Time­cross. ru, �Ilya Khren­nikov In­no­va­tion Nueyes

Next Steps Nueyes went on sale in April. “The pa­tients that have tried it have been very happy,” says Michael Sa­muel, a sur­geon and re­searcher at the Retina In­sti­tute in Los Angeles, adding that cost is a lim­it­ing factor. Veter­ans Af­fairs hos­pi­tals have b

Bloomberg Businessweek (North America) - - Technology -

A host of oth­ers split the rest. Avito, con­trolled by South African in­ter­net com­pany Naspers, is ex­pand­ing be­yond its fo­cus on con­sumer clas­si­fied ads with more goods from busi­nesses. Ali­ex­press, the con­sumer arm of China’s Alibaba Group, of­fers mostly im­ported prod­ucts. And lo­cals Ozon.ru and Ul­mart run web stores but don’t work much with smaller mer­chants. Ama­zon, which op­er­ates in 13 coun­tries be­yond the U. S., isn’t in Rus­sia and de­clined to com­ment on its plans for the coun­try.

To lure con­sumers, Yan­dex is adding cat­e­gories such as toys, cos­met­ics, and home im­prove­ment goods, which haven’t been widely sold on­line in Rus­sia. It lets buy­ers or­der di­rectly from phones and tablets, since many Rus­sian web stores aren’t con­fig­ured to work well with the smaller screens on mo­bile de­vices. And it’s step­ping up ad­ver­tis­ing in far-flung re­gions of the coun­try and of­fer­ing a ser­vice that lets con­sumers com­pare costs— and var­i­ous ship­ping meth­ods— na­tion­wide, mean­ing peo­ple in smaller cities can get the lower prices usu­ally avail­able in Moscow.

While most re­tail­ers can still choose to pay click fees rather than com­mis­sions, Yan­dex is re­quir­ing watch sell­ers to adopt the new fee model if they want to list on the site. That’s “mu­tu­ally ben­e­fi­cial, as shops now pay for con­crete trans­ac­tions in­stead of web clicks that won’t nec­es­sar­ily re­sult in a pur­chase,” Aleshin says. Vy­ach­eslav Zhi­garev, deputy head of which sells Ca­sio watches, isn’t so sure. He says the sys­tem has cre­ated more work for his staffers, who must sep­a­rately track sales made via Yan­dex be­cause the com­pa­nies’ soft­ware wasn’t prop­erly in­te­grated. And it costs more, he says— though he ac­knowl­edges it’s tough to avoid Yan­dex. “We need Yan­dex. Mar­ket to at­tract cus­tomers and can’t do with­out it,” Zhi­garev says. “But their com­mis­sion model has cre­ated some com­pli­ca­tions and in­creased what we pay.”

The bot­tom line Yan­dex, look­ing to boost sales and at­tract more cus­tomers, is chang­ing how it works with its web ven­dors. Edited by Dim­i­tra Kessenides, Matthew Philips, and David Rocks Bloomberg.com Form and func­tion

Nueyes, a com­bi­na­tion of cus­tom soft­ware and smart glasses, is de­signed to re­store sight to peo­ple with se­ri­ous vi­sion loss. A cam­era on the front of the blacked-out glasses acts as eyes. Cap­tured images are pro­jected on the lenses. 1.

Specs The glasses, made by gov­ern­ment con­trac­tor Oster­hout De­sign Group, are equipped with an aut­o­fo­cus cam­era with 720-pixel res­o­lu­tion, com­pa­ra­ble to a low-end HDTV.

Peo­ple with sig­nif­i­cant loss of vi­sion from mac­u­lar de­gen­er­a­tion, glau­coma, and re­tini­tis pig­men­tosa— the lead­ing causes of vi­sion loss world­wide—can ben­e­fit from the glasses. Fund­ing Greget fi­nanced the soft­ware de­vel­op­ment with about $100,000 of his own money and $350,000 from fam­ily and friends. In­no­va­tor Mark Greget Age Ti­tle Co-founder and chief ex­ec­u­tive of­fi­cer of Nueyes in New­port Beach, Calif. Ori­gin Greget, a U.S. Navy vet­eran, be­gan de­vel­op­ing Nueyes af­ter spend­ing five years dis­tribut­ing de­vices for the blind. The price is about $6,000.

A speech-recog­ni­tion fea­ture lets wear­ers use voice com­mands to im­prove the im­age pro­jected through the lenses to best rem­edy their par­tic­u­lar con­di­tion. Ear­buds let users lis­ten to a text reader or other me­dia via a Blue­tooth-con­nected de­vice.

The cen­tral bank of Bangladesh was the victim of one of the big­gest bank heists of all time in Fe­bru­ary, when thieves made off with $81 million. The perps are still at large—and may have the com­bi­na­tions to many more vaults.

Since the Bangladesh job came to light, other banks have come for­ward. In Ecuador, a com­mer­cial bank said it was held up for $12 million last year. A bank in Viet­nam said crim­i­nals tried, and failed, to steal $1.1 million in what ex­perts say may have been a prac­tice run for Bangladesh. By late May as many as a dozen more banks, mostly in South­east Asia, re­ported breakins. All of the at­tacks were com­mit­ted by cy­ber­crim­i­nals, and at least some made use of a mes­sag­ing sys­tem run by the So­ci­ety for World­wide In­ter­bank Fi­nan­cial Telecom­mu­ni­ca­tion, bet­ter known as Swift.

The crimes point to big trou­ble in the cross-border trans­fer of money, the ba­sic plumb­ing of global fi­nance. Swift con­nects 11,000 mem­bers, in­clud­ing cen­tral and com­mer­cial banks, bro­kers, money man­agers, and multi­na­tional cor­po­ra­tions in more than 200 coun­tries and ter­ri­to­ries.

Banks in the de­vel­oped world weren’t tar­gets of the crime wave, but the breaches have served as a wake-up call that any sys­tem is vul­ner­a­ble. Se­cu­rity ex­perts say the dig­i­tal trail ap­pears to lead to North Korea, which the U.S. gov­ern­ment blamed for the Sony Pic­tures hack in De­cem­ber 2014.

The breaches un­der­mine trust and may hurt busi­ness in de­vel­op­ing coun­tries, if for­eign banks worry whether it’s a real bank or a crook on the other end of the line. “If banks lose con­fi­dence in Swift, they will ei­ther have to live with the dis­com­fort or re­duce their par­tic­i­pa­tion in cross-border pay­ments,” says Erin Mccune, a pay­ments strate­gist at con­sult­ing group Glen­brook Part­ners.

Swift, a non­profit co­op­er­a­tive based near Brus­sels, was founded more than 40 years ago to make it eas­ier for banks in var­i­ous coun­tries to com­mu­ni­cate with one an­other. It re­placed mes­sages sent by telex ma­chines. The pri­vate net­work was de­signed to be more se­cure, and its mes­sages fol­lowed a pro­to­col so they could be quickly un­der­stood by banks any­where in the world.

Swift doesn’t move money it­self— trans­fers take place be­tween banks. But its mes­sages tell banks which ac­counts to debit and credit, and for how much, so a par­ent in New York City can send money to a child study­ing in Lon­don, or a cloth­ing com­pany in France can pay a shirt fac­tory in Viet­nam. As many as 27.5 million Swift mes­sages are sent daily.

Swift has said the sys­tem it­self hasn’t been breached. That means the hack­ers haven’t been able to read or change a mes­sage trav­el­ing over its net­work. If Bank A gets in­struc­tions from Bank B, the mes­sage orig­i­nated from Bank B’s com­puter.

Hack­ers have made clear, how­ever, that Swift can’t en­sure the per­son send­ing the mes­sage from a bank’s com­puter works for that bank. In the case of Bangladesh, ma­li­cious soft­ware code, known as mal­ware, was in­tro­duced into the cen­tral bank’s sys­tems in Jan­uary. That prob­a­bly al­lowed hack­ers to record key­strokes and ul­ti­mately steal codes en­abling them to send fraud­u­lent mes­sages over the Swift net­work.

The hack­ers struck on Feb. 4, ask­ing for dozens of trans­fers equal­ing al­most $1 bil­lion. The mes­sages re­quested that money be sent from the Bangladesh­i ac­count at the Fed­eral Re­serve Bank of New York to ac­counts in the Philip­pines and Sri Lanka. Most of the trans­ac­tions were blocked af­ter they were flagged for re­view to en­sure they com­plied

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.