Provided by the Business Insider, November 4, 2010:

Nick Tart and his business partner are only 22, but they've already become experts in Generation-Y entrepreneurship.

After interviewing 25 self-made 6-figure+ teenage entrepreneurs, the pair authored the book: 50 Interviews: Young Entrepreneurs, What It Takes To Make More Than Your Parents.

What they found is that all the entrepreneurs shared a lot of similar traits.

These kids were lemonade stand sellers on steroids, hustling classmates in elementary school and staying in on weekends to work on their businesses.

Here is what separated these successful teens from their other, ordinary classmates.

Here are 7 traits the self-made, teenage millionaires share >>

The Wall Street Journal recently published an investigation that revealed a privacy breach at Facebook: User identification codes were being passed to Facebook app makers like Zynga and then on to advertising and consumer tracking companies. The user identification codes could often be used to learn names and other private information, and in at least one instance, a data company matched this information with other information it had collected about individuals.

The article created quite a stir, and Facebook promised to try to fix the problem. But the whole thing was a sideshow, says David Kirkpatrick, author of the bestselling book The Facebook Effect.

The privacy flap the Wall Street Journal described is meaningless, Kirkpatrick says. The kinds of data that can be accessed with Facebook user identification codes are freely available in the offline world and always have been. So there's nothing new there.

But people should absolutely be concerned about having their privacy violated by using Facebook, Kirkpatrick also says. Most people don't understand that when they "friend" someone, they are usually opening up huge amounts of private information to that person. Facebook was never designed for people who aren't actually friends in the real world to become "friends" on Facebook, and as a result, many Facebook users inadvertently reveal private information to strangers. In many cases, this information is then misused or used in a way that later embarrasses them.

David Kirkpatrick says Facebook needs to solve this problem by created distinct groups of "friends" to mimick the different kind of relationships people have in the real world -- "friends," "colleagues," "family," "professional associates," etc. Otherwise, Facebook users will continue to become "friends" with people they don't know and reveal way more about themselves to strangers then they ever would in the real world.

THIS is the big Facebook privacy concern, Kirkpatrick says. And it's one way too few people pay attention to.

___

Follow Yahoo! Finance on Twitter; become a fan on Facebook.

Apple definitely knows how to cash in on “cool.” Whether it’s the iPod, iPhone, or now the iPad, Apple has a knack for creating the must-have tech gadget. They’re so successful that Apple’s $282 billion market cap has eclipsed Microsoft and Google.

Yet when it comes to social media, both Apple and Google are barely in the game. 

“Apple’s always been bad at social, Google’s also been bad in social,” observes David Kirkpatrick, author of The Facebook Effect.  “It’s interesting the two companies that really have dominated tech in recent years -- Apple and Google -- have done it by other means,” he tells Henry in this clip. 

If they want to stay atop the tech ranks, they know that must change. “All those companies know social information is the future of the Internet.”

Somewhat surprisingly, though, when it comes to social media, rival Microsoft has got a big edge on both Apple and Google, says Kirkpatrick.

How have they done it? Facebook.

“Microsoft is in an interesting position because they are concretely allied with Facebook. Not only do they own a piece of it but they do search exclusively with Facebook,” he notes. Kirkpatrick argues that, not only is that a money-maker, it could be a game changer. “Microsoft’s alliance with Facebook potentially could be its single biggest competitive tool against Google.”

Just because Google and Apple are late to the party doesn’t mean they’ve missed it. Kirkpatrick notes Google could quickly dominate if they were to simply buy Facebook.

Kirkpatrick also says that just because Facebook in many ways IS social media, that doesn't mean their future atop the technology landscape is set in stone. “You can easily see the scenario where, down the road, Facebook is worth at least as much as those companies.” But he also argues, “I also think you can write a scenario that says it doesn’t ever happen” if they can’t find the right way to monetize their ever-growing traffic.

Updated from 1:06 p.m. EDT

Update: Citing breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets, HP filed suit against former CEO Mark Hurd Tuesday for accepting a job at rival firm Oracle. 

Earlier: Oracle CEO Larry Ellison has hired his tennis-buddy Mark Hurd as Oracle "co-president" a few weeks after blasting HP's board for for firing him after a sexual harassment lawsuit. Ellison deemed this move (ousting Hurd) the stupidest corporate decision since Apple's board canned Steve Jobs.

Meanwhile, to make room for Hurd, Charles Phillips, Oracle's current "co-president," will leave the company. Phillips' reputation took a hit earlier this year, when an ex-girlfriend of his bought billboards around the country, including in Times Square, in an apparent attempt to win him back. This episode is said to have cost Phillips a shot at becoming CEO of software maker CA, Inc.

The other co-president at Oracle is Safra Catz, who oversees sales and operations. Phillips oversaw sales, which will now be Hurd's domain.

Oracle's investors were thrilled to hear the news, driving Oracle's stock up sharply today. This matches the opinion that HP investors have of Hurd--HP's own stock has been clobbered since he left the company.

Interestingly, this is clearly a step down for Hurd. He becomes "co-president" of Oracle, reporting to CEO Larry Ellison, after being CEO of one of the largest tech companies in the world. Thus, one wonders whether Hurd and Ellison have a quiet agreement that Hurd will eventually become CEO. And one also wonders what that means for Safra Catz...

See Also: Here Are The 10 Most Important Tech Stories You Need To Follow The Rest Of This Year.

___

Follow Yahoo! Finance on Twitter; become a fan on Facebook.

Provided by the Business Insider, August 19, 2010:

There are 10 independent YouTube stars who made over $100,000 in the past year, according to a study done by analytics and advertising company TubeMogul.

From July 2009 to July 2010, TubeMogul used their viewership data to estimate the annual income for independent YouTube partners, which they define as anyone who is not part of a media company or brand.

Here's how they got their estimates:

* Revenue only comes from banner ads served near content (we ignored pre-roll or overlay since we can't easily isolate by publisher).
* Since YouTube banner ads have a two-second load delay, we estimate 2.59% of viewers click away before an ad loads based on separate research.
* Ads were served near all videos that loaded (since there are partners, this is generally true).
* CPM for the banner ads was $1.50 (Google auctions a lot of this inventory off; we rounded this 2009 estimate down to be conservative).
* YouTube is splitting ad revenue with partners 50-50.

Basically, take their views from the past year, assume a few don't stick around long enough for an ad to load, divide that number by 1,000, multiply by $1.50 and divide that number in half.

Conservative estimates? Sure. But with that math, you get a pretty decent estimate of how much these YouTube celebrities are making from just the banner ads on their channel. So, without further ado, here are the highest earning YouTube stars!

Provided by the Business Insider, August 16, 2010:

It has been funny to watch Google squirm as the world calls it out for aggressively pursuing its own self-interest in the "net neutrality" clash.

It's funny because Google's attitude is so different from the last massive tech empire to aggressively pursue its own self-interest--Microsoft.

How so?

Microsoft was always straightforward about doing everything it could to gouge its competitors' eyes out. Google, meanwhile, is devoting enormous energy to demonstrating that, despite appearances to the contrary, it actually has everyone else's best interests in mind.

For an illustration of the difference, consider that famous (and possibly apocryphal) remark Bill Gates supposedly made in a meeting with Netscape in the mid-1990s, something along the lines of "We can buy you or we can kill you." (Microsoft chose the latter route.) Consider the chair Steve Ballmer threw in his legendary tantrum about Google. Consider Microsoft's "link and lever" strategy to leverage its Windows monopoly and achieve world domination.

It wasn't until Microsoft was dragged into court, found to have violated anti-trust laws, and slapped with huge penalties that it began to change the way it presented itself to the world (as a kinder, gentler awesomely powerful and profitable monopoly).

Google, meanwhile, has become almost as powerful as Microsoft was in its heydey, but it has done it while trying to adhere to its pre-IPO mantra "Don't be evil"--a mantra that would preclude a wildly dominant company from trying to gouge its competitors' eyes out.

Thus, we hear stories of founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page shouting at each other about whether Google should use cookies and track its users the way everyone else does (it now does). Thus we have the company's angst-ridden flip-flopping on China. Thus we get last week's attempt to say that the outrage about Google's new stance on "net neutrality"--that the fixed-line Internet should be open but the wireless should have a fast lane (for Google, presumably) and a slow lane--was in keeping with Google's commitment to putting the community's interests first.

In short, the difference between Microsoft's approach to being an evil empire and Google's approach to it is that Google wants to rule the world and be liked.

Microsoft, meanwhile, didn't give a damn how much everyone hated it. As far as Microsoft was concerned, its competitors could bitch in co-miserating poverty while Microsoft laughed all the way to the bank.

From The Business Insider

Amazon reported $6.57 billion revenues late Thursday on $0.45 earnings per share.

That's a miss on earnings, which the Street expected to come in at $0.54 per share. Shares were down nearly 12% in early trading Friday.

More numbers from the release:

• Operating cash flow was $2.56 billion for the trailing twelve months, compared with $1.88 billion for the trailing twelve months ended June 30, 2009.
• Free cash flow increased 29% to $1.99 billion for the trailing twelve months, compared with $1.54 billion for the trailing twelve months ended June 30, 2009.
• Net sales increased 41% to $6.57 billion in the second quarter, compared with $4.65 billion in second quarter 2009.
• Excluding the $48 million unfavorable impact from year-over-year changes in foreign exchange rates throughout the quarter, net sales would have grown 42% compared with second quarter 2009.
• Operating income increased 71% to $270 million in the second quarter, compared with $159 million in second quarter 2009.
• The unfavorable impact from year-over-year changes in foreign exchange rates throughout the quarter on operating income was $10 million. Second quarter 2009 operating income was negatively impacted by a $51 million legal settlement.
• Net income increased 45% to $207 million in the second quarter, or $0.45 per diluted share, compared with net income of $142 million, or $0.32 per diluted share, in second quarter 2009.

Like many investors, Howard Lindzon has had enough of the stock market. In recent years he’s increasingly traded in his stocks for a portfolio of early stage web companies. “The market is still kind of broken,” he tells Aaron in this interview.

He’s skeptical of playing a market he thinks is rigged. “Something is up,” he says, when in the span of two years, banks go from the verge of insolvency to, as we saw in the first quarter, having perfect trading quarters. “Banks can’t make money 90 days in a row” unless the game is rigged, he says.

Lindzon also thinks there’s still a lot of unresolved problems in the economy, from high unemployment to the continued housing bust. “Believe me, driving the streets there (in Phoenix), it’s two times worse than it was last year,” says the former resident. “There’s this heavy weight on both consumers and producers and that’s just going to take time.”

As a result, he’s focusing more of his money, time and energy in his own business ventures. “That seems like less risk than stocks. How crazy is that?,” he asks. Maybe not, if we’re in for another decade of negative stock market results.

From The Business Insider, May 26, 2010:

Apple's stock market capitalization (AAPL) has not yet quite surpassed Microsoft's (MSFT), but the value of its actual business is now higher.

Specifically, Apple's business is now worth $200 billion, while Microsoft's is only worth $197 billion--at least by one simple calculation of enterprise value.*

What's the difference between a company's stock market capitalization and the value of its actual business (which is referred to as "enterprise value")?

A company's stock market capitalization includes the net value of the cash and debt on the company's books.  To figure out the imputed value of the company's actual business, therefore, you have to adjust for the value of those other things.

As an example, consider a company with a market capitalization of $1 billion that has $500 million of cash and no debt.  If you were to buy all of the stock in this company, you would spend $1 billion.  When you bought the company, however, you would also acquire the $500 million of cash that came with it, so your net purchase price would only be $500 million.  So the company's actual business, in this case, would have been worth only $500 million.

If the same company had a $1 billion market capitalization, $500 million of cash, and $500 million of debt, meanwhile, the company's business ("enterprise value") would be $1 billion. ...

Click "more" to view the full post.

More coverage from The Business Insider:

Four Square to add photos (which set Facebook growth off like a rocket)

From The Business Insider, May 18, 2010:

Apple CEO Steve Jobs owns about $2.5 billion worth of Apple stock. But he would own about $13 billion worth of Apple stock if it weren't for a huge mistake he made back in 2003, MarketWatch's Brett Arends reports.

In 2003, Apple (AAPL) stock had declined from a peak $36 per share during the tech boom to about $7.

This put options granted to employees near the peak deeply underwater.

So, to keep these employees motivated, Apple's board gave Steve Jobs and every other Apple employee the opportunity to exchange the underwater options for new, fewer options at a much lower strike price.

Steve took the leap and canceled all his options for a much smaller number of them at a lower price.

With Apple stock now trading above $250 – well above the strike price of all those options Steve gave up – Steve, with one pen stroke, lost himself about $10.3 billion in future gains.

Brett calls it, "the dumbest trade ever."

More coverage from The Business Insider:How Steve Jobs got sick, got better, and decided to save some lives