Many Western technology companies have heeded that call, but have found themselves cast into the rocks on Chinese shores — including companies like Microsoft, Google, Cisco, eBay, and YahoO!  The massive markets just never seem to have materialized in the Orient for these giants, or when success has loomed on the horizon the murky Chinese bureaucracy has stepped in to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  Partnerships have vapourized overnight, and (particularly in the case of Cisco) core Intellectual Property has been outright stolen, reverse-engineered, or redistributed.  Perilous waters, indeed.

So it was with this skepticism that my friend Gersham viewed the latest piece of propaganda emerging from our friends in China that we have now reached the new height of 338 million Chinese Internet users — a 13 percent increase since the end of 2008, and just about exactly one quarter of the country’s population.  All of this, of course, seems to have been tabulated and distributed by the slightly inaccurately-acronymed Chinese Internet Network Information Centre (CNNIC) which, by its own admission “takes orders from the Ministry of Information Industry (MII) to conduct daily business.”  In fact, Google “Chinese Internet Traffic” and you’d be hard-pressed to find data that did NOT originate from the CNNIC.  Hmm.  Call me a cynic.

It is likely difficult for most (any) of us to corroborate or even conceptualize these high numbers, but it seems suspicious nonetheless — particularly from a country whose median income is around $3400 and whose Per-Capita GDP is ranked 104th, right behind Armenia.  In trying to substantiate this, once can point to Alexa’s site rankings which currently reveal that 3 Chinese-language web sites rank in the Top 20:  Search Engine Baidu (#9), IM chat and portal QQ (#14), and portal Sina.com.cn (#18).  Sounds good, right?  But look closely at the rankings.  Baidu, an undisputed leader in Search for China, reaches 5.73% of the internet populace, whereas Google.DE (#13) reaches roughly 3% of global internet users while servicing German, Swiss and Austrian users exclusively.  Combine the populations of these three countries and they don’t even add up to 100 million people.

Gersham pointed me toward the Firefox Download Stats, where as of this writing Germans have made 4,948,666 downloads of various firefox versions compared to only 672,972 for China.  Again, Germany has a population of 82Million vs. 1.3Billion in China.  As a control, Americans have downloaded Firefox 7,959,727 times as of this writing.  Do the Chinese really just prefer Internet Explorer?

In January 2009, Comscore measured the Chinese internet audience at closer to 180 Million users, still an impressive 18% of the Internet population.   This site quotes murky Nielsen Online data pegging Chinese Internet Users at roughly 300 Million.  Beyond these heresy reports, empirical measurements are difficult to come by.

So, let’s throw up our hands and try to reverse-engineer the data using published stats.  According to June 2009 data from Comscore, Google has captured 65% or so of US Search Traffic.  This made it the #1 web site in the world, with 157 Million US Visitors in June, according to Comscore.  In the Chinese Market, Baidu has captured 73% of Chinese search, with Google in the Number Two spot.  Yet Baidu.com barely moves the needle by comparison, according to compete.com, alexa.com, and others.. hitting roughly 600,000 unique visitors per month globally.   High-side estimates of the Internet’s penetration in the US peg it at 72.5% of the populace, or about 220 million.  This makes the data on Google’s penetration vs the addressable market reasonably accurate (71% if you do the math).  Following this logic, if Baidu in fact has 73% of China’s purported 338 Million users, it should be ranking as the #1 web site by far, with >246 Million unique visitors per month.  In fact if any of this data were true, then Chinese sites should occupy at least 4 of the Top Ten global web sites.

Whatever your opinion of Compete’s and Alexa’s relative methodologies, it’s impossible to reconcile anything even close to the numbers coming from the Chinese Government.  If that isn’t good enough for you, let’s turn to profits.  While serving what was allegedly the world’s largest internet audience, Baidu appears to be tracking to earn about $500 Million in revenue this year.  Google’s revenue appears to be tracking to about $23 Billion for 2009 with its pithy 157 Million unique visitors.  Any way you slice it, if China’s internet userbase is as large as Beijing says it is, and if Baidu’s market share of that audience is what it’s widely purported to be, then both the number of uniques reported by external traffic sites and the revenues reported by the public company that owns Baidu should be exponentially greater.

These stats seem to either indicate that Chinese do not use search very often, or that there just aren’t too many of them heading out into the wilds of the Internet.  Either way, statistics emanating exclusively from bureaucratic sources within Beijing, particularly those which seem to fly in the face of all other external metrics, are not to be believed.  The thesis of this post is not to suggest that China is NOT a massive opportunity for online properties and other technology purveyors, it is simply an attempt to point out that, like in a lot of cases in dealing with the Peoples’ Republic of China, things are not what they may seem.  Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Who Has Cheapest Big Macs? Fri Apr 25, 9:11 AM ET Add Oddly Enough – Reuters to My Yahoo!

BEIJING (Reuters) – Critics who charge that China’s exchange rate policy gives it an unfair edge in selling its goods abroad have some statistical sauce to beef up their argument: the McDonald’s Big Mac.

In its latest “Big Mac index,” the Economist found that a Big Mac in China is now cheaper than anywhere else surveyed, replacing Argentina, which offered the cheapest burger in January.

The survey found that the average price of a Big Mac was $2.71 in four U.S. cities and just $1.20 in China, implying that the yuan was undervalued by 56 percent against the dollar.

“In other words, the yuan is the most undervalued currency,” The Economist said.

The index is a rough-and-ready measure of a concept that economists call purchasing-power parity, valuing currencies according to what they will buy at home, rather than in international exchange.

The yuan is pegged to the U.S. currency, moving in a very slim band around 8.28 to the dollar. It cannot be exchanged freely for foreign currencies, but can be for sandwiches.

Many economists argue the yuan is undervalued, saying China’s booming exports and high-revving economy would have caused the currency to appreciate if it traded freely against the dollar.

In recent months, officials from Japan, South Korea (news – web sites) and the United States have complained about the yuan’s dollar peg and said China should revalue its currency to reflect its underlying strength.

The Economist said that according to the Big Mac index the yuan exchange rate should be around 3.65 to the dollar.

“China will come under increasing pressure to revalue the yuan,” the magazine forecast.

In terms of Big Macs, the Swiss franc was the most overvalued currency, with the burger costing a whopping $4.52.

Big Macs were 10 percent dearer in areas using the euro than in the United States.

Question: Why does my monitor need to be on 802.11?

-Ian.

—— http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncidX2&e=8&cidX2&u=/nm/ 20030312/wr_nm/tech_intel_wifi_dc

Intel Wireless Computer Push Sparks Industry Rush Tue Mar 11, 9:22 PM ET Add Technology – Reuters Internet Report to My Yahoo!

By Elinor Mills Abreu and Eric Auchard

SAN FRANCISCO/HANOVER, Germany (Reuters) – Flexing its muscles as the world’s largest chipmaker, Intel Corp. (Nasdaq:INTC – news) on Wednesday will show how its industry arm-twisting could make connecting to the Internet via wireless networks a standard feature on mobile computers within a year.

At news conferences from Sydney to Beijing, from Tokyo to New York, Intel will finally unveil its much-ballyhooed set of chips known as Centrino that it hopes will become the wireless computer counterpart of its established Pentium chip line.

Analysts think Intel’s push could be one bright spot in an otherwise dismal market for new technology this year.

But by marshaling top notebook computer makers, retailers such as McDonald’s Corp. and U.S. bookseller Borders, and mobile telephone providers around the globe, Intel is giving the biggest boost yet to a technology sometimes seen as a spoiler for the emerging generation of mobile Internet phones.

Intel is lending support to a grass-roots technology that for years suffered from fragmented industry support and disparate names such as Wi-Fi, WLAN (wireless local area network) and 802.11, by transforming a patchwork of local and regional efforts into a worldwide grid for wireless computing.

NOTEBOOK MAKERS SIGN ON

Despite initial resistance to the idea, top-ranked notebook computer suppliers have signed on, including Hewlett-Packard Co. (NYSE:HWP – news), Dell Computer Corp. (Nasdaq:DELL – news), International Business Machines Corp. (NYSE:IBM – news), Toshiba Corp. (6502.T) and Sony Corp (news – web sites). (6758.T) Gateway Inc. (NYSE:GTW – news), the No. 3 U.S. PC maker, is also introducing Centrino-based laptops.

“Every notebook vendor is launching and announcing products with us on Wednesday,” Don Macdonald, Intel’s director of mobile product marketing, said of top computer makers in an interview with Reuters ahead of the product unveiling.

By putting the functions of wireless networks inside the brains of an off-the-shelf laptop, rather than computer users having to configure add-in cards, Intel could set off a veritable tsunami to help propel Wi-Fi into wide use, analysts are predicting. Widespread wireless computer connections could create a sea change in the way computers are used, they say.

Analyst Steve Kleynhans of META Group predicts that by the end of 2003 Centrino will be at the core of up to 80 percent of the new laptops bought by companies, allowing office workers to walk from desk to conference room untethered. Up to half of consumer laptops could be equipped with it this year.

“You’ll find that virtually all notebooks sold into the corporate markets, and by extension, most notebooks sold into the consumer markets, will end up wireless,” Kleynhans said.

PUSH COMES TO SHOVE

Intel’s technology marketing machine looks set to succeed where prior industry prodding has fallen short.

In the late 1990s Apple Computer Inc. jump-started consumer support for the technology by offering a home radio unit known as Airport, while in 2001 Microsoft’s XP operating system simplified the way Wi-Fi worked for Windows users.

Apple, analysts say, has been out in front in creating wireless networking technologies that are fairly easy to set up. The iconic computer maker’s chief executive and co-founder Steve Jobs (news – web sites) has dubbed 2003 the “year of the notebook.”

Wi-Fi provides high-speed Internet access from fixed-position phone or cable television network lines.

Users of properly equipped laptops can gain access to the Internet, or potentially their own corporate network, if they are within 100 meters (328 feet) of a Wi-Fi access point.

Already Wi-Fi is popular among home computer enthusiasts who can install a small antenna box in their house to create a local network linking PCs and other home electronics. The trend is catching on in offices, but security concerns are a snag.

Centrino is intended to be used only in laptops and notebooks, which will be priced competitively with Pentium models. “They’re priced for the mass market,” Macdonald said.

Intel said in a statement on Tuesday that laptops will cost as little as $1,399, comparable to today’s notebook computers.

The microprocessor portion of Centrino is available at clock speeds ranging from 1.30 gigahertz to 1.60 gigahertz, and the price of the chips includes the chipset and the network connection device, Intel said.

The 1.60 GHz Pentium M costs $720; the 1.50 GHz processor costs $506; the 1.40 GHz chip $377; and the 1.3 GHz costs $324, all in quantities of 1,000, Intel said. There are also two low-voltage processors available, running at 1.10 GHZ and 900 megahertz, costing $345 and $324, respectively.

Intel’s push into the wireless computing market is helping prod other major electronics makers to create built-in wireless connections in their own products.

Philips Electronics (PHG.AS) Chief Executive Gerard Kleisterlee said on Tuesday his company is planning to offer a full line-up of consumer electronics products with built-in wireless connections, including computer monitors, portable music and video players, sound speakers and televisions.

JOINING THE PARADE

Intel’s move encourages not just consumers and companies to install wireless networks, but also telecoms carriers and independent operators.

Public wireless computer locations are known as “hotspots.” They have the potential to create a Web of wireless connections in heavily traveled locations like hotels and airports serving business travelers, Starbucks cafes, and even public plazas.

Hilton Hotels said on Tuesday it plans to make Wi-Fi available in 50 of its North American hotels this month. By 2007, some 25,000 hotels globally will offer Wi-Fi, up from just 1,000 in 2002, according to a recent estimate published by market forecasters Pyramid Research. “Wi-Fi will become as free as the soap in the rooms,” the report predicts.

In Japan and South Korea (news – web sites) key operators have aggressively built Wi-Fi networks, even though they will eat into some of their other wireless services, such as mobile phone traffic.

Every Wi-Fi hotspot that sprouts up at the local coffee shop or airport represents one less potential revenue-earning area for cash-starved mobile operators that have invested billions building these new phone networks.

Nonetheless, mobile phone companies across Scandinavia, Germany, France and the United Kingdom are lining up to supply Wi-Fi services on the theory that if anyone is going to skim their revenues, it had best be themselves.

“I think that both technologies complement each other extremely well,” Rudolf Groeger, chief executive of O2 Germany (OOM.L), the country’s fourth largest wireless operator.

-Ian.

–=– http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/ts/story.html?s=v/nm/19990722/ts/china_bombing_4.html

Thursday July 22 5:40 PM ET CIA Picked One NATO Target, Led To Embassy Hit

By Tabassum Zakaria

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The only target the CIA picked for NATO’s 11-week bombing campaign on Yugoslavia was the one that led to the U.S. attack on the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, CIA Director George Tenet said Thursday.

“It was the only target we nominated,” Tenet said during a congressional hearing to explain the chain of events that led to the May 7 bombing of the Chinese embassy that U.S. officials have said was a huge mistake.

Tenet told the House Intelligence Committee that a combination of factors led to the bombing of the embassy instead of the intended target, the Yugoslav Federal Directorate for Supply and Procurement, which was located about 300 yards (meters) away.

One factor was the method used to find the precise location of the target — an intelligence officer using land navigation techniques that should not be used for aerial targeting because they provide only an “approximate location,” Tenet said. That location in subsequent meetings was then taken as a “mantle of fact” rather than questioned, he said.

“This episode is unusual,” Tenet said, because the CIA does not normally put together by itself specific targets that include coordinates for bombing operations. The CIA usually provides more analytical judgements or specific information on targets selected by others, he said.

“The attack was a mistake,” Tenet said. “Let me emphasize, our investigation has determined that no one — I repeat no one — knowingly targeted the Chinese embassy,” he said.

The bombing of the Chinese embassy, which killed three people and wounded more than 20, sparked days of protests in China and repeated U.S. apologies.

Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering went to Beijing last month to apologize and explain the series of errors that occurred, but Chinese officials said they were unconvinced.

“It seems clear that this process began with a critical intelligence failure,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss, a Florida Republican, said. “However, the Department of Defense also shares responsibility, since the target package that came from CIA was reviewed by elements of the DOD and approved,” he said.

Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre at the same hearing said in the approval process the precise location of the proposed target is not usually questioned, but it is assumed that the right location has been determined.

Of the 900 targets that were struck during the NATO air war, this was the only one misidentified during the target development process, he said.

Both Hamre and Tenet said databases that did not show the new location of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade were more to blame than the maps used to determine the target.

“I find it embarrassing we didn’t have in our databases the precise location of the Chinese embassy,” Hamre said.

Tenet also faulted the review process.

“There were three meetings at CIA that reviewed the target nomination,” Tenet said. “The method of identification was not briefed, questioned, or reviewed. Therefore, the initial misidentification took on the mantle of fact,” he said. —