way to make real money from that use. "We do not currently directly generate any meaningful revenue from the use of Facebook mobile products, and our ability to do so successfully is unproven," the company said in its review of the risks it faces. In a world that is rapidly moving toward an era of mobile computing, this is a troubling issue for Silicon Valley's brightest star - particularly since much of Facebook's growth right now is in countries like Chile, Turkey, Venezuela and Brazil, where people largely have access to the Internet using cellphones. Facebook is not the only company struggling to translate the success of its website to mobile devices, where screen space is at a premium and people have little patience for clutter or slow loading times. It is a problem that plagues companies as diverse as news publishers and the streaming radio service Pandora, and it is likely to loom larger. There were more global shipments of smartphones than of personal computers in 2011, according to a recent report from Canalys, a research firm. But the issue seems particularly urgent in the case of Facebook, which is wildly popular among its users and is seen as a company of the future, a hybrid of social hub and information conduit, platform and publisher. In other words, if Facebook cannot figure it out, who can? Facebook brings in most of its revenue by selling space on its website to advertisers who want to reach its users. Overall spending on mobile advertising in the United States is expected to reach $2.6 billion this year, up 80 percent from $1.45 billion in 2011, according to research by eMarketer. But that will still be just a sliver of what is likely to be a $39.5 billion online advertising market. Google, a Facebook competitor on the Web, was the biggest player in the mobile ad market last year with about $750 million in revenue, and Apple came in second with more than $90 million, eMarketer says. "It's still immature when compared to online, print and TV advertising," said Noah Elkin, an analyst with eMarketer. "But it's growing at a faster pace, even though its revenues are still dwarfed by the other formats." If Facebook were to bring Zynga's games to its iPhone and iPad apps, for example, it would have to share that revenue with Apple, which requires app makers to hand over 30 percent of their proceeds. Google puts no such restrictions on apps for devices running its Android software, but given the increasing rivalry between Facebook and Google in social networking, Facebook is not in full control of its destiny there either. Source - Gesia

:: Facebook challenge: Cashing in on mobile devices :: Lots of people love their cellphones. Facebook, so far, is not a big fan. Amid the jaw-dropping financial figures the company revealed last week when it filed for a public offering was an interesting admission. Although more than half of its 845 million members log into Facebook on a mobile device, the company has not yet found a way to make real money from that use. "We do not currently directly generate any meaningful revenue from the use of Facebook mobile products, and our ability to do so successfully is unproven," the company said in its review of the risks it faces. In a world that is rapidly moving toward an era of mobile computing, this is a troubling issue for Silicon Valley's brightest star - particularly since much of Facebook's growth right now is in countries like Chile, Turkey, Venezuela and Brazil, where people largely have access to the Internet using cellphones. Facebook is not the only company struggling to translate the success of its website to mobile devices, where screen space is at a premium and people have little patience for clutter or slow loading times. It is a problem that plagues companies as diverse as news publishers and the streaming radio service Pandora, and it is likely to loom larger. There were more global shipments of smartphones than of personal computers in 2011, according to a recent report from Canalys, a research firm. But the issue seems particularly urgent in the case of Facebook, which is wildly popular among its users and is seen as a company of the future, a hybrid of social hub and information conduit, platform and publisher. In other words, if Facebook cannot figure it out, who can? Facebook brings in most of its revenue by selling space on its website to advertisers who want to reach its users. Overall spending on mobile advertising in the United States is expected to reach $2.6 billion this year, up 80 percent from $1.45 billion in 2011, according to research by eMarketer. But that will still be just a sliver of what is likely to be a $39.5 billion online advertising market. Google, a Facebook competitor on the Web, was the biggest player in the mobile ad market last year with about $750 million in revenue, and Apple came in second with more than $90 million, eMarketer says. "It's still immature when compared to online, print and TV advertising," said Noah Elkin, an analyst with eMarketer. "But it's growing at a faster pace, even though its revenues are still dwarfed by the other formats." If Facebook were to bring Zynga's games to its iPhone and iPad apps, for example, it would have to share that revenue with Apple, which requires app makers to hand over 30 percent of their proceeds. Google puts no such restrictions on apps for devices running its Android software, but given the increasing rivalry between Facebook and Google in social networking, Facebook is not in full control of its destiny there either. Source - Gesia

:: Facebook challenge: Cashing in on mobile devices :: Lots of people love their cellphones. Facebook, so far, is not a big fan. Amid the jaw-dropping financial figures the company revealed last week when it filed for a public offering was an interesting admission. Although more than half of its 845 million members log into Facebook on a mobile device, the company has not yet found a way to make real money from that use. "We do not currently directly generate any meaningful revenue from the use of Facebook mobile products, and our ability to do so successfully is unproven," the company said in its review of the risks it faces. In a world that is rapidly moving toward an era of mobile computing, this is a troubling issue for Silicon Valley's brightest star - particularly since much of Facebook's growth right now is in countries like Chile, Turkey, Venezuela and Brazil, where people largely have access to the Internet using cellphones. Facebook is not the only company struggling to translate the success of its website to mobile devices, where screen space is at a premium and people have little patience for clutter or slow loading times. It is a problem that plagues companies as diverse as news publishers and the streaming radio service Pandora, and it is likely to loom larger. There were more global shipments of smartphones than of personal computers in 2011, according to a recent report from Canalys, a research firm. But the issue seems particularly urgent in the case of Facebook, which is wildly popular among its users and is seen as a company of the future, a hybrid of social hub and information conduit, platform and publisher. In other words, if Facebook cannot figure it out, who can? Facebook brings in most of its revenue by selling space on its website to advertisers who want to reach its users. Overall spending on mobile advertising in the United States is expected to reach $2.6 billion this year, up 80 percent from $1.45 billion in 2011, according to research by eMarketer. But that will still be just a sliver of what is likely to be a $39.5 billion online advertising market. Google, a Facebook competitor on the Web, was the biggest player in the mobile ad market last year with about $750 million in revenue, and Apple came in second with more than $90 million, eMarketer says. "It's still immature when compared to online, print and TV advertising," said Noah Elkin, an analyst with eMarketer. "But it's growing at a faster pace, even though its revenues are still dwarfed by the other formats." If Facebook were to bring Zynga's games to its iPhone and iPad apps, for example, it would have to share that revenue with Apple, which requires app makers to hand over 30 percent of their proceeds. Google puts no such restrictions on apps for devices running its Android software, but given the increasing rivalry between Facebook and Google in social networking, Facebook is not in full control of its destiny there either. Source - Gesia

Read More

:: Google to unify privacy policy across products :: Google Inc plans to unify its privacy policy and terms of service across its online offerings, including its flagship search, Gmail and Google+ products, to make them easier to use, but the move could attract greater scrutiny from anti-trust regulators. In an online blog post, Google said it expects to roll out the revised guidelines in over a month's time, consolidating more than 60 separate privacy policies it uses for its online products. Google currently has more than 70 privacy policies covering all of its products. Right now, users of Google products have to agree to a new set of privacy policy and terms of services almost every time they sign up for a new service. This leaves them with an option to opt out of certain services like Google+ or Picasa. After the new policy comes into effect, user information from most Google products will be treated as a single trove of data, which the company could use for its targeted advertising dollars, raising potential red flags for anti-trust regulators. "If you're signed in, we may combine information you've provided from one service with information from other services," Google's director of privacy, product and engineering, Alma Whitten wrote in blog post. "In short, we'll treat you as a single user across all our products, which will mean a simpler, more intuitive Google experience." The announcement comes days after Google's decision to personalize its search feature drew criticism over privacy and anti-trust issues. Online privacy has come under scrutiny from anti-trust regulators as a handful of web giants have been accused of compromising user privacy to attract advertisers. Late last year, Facebook settled with the US FTC agreeing to be regulated for a period of 20 years whenever it decided to change its privacy policy. In 2010, the FTC settled charges with Twitter, after the agency alleged that the social networking service had failed to safeguard users' personal information. US regulators are reportedly looking into whether Google manipulates its search results to favor its own products and have expanded the probe to include Google+. "Regulators globally have been calling for shorter, simpler privacy policies - and having one policy covering many different products is now fairly standard across the Web," Whitten said in the post. Source :- ibnlive.com

:: Google to unify privacy policy across products :: Google Inc plans to unify its privacy policy and terms of service across its online offerings, including its flagship search, Gmail and Google+ products, to make them easier to use, but the move could attract greater scrutiny from anti-trust regulators. In an online blog post, Google said it expects to roll out the revised guidelines in over a month's time, consolidating more than 60 separate privacy policies it uses for its online products. Google currently has more than 70 privacy policies covering all of its products. Right now, users of Google products have to agree to a new set of privacy policy and terms of services almost every time they sign up for a new service. This leaves them with an option to opt out of certain services like Google+ or Picasa. After the new policy comes into effect, user information from most Google products will be treated as a single trove of data, which the company could use for its targeted advertising dollars, raising potential red flags for anti-trust regulators. "If you're signed in, we may combine information you've provided from one service with information from other services," Google's director of privacy, product and engineering, Alma Whitten wrote in blog post. "In short, we'll treat you as a single user across all our products, which will mean a simpler, more intuitive Google experience." The announcement comes days after Google's decision to personalize its search feature drew criticism over privacy and anti-trust issues. Online privacy has come under scrutiny from anti-trust regulators as a handful of web giants have been accused of compromising user privacy to attract advertisers. Late last year, Facebook settled with the US FTC agreeing to be regulated for a period of 20 years whenever it decided to change its privacy policy. In 2010, the FTC settled charges with Twitter, after the agency alleged that the social networking service had failed to safeguard users' personal information. US regulators are reportedly looking into whether Google manipulates its search results to favor its own products and have expanded the probe to include Google+. "Regulators globally have been calling for shorter, simpler privacy policies - and having one policy covering many different products is now fairly standard across the Web," Whitten said in the post. Source :- ibnlive.com

:: Google to unify privacy policy across products :: Google Inc plans to unify its privacy policy and terms of service across its online offerings, including its flagship search, Gmail and Google+ products, to make them easier to use, but the move could attract greater scrutiny from anti-trust regulators. In an online blog post, Google said it expects to roll out the revised guidelines in over a month's time, consolidating more than 60 separate privacy policies it uses for its online products. Google currently has more than 70 privacy policies covering all of its products. Right now, users of Google products have to agree to a new set of privacy policy and terms of services almost every time they sign up for a new service. This leaves them with an option to opt out of certain services like Google+ or Picasa. After the new policy comes into effect, user information from most Google products will be treated as a single trove of data, which the company could use for its targeted advertising dollars, raising potential red flags for anti-trust regulators. "If you're signed in, we may combine information you've provided from one service with information from other services," Google's director of privacy, product and engineering, Alma Whitten wrote in blog post. "In short, we'll treat you as a single user across all our products, which will mean a simpler, more intuitive Google experience." The announcement comes days after Google's decision to personalize its search feature drew criticism over privacy and anti-trust issues. Online privacy has come under scrutiny from anti-trust regulators as a handful of web giants have been accused of compromising user privacy to attract advertisers. Late last year, Facebook settled with the US FTC agreeing to be regulated for a period of 20 years whenever it decided to change its privacy policy. In 2010, the FTC settled charges with Twitter, after the agency alleged that the social networking service had failed to safeguard users' personal information. US regulators are reportedly looking into whether Google manipulates its search results to favor its own products and have expanded the probe to include Google+. "Regulators globally have been calling for shorter, simpler privacy policies - and having one policy covering many different products is now fairly standard across the Web," Whitten said in the post. Source :- ibnlive.com

Read More

:: All that happened on Internet Blackout Day :: January 18 - Internet Blackout Day - is a date that will live in ignorance, as the world's largest encyclopaedia Wikipedia started a 24-hour blackout of the English version of the website. Wikipedia joined other big and small websites in a protest against pending US legislation aimed at shutting down sites that share pirated movies and other content. Wikipedia and other proponents of a free Internet believe that if Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) are passed it "will harm the free and open Internet and bring about new tools for censorship of international websites inside the United States." It is the first time the English site has been blacked out. Wikipedia's Italian site came down once briefly in protest to an Internet censorship bill put forward by the Berlusconi government. The bill did not advance. The decision was reached after polling the community of contributors, but dissenters say political advocacy undermines the site's mission as a neutral source. However, it's not complete: the block could be bypassed by changing browser settings to disable JavaScript, or by using the version of the site designed for cellphone screens. Unlike Wikipedia, Google didn't black out its entire website but only its logo, reminiscent of the doodles that the search engine giant puts up to commemorate special occasions. Google also directed users to a page titled "End Piracy, Not Liberty" that put together information on why SOPA and the PIPA are wrong and users could also add their names to a petition against the bills. "Like many businesses, entrepreneurs and Web users, we oppose these bills because there are smart, targeted ways to shut down foreign rogue websites without asking American companies to censor the Internet," said a Google spokeswoman. The legislation being debated in the US Congress target foreign websites that violate copyrights online by banning US companies from providing them with advertising, payment or other Internet services. The Internet companies are concerned that the legislation, if passed, could be used to target legitimate sites where users share content. US payment processors and advertisers would have to end service to foreign websites that copyright holders say are infringing their rights, or be liable to be sued. Search engines and Internet companies would be banned from providing links to infringing sites. Critics of the proposed legislation argue that the proposals would stifle Internet innovation and online freedom, a key driver of US and global economic growth. The White House raised concerns over the weekend, pledging to work with Congress to battle piracy and counterfeiting while defending free expression, privacy and innovation in the Internet. The administration signalled it might use its veto power, if necessary. With public sentiment on the bill shifting in recent weeks and an implicit veto threat now emerging from the White House, Congressional staffers are resigning themselves to writing replacement language or possibly entirely new bills. Three key section of the existing legislation seem likely to remain. They comprise provisions aimed at getting search engines to disable links to foreign infringing sites; provisions that cut off advertising services to those sites; and provisions that cut off payment processing. But critical provisions that would require Internet service providers such as Verizon Communications and Comcast Corp. to cut off infringing sites through a technology known as DNS blocking are now likely to be eliminated. Critics have said that such measures would only encourage people to navigate the web in riskier ways, with modified browsers or other tweaks that could lead to their Internet sessions getting hijacked by scammers. Lawmakers had already been coming around to the realisation they would have to hold back on the DNS-blocking provisions. Supporters of the bills include movie and music companies such as Walt Disney, content providers such as the National Football League and News Corp., pharmaceutical companies such as Eli Lilly, and the US Chamber of Commerce. They argue the bills' sweeping provisions are necessary to shutter the burgeoning numbers of foreign-based cybercrime sites that sell counterfeit goods, pirated software or fake pharmaceuticals, or stream copyrighted content like music and movies. Reddit.com shut down its social news service for 12 hours. Other sites made their views clear without cutting off surfers. Wordpress, one of the world's most popular blogging platforms, also put its weight behind the protests by blacking out the homepage of Wordpress.org. Thousands of Wordpress-powered blogs also joined in using one of the many SOPA Blackout plugins made available by developers. Local listings site Craiglist took a middle route, changing its local home pages to a black screen directing users to an anti-legislation page. After 10 seconds, a link to the main site appears on the home page, but some surfers missed that and were fooled into thinking the whole site was blacked out. Topics related to the Internet Blackout Day dominated the top Twitter trends on Wednesday, but the protest did not get Twitter itself getting involved in a direct role. "Closing a global business in reaction to single-issue national politics is foolish," Twitter CEO Dick Costolo tweeted, but he followed up with a Tweet stating the company will continue to take an active role in opposing the bills. That position of criticising the bills, but sitting out the blackout is echoed by many big tech companies, including several who wrote to Congress in November to complain about the legislation, such as AOL Inc, eBay Inc, Mozilla and Zynga Inc. "We are not adjusting the consumer experience on our properties tomorrow, but we will be helping to drive awareness of key issues around these bills to our users," said Tekedra Mawakana, senior vice president for public policy at AOL. In November, a number of technology companies wrote to key lawmakers expressing opposition to the bill, including eBay, Facebook, Google, Twitter and Mozilla. Supporters of the bill were quick to attack the protests. "This publicity stunt does a disservice to its users by promoting fear instead of facts," said Lamar Smith, chairman of the US House Judiciary Committee and a sponsor of SOPA. "Perhaps during the blackout, Internet users can look elsewhere for an accurate definition of online piracy." Former US senator Chris Dodd, who now chairs the Motion Picture Association of America, labelled the blackout a "gimmick" and called for its supporters to "stop the hyperbole and PR stunts and engage in meaningful efforts to combat piracy." Internet Blackout Day got thousands of websites to participate and generated public discussion and succeeded in attracting the attention of lawmakers and industry leaders backing the bills. Source:- ibnlive.com

:: All that happened on Internet Blackout Day :: January 18 - Internet Blackout Day - is a date that will live in ignorance, as the world's largest encyclopaedia Wikipedia started a 24-hour blackout of the English version of the website. Wikipedia joined other big and small websites in a protest against pending US legislation aimed at shutting down sites that share pirated movies and other content. Wikipedia and other proponents of a free Internet believe that if Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) are passed it "will harm the free and open Internet and bring about new tools for censorship of international websites inside the United States." It is the first time the English site has been blacked out. Wikipedia's Italian site came down once briefly in protest to an Internet censorship bill put forward by the Berlusconi government. The bill did not advance. The decision was reached after polling the community of contributors, but dissenters say political advocacy undermines the site's mission as a neutral source. However, it's not complete: the block could be bypassed by changing browser settings to disable JavaScript, or by using the version of the site designed for cellphone screens. Unlike Wikipedia, Google didn't black out its entire website but only its logo, reminiscent of the doodles that the search engine giant puts up to commemorate special occasions. Google also directed users to a page titled "End Piracy, Not Liberty" that put together information on why SOPA and the PIPA are wrong and users could also add their names to a petition against the bills. "Like many businesses, entrepreneurs and Web users, we oppose these bills because there are smart, targeted ways to shut down foreign rogue websites without asking American companies to censor the Internet," said a Google spokeswoman. The legislation being debated in the US Congress target foreign websites that violate copyrights online by banning US companies from providing them with advertising, payment or other Internet services. The Internet companies are concerned that the legislation, if passed, could be used to target legitimate sites where users share content. US payment processors and advertisers would have to end service to foreign websites that copyright holders say are infringing their rights, or be liable to be sued. Search engines and Internet companies would be banned from providing links to infringing sites. Critics of the proposed legislation argue that the proposals would stifle Internet innovation and online freedom, a key driver of US and global economic growth. The White House raised concerns over the weekend, pledging to work with Congress to battle piracy and counterfeiting while defending free expression, privacy and innovation in the Internet. The administration signalled it might use its veto power, if necessary. With public sentiment on the bill shifting in recent weeks and an implicit veto threat now emerging from the White House, Congressional staffers are resigning themselves to writing replacement language or possibly entirely new bills. Three key section of the existing legislation seem likely to remain. They comprise provisions aimed at getting search engines to disable links to foreign infringing sites; provisions that cut off advertising services to those sites; and provisions that cut off payment processing. But critical provisions that would require Internet service providers such as Verizon Communications and Comcast Corp. to cut off infringing sites through a technology known as DNS blocking are now likely to be eliminated. Critics have said that such measures would only encourage people to navigate the web in riskier ways, with modified browsers or other tweaks that could lead to their Internet sessions getting hijacked by scammers. Lawmakers had already been coming around to the realisation they would have to hold back on the DNS-blocking provisions. Supporters of the bills include movie and music companies such as Walt Disney, content providers such as the National Football League and News Corp., pharmaceutical companies such as Eli Lilly, and the US Chamber of Commerce. They argue the bills' sweeping provisions are necessary to shutter the burgeoning numbers of foreign-based cybercrime sites that sell counterfeit goods, pirated software or fake pharmaceuticals, or stream copyrighted content like music and movies. Reddit.com shut down its social news service for 12 hours. Other sites made their views clear without cutting off surfers. Wordpress, one of the world's most popular blogging platforms, also put its weight behind the protests by blacking out the homepage of Wordpress.org. Thousands of Wordpress-powered blogs also joined in using one of the many SOPA Blackout plugins made available by developers. Local listings site Craiglist took a middle route, changing its local home pages to a black screen directing users to an anti-legislation page. After 10 seconds, a link to the main site appears on the home page, but some surfers missed that and were fooled into thinking the whole site was blacked out. Topics related to the Internet Blackout Day dominated the top Twitter trends on Wednesday, but the protest did not get Twitter itself getting involved in a direct role. "Closing a global business in reaction to single-issue national politics is foolish," Twitter CEO Dick Costolo tweeted, but he followed up with a Tweet stating the company will continue to take an active role in opposing the bills. That position of criticising the bills, but sitting out the blackout is echoed by many big tech companies, including several who wrote to Congress in November to complain about the legislation, such as AOL Inc, eBay Inc, Mozilla and Zynga Inc. "We are not adjusting the consumer experience on our properties tomorrow, but we will be helping to drive awareness of key issues around these bills to our users," said Tekedra Mawakana, senior vice president for public policy at AOL. In November, a number of technology companies wrote to key lawmakers expressing opposition to the bill, including eBay, Facebook, Google, Twitter and Mozilla. Supporters of the bill were quick to attack the protests. "This publicity stunt does a disservice to its users by promoting fear instead of facts," said Lamar Smith, chairman of the US House Judiciary Committee and a sponsor of SOPA. "Perhaps during the blackout, Internet users can look elsewhere for an accurate definition of online piracy." Former US senator Chris Dodd, who now chairs the Motion Picture Association of America, labelled the blackout a "gimmick" and called for its supporters to "stop the hyperbole and PR stunts and engage in meaningful efforts to combat piracy." Internet Blackout Day got thousands of websites to participate and generated public discussion and succeeded in attracting the attention of lawmakers and industry leaders backing the bills. Source:- ibnlive.com

:: All that happened on Internet Blackout Day :: January 18 - Internet Blackout Day - is a date that will live in ignorance, as the world's largest encyclopaedia Wikipedia started a 24-hour blackout of the English version of the website. Wikipedia joined other big and small websites in a protest against pending US legislation aimed at shutting down sites that share pirated movies and other content. Wikipedia and other proponents of a free Internet believe that if Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) are passed it "will harm the free and open Internet and bring about new tools for censorship of international websites inside the United States." It is the first time the English site has been blacked out. Wikipedia's Italian site came down once briefly in protest to an Internet censorship bill put forward by the Berlusconi government. The bill did not advance. The decision was reached after polling the community of contributors, but dissenters say political advocacy undermines the site's mission as a neutral source. However, it's not complete: the block could be bypassed by changing browser settings to disable JavaScript, or by using the version of the site designed for cellphone screens. Unlike Wikipedia, Google didn't black out its entire website but only its logo, reminiscent of the doodles that the search engine giant puts up to commemorate special occasions. Google also directed users to a page titled "End Piracy, Not Liberty" that put together information on why SOPA and the PIPA are wrong and users could also add their names to a petition against the bills. "Like many businesses, entrepreneurs and Web users, we oppose these bills because there are smart, targeted ways to shut down foreign rogue websites without asking American companies to censor the Internet," said a Google spokeswoman. The legislation being debated in the US Congress target foreign websites that violate copyrights online by banning US companies from providing them with advertising, payment or other Internet services. The Internet companies are concerned that the legislation, if passed, could be used to target legitimate sites where users share content. US payment processors and advertisers would have to end service to foreign websites that copyright holders say are infringing their rights, or be liable to be sued. Search engines and Internet companies would be banned from providing links to infringing sites. Critics of the proposed legislation argue that the proposals would stifle Internet innovation and online freedom, a key driver of US and global economic growth. The White House raised concerns over the weekend, pledging to work with Congress to battle piracy and counterfeiting while defending free expression, privacy and innovation in the Internet. The administration signalled it might use its veto power, if necessary. With public sentiment on the bill shifting in recent weeks and an implicit veto threat now emerging from the White House, Congressional staffers are resigning themselves to writing replacement language or possibly entirely new bills. Three key section of the existing legislation seem likely to remain. They comprise provisions aimed at getting search engines to disable links to foreign infringing sites; provisions that cut off advertising services to those sites; and provisions that cut off payment processing. But critical provisions that would require Internet service providers such as Verizon Communications and Comcast Corp. to cut off infringing sites through a technology known as DNS blocking are now likely to be eliminated. Critics have said that such measures would only encourage people to navigate the web in riskier ways, with modified browsers or other tweaks that could lead to their Internet sessions getting hijacked by scammers. Lawmakers had already been coming around to the realisation they would have to hold back on the DNS-blocking provisions. Supporters of the bills include movie and music companies such as Walt Disney, content providers such as the National Football League and News Corp., pharmaceutical companies such as Eli Lilly, and the US Chamber of Commerce. They argue the bills' sweeping provisions are necessary to shutter the burgeoning numbers of foreign-based cybercrime sites that sell counterfeit goods, pirated software or fake pharmaceuticals, or stream copyrighted content like music and movies. Reddit.com shut down its social news service for 12 hours. Other sites made their views clear without cutting off surfers. Wordpress, one of the world's most popular blogging platforms, also put its weight behind the protests by blacking out the homepage of Wordpress.org. Thousands of Wordpress-powered blogs also joined in using one of the many SOPA Blackout plugins made available by developers. Local listings site Craiglist took a middle route, changing its local home pages to a black screen directing users to an anti-legislation page. After 10 seconds, a link to the main site appears on the home page, but some surfers missed that and were fooled into thinking the whole site was blacked out. Topics related to the Internet Blackout Day dominated the top Twitter trends on Wednesday, but the protest did not get Twitter itself getting involved in a direct role. "Closing a global business in reaction to single-issue national politics is foolish," Twitter CEO Dick Costolo tweeted, but he followed up with a Tweet stating the company will continue to take an active role in opposing the bills. That position of criticising the bills, but sitting out the blackout is echoed by many big tech companies, including several who wrote to Congress in November to complain about the legislation, such as AOL Inc, eBay Inc, Mozilla and Zynga Inc. "We are not adjusting the consumer experience on our properties tomorrow, but we will be helping to drive awareness of key issues around these bills to our users," said Tekedra Mawakana, senior vice president for public policy at AOL. In November, a number of technology companies wrote to key lawmakers expressing opposition to the bill, including eBay, Facebook, Google, Twitter and Mozilla. Supporters of the bill were quick to attack the protests. "This publicity stunt does a disservice to its users by promoting fear instead of facts," said Lamar Smith, chairman of the US House Judiciary Committee and a sponsor of SOPA. "Perhaps during the blackout, Internet users can look elsewhere for an accurate definition of online piracy." Former US senator Chris Dodd, who now chairs the Motion Picture Association of America, labelled the blackout a "gimmick" and called for its supporters to "stop the hyperbole and PR stunts and engage in meaningful efforts to combat piracy." Internet Blackout Day got thousands of websites to participate and generated public discussion and succeeded in attracting the attention of lawmakers and industry leaders backing the bills. Source:- ibnlive.com

Read More

:: SECURITY OF QR CODES :: -In the series of info about the QR-code , this is the last part which says about it's security. Just like professional hackers hack softwares , QR-code is no exeception to it. One can distinguish two different threat models for manipulating QR Codes. First, an attacker may invert any module, changing it either from black to white or the other way round. Second, a more restricted attacker can only change white modules to black and not vice versa. -The easiest approach for attacking an existing QR Code is by generating a sticker containing a QR Code with the manipulated QR Code in the same style as the original QR Code and position it over the code. -Since QR Codes contain a lot of different information,including meta information on version, maskings and source encoding, several different regions exist that can be targeted either individually or in combination. Depending on the programs that process the encoded information, whether this would be in logistics, public transportation or in a fully automated assembly line, attacks on the reader software as well as the backend are theoretically possible. -Humans can not read the code without a reader software,the information stored within the code is completely obfuscated.But by reading the manipulated QR code, a vulnerability in the reader software or the browser might get triggered. -QR Codes are often used in advertisements to direct the target audience to special offers or additional information about specific products. If the QR Code can be manipulated to redirect the user to a cloned website, an adversary could sell the solicited product without ever ful lling the contract. The victim implicitly trusts the advertising company by following the link. Source - The internet.