Business and consumer users of Google's popular e-mail service were hit by an outage on Tuesday.
The service went offline at 0930 GMT with Google saying it was "working hard to resolve this problem".
Professional users of Google mail are covered by a service level agreement that promises to be 99.9% operational in any calendar month.
More than 113 million people use Google mail worldwide, according to comScore.
In a statement, Google said "a number of users" were having problems with Google Mail.
"We know how important GMail is to our users so we take this very seriously," it added.
Google directed people to its mail support page for further status updates.
According to comScore, Google has the world's third most popular web mail service behind Hotmail with 283 million users and Yahoo with 274 million e-mail users.
Professional suite
More than a million business around the world use Google's professional suite of applications, including e-mail. Google itself relies on the service and press spokespeople for the firm were unable to e-mail journalists with statements regarding the problem.
The "premier edition" of the Apps service costs $50 (£34) per user for a year.
According to Google, its e-mail service suffered an average of 10 to 15 minutes of downtime per month in 2008.
The last outage of note was in August 2008 when users were unable to use Google Mail for "a couple of hours".
After the incident Todd Jackson, product manager for Google Mail, said in a blog post: "We're conducting a full review of what went wrong and moving quickly to update our internal systems and procedures accordingly."
Some users reported that Google Mail was working on G1 mobile phones, which are powered by Google's Android operating system. Google Mail also appeared to be working if accessed through a third-party mail reading program configured to send and receive e-mail using the Imap mail protocol.
Showing posts with label Technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Technology. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Apple chief to take medical leave
By Chris Nuttall and Richard Waters in San Francisco
Published: January 14 2009 21:51 | Last updated: January 15 2009 00:13
Steve Jobs on Wednesday announced he was taking a six-month medical leave of absence as chief executive of Apple, prompting concern not only about the prognosis for his health but also for his company.
Mr Jobs, 53, said he had learnt that “my health-related issues are more complex than I originally thought”. He revealed just last week he was suffering from a hormonal imbalance that he said was relatively simple to cure.
Apple shares were halted ahead of the announcement, which came in the form of a copy of an e-mail sent to all employees. The shares then fell nearly 10 per cent in extended trading to $76.88 on the news.
“In order to take myself out of the limelight and focus on my health, and to allow everyone at Apple to focus on delivering extraordinary products, I have decided to take a medical leave of absence until the end of June,” Mr Jobs said in the e-mail.
Tim Cook, Apple chief operating officer, will be responsible for the day-to-day running of operations in the interim, he said.
Mr Jobs said he planned to remain involved in major strategic decisions and had the full support of the board of directors.
“I look forward to seeing all of you this summer,” he said.
John Coffee, professor of law at Columbia Law School said Apple’s independent directors should now be looking for a new chief executive.
“You have to have a process in place now that you have an ill CEO. In circumstances like this, you can’t assume he will get better,” he said.
Mr Jobs has been critical to a revival in Apple’s fortunes over the past 10 years, leading the introduction of successful products such as the iMac, iPod and iPhone.
But, in spite of successful treatment for pancreatic cancer in 2004, fears have grown about his health. Over the past year, he has looked noticeably thin and haggard at Apple news conferences.
Mr Jobs finally provided an explanation last week. He said doctors had discovered a hormonal imbalance that had been “robbing me of the proteins my body needs to be healthy”.
He said he would stay on as chief executive as he regained the weight he had lost, which would take until late spring.
However, just 10 days later, Mr Jobs’ e-mail suggested a deteriorating situation where he was stepping aside and would not be able to return until the summer.
“There is no other Steve Jobs. As a public face, and a rallying place for the company, he’s very hard to replace,” said Mike McGuire, analyst with the Gartner research firm.
However, Mr McGuire said Apple executives – in particular, Tim Cook, who ran the company during Mr Jobs’ surgery – were capable of keeping the company on course.
Dr Run Yu, medical director of the Carcinoid and Neuroendocrine Tumor Center at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles said Mr Jobs’ condition could be more serious than was previously thought.
“His history of the partial pancreatectomy, and Type-1-like diabetes could complicate any recovery efforts,” he said.
Mr Jobs admitted on Wednesday speculation was still dogging the company. “The curiosity over my personal health continues to be a distraction not only for me and my family, but everyone else at Apple,” he said.
Published: January 14 2009 21:51 | Last updated: January 15 2009 00:13
Steve Jobs on Wednesday announced he was taking a six-month medical leave of absence as chief executive of Apple, prompting concern not only about the prognosis for his health but also for his company.
Mr Jobs, 53, said he had learnt that “my health-related issues are more complex than I originally thought”. He revealed just last week he was suffering from a hormonal imbalance that he said was relatively simple to cure.
Apple shares were halted ahead of the announcement, which came in the form of a copy of an e-mail sent to all employees. The shares then fell nearly 10 per cent in extended trading to $76.88 on the news.
“In order to take myself out of the limelight and focus on my health, and to allow everyone at Apple to focus on delivering extraordinary products, I have decided to take a medical leave of absence until the end of June,” Mr Jobs said in the e-mail.
Tim Cook, Apple chief operating officer, will be responsible for the day-to-day running of operations in the interim, he said.
Mr Jobs said he planned to remain involved in major strategic decisions and had the full support of the board of directors.
“I look forward to seeing all of you this summer,” he said.
John Coffee, professor of law at Columbia Law School said Apple’s independent directors should now be looking for a new chief executive.
“You have to have a process in place now that you have an ill CEO. In circumstances like this, you can’t assume he will get better,” he said.
Mr Jobs has been critical to a revival in Apple’s fortunes over the past 10 years, leading the introduction of successful products such as the iMac, iPod and iPhone.
But, in spite of successful treatment for pancreatic cancer in 2004, fears have grown about his health. Over the past year, he has looked noticeably thin and haggard at Apple news conferences.
Mr Jobs finally provided an explanation last week. He said doctors had discovered a hormonal imbalance that had been “robbing me of the proteins my body needs to be healthy”.
He said he would stay on as chief executive as he regained the weight he had lost, which would take until late spring.
However, just 10 days later, Mr Jobs’ e-mail suggested a deteriorating situation where he was stepping aside and would not be able to return until the summer.
“There is no other Steve Jobs. As a public face, and a rallying place for the company, he’s very hard to replace,” said Mike McGuire, analyst with the Gartner research firm.
However, Mr McGuire said Apple executives – in particular, Tim Cook, who ran the company during Mr Jobs’ surgery – were capable of keeping the company on course.
Dr Run Yu, medical director of the Carcinoid and Neuroendocrine Tumor Center at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles said Mr Jobs’ condition could be more serious than was previously thought.
“His history of the partial pancreatectomy, and Type-1-like diabetes could complicate any recovery efforts,” he said.
Mr Jobs admitted on Wednesday speculation was still dogging the company. “The curiosity over my personal health continues to be a distraction not only for me and my family, but everyone else at Apple,” he said.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Google's New Monopoly?
By James Gibson
Monday, November 3, 2008; Page A21
Last week, Google settled a controversial copyright case by agreeing to pay tens of millions in licensing fees to authors and publishers, with more to come. At first glance, it looks like this great champion of the free flow of information has caved to copyright interests. But in fact, Google may be better off with a settlement than an outright win. Before the court approves this agreement, then, it must consider the deal's anti-competitive effects.
A little history: In 2002, Google launched a project called Book Search. Its ambitious goal was to make every book in the English language text-searchable, just like Google aims to do -- and largely does -- with Web pages. The project held great promise; anyone with an Internet connection could be transformed into an armchair researcher, with the world's library at his or her fingertips.
But to realize this goal, Google had to machine-scan the texts of every book it would include. And because scanning is a kind of copying, a question arose: Did Google need a license -- or, rather, millions of licenses -- from those who own the copyrights to the books?
Google originally maintained that no licenses were needed.
Its argument was based on copyright's fair use doctrine. In essence, Google said: Yes, there's some copying going on -- but our Book Search is a socially valuable service, and finding and paying all those copyright owners would be too burdensome. We'll have to give up the project if we're forced to get permission.
Claims of fair use are common in the Internet age, when unauthorized copying of copyrighted materials happens all the time. Not so common are actual court rulings on such claims. Damages in copyright cases can be frighteningly high, and questions of fair use can be terribly indeterminate. This means that few defendants have the guts to see their fair use claims all the way through; once they get a little skin in the game, they frequently adopt an attitude of "license, don't litigate."
But Google seemed like a copyright owner's worst nightmare: a risk-taking iconoclast with deep pockets, unafraid to litigate licensing issues all the way to the Supreme Court. So the copyright industry held its breath as the controversy played out, wondering if it had met its match.
Viewed in this light, the settlement looks like a setback for Google. In the game of brinksmanship, Google blinked -- losing its nerve like so many copyright defendants do. In reality, however, settling probably puts Google in a better position than it would have been if it had won its case in court.
Here's why: Google's concession has made it more difficult for anyone to invoke fair use for book searches. The settlement itself is proof that a company can pay licensing fees and still turn a profit. So now no one can convincingly argue that scanning a book requires no license. If Microsoft starts its own book search service and claims fair use, the courts will say, "Hey, Google manages to pay for this sort of thing. What makes you so special?"
By settling the case, Google has made it much more difficult for others to compete with its Book Search service. Of course, Google was already in a dominant position because few companies have the resources to scan all those millions of books. But even fewer have the additional funds needed to pay fees to all those copyright owners. The licenses are essentially a barrier to entry, and it's possible that only Google will be able to surmount that barrier.
Sure, Google now has to share its profits with publishers. But when a company has no competitors, there are plenty of profits to share.
James Gibson is an associate professor and director of the Intellectual Property Institute at the University of Richmond School of Law. His e-mail address is jgibson@richmond.edu.
Monday, November 3, 2008; Page A21
Last week, Google settled a controversial copyright case by agreeing to pay tens of millions in licensing fees to authors and publishers, with more to come. At first glance, it looks like this great champion of the free flow of information has caved to copyright interests. But in fact, Google may be better off with a settlement than an outright win. Before the court approves this agreement, then, it must consider the deal's anti-competitive effects.
A little history: In 2002, Google launched a project called Book Search. Its ambitious goal was to make every book in the English language text-searchable, just like Google aims to do -- and largely does -- with Web pages. The project held great promise; anyone with an Internet connection could be transformed into an armchair researcher, with the world's library at his or her fingertips.
But to realize this goal, Google had to machine-scan the texts of every book it would include. And because scanning is a kind of copying, a question arose: Did Google need a license -- or, rather, millions of licenses -- from those who own the copyrights to the books?
Google originally maintained that no licenses were needed.
Its argument was based on copyright's fair use doctrine. In essence, Google said: Yes, there's some copying going on -- but our Book Search is a socially valuable service, and finding and paying all those copyright owners would be too burdensome. We'll have to give up the project if we're forced to get permission.
Claims of fair use are common in the Internet age, when unauthorized copying of copyrighted materials happens all the time. Not so common are actual court rulings on such claims. Damages in copyright cases can be frighteningly high, and questions of fair use can be terribly indeterminate. This means that few defendants have the guts to see their fair use claims all the way through; once they get a little skin in the game, they frequently adopt an attitude of "license, don't litigate."
But Google seemed like a copyright owner's worst nightmare: a risk-taking iconoclast with deep pockets, unafraid to litigate licensing issues all the way to the Supreme Court. So the copyright industry held its breath as the controversy played out, wondering if it had met its match.
Viewed in this light, the settlement looks like a setback for Google. In the game of brinksmanship, Google blinked -- losing its nerve like so many copyright defendants do. In reality, however, settling probably puts Google in a better position than it would have been if it had won its case in court.
Here's why: Google's concession has made it more difficult for anyone to invoke fair use for book searches. The settlement itself is proof that a company can pay licensing fees and still turn a profit. So now no one can convincingly argue that scanning a book requires no license. If Microsoft starts its own book search service and claims fair use, the courts will say, "Hey, Google manages to pay for this sort of thing. What makes you so special?"
By settling the case, Google has made it much more difficult for others to compete with its Book Search service. Of course, Google was already in a dominant position because few companies have the resources to scan all those millions of books. But even fewer have the additional funds needed to pay fees to all those copyright owners. The licenses are essentially a barrier to entry, and it's possible that only Google will be able to surmount that barrier.
Sure, Google now has to share its profits with publishers. But when a company has no competitors, there are plenty of profits to share.
James Gibson is an associate professor and director of the Intellectual Property Institute at the University of Richmond School of Law. His e-mail address is jgibson@richmond.edu.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)