What is going on? Clearly, activity in this sector has nothing to do with distress. Use of mobile content and applications is exploding. And companies large and small are in a land grab mode, acquiring small and promising start-ups in hopes of increasing their mobile presence. IAC and Amazon made investments in iPhone applications recently. Amazon also acquired mobile app maker SnapTell and mobile payments player Boku. "Mobile social networking and mobile content are other key areas of investment," according to the report. Yes, times are good if you are a mobile entrepreneur.

There has been much discussion of real-time search and the premium on immediacy of data that has been created primarily by Twitter. We’ve been watching this phenomenon with great interest, and listening carefully to what consumers really want in this space. Today we’re unveiling an initial foray into integrating more real time data into our search results, starting with some of the more prominent and prolific Twitterers from a variety of spheres. This includes Tweets from folks from our own search technology and business sphere like Danny Sullivan or Kara Swisher as well as those from spheres of more general consumer appeal like Al Gore or Ryan Seacrest.

Starting later today, when you search for these folks names in association with Twitter, you’ll see their latest Tweets come up in real time on Bing’s search results. ... (Note this feature will be rolling out gradually over the course of the next few hours so you may not see it right away.)

The answer will include that person’s latest Tweets, along with an easy link to “See more tweets” from that individual.

We’re not indexing all of Twitter at this time… just a small set of prominent and prolific Twitterers to start. We picked a few thousand people to start, based primarily on their follower count and volume of tweets. We think this is an interesting first step toward using Twitter’s public API to surface Tweets in people search. We’d love to hear your feedback as we think through future possibilities in real time search.

If you're a bit of a geek, and use the Firefox browser, you can already add Twitter search results to both Bing and Google via a software add-on called Greasemonkey. But it's pretty rudimentary, just a list of the five most recent Twitter search results for that particular query pasted atop the regular results.

A plethora of other real-time search engines is vying to become the one place to go for results on what people are talking about and sharing right now. And I suspect Google, which does offer near-real-time results for some news-oriented queries, won't wait long to add some kind of Twitter-related results in some way or another. But for now, Bing's Twitter results are one thing Google doesn't offer, and that's likely to help maintain the recent positive buzz about Bing.

But shareholders who have seen the stock plummet from $2 a share a year ago might question whether Karmazin deserves the kudos. Yes, he steered the company clear of bankruptcy by securing, earlier this year, a $530 million loan from Liberty Media. But at the same time, Sirius's performance of late has been nothing to write home about. This spring, the satellite radio provider reported its first-ever subscriber loss. More losses could be in the offing as demand for autos equipped with Sirius radios continues to be slow, and consumers opt for satellite radio alternatives, including Web and high-definition radios and iPods.

Sirius has just lost its executive in charge of music programming to Clear Channel. And even the Liberty Media deal leaves shareholders in the cold. The loan can be converted into equity, which would dilute holdings of existing shareholders; so Liberty Media is expected to grab a huge stake in the business at the expense of existing shareholders. While the investment possibly averted bankruptcy, it was arguably in part Karmazin's management -- for instance, his decision to wait for regulatory approval of Sirius's merger with XM for more than a year -- that brought Sirius close to the brink in the first place. The wait kept Sirius from more aggressively marketing its services. Some analysts also question Karmazin's decision, post-merger, to slash some of the company's programming in an effort to cut costs -- a decision that turned off some of the service's long-time users. All together, this seems like the wrong time for dispensing rewards.

Released on June 30, the survey indicates that 47% of consumers who don't yet own smartphones are confused by the vast assortment of features and models available. Some 52% of women and 42% of men are confused about which smartphone to buy. Indeed, with smartphones representing the fastest-growing part of the cell-phone market, scores of companies including Apple, Research In Motion and Palm have introduced new mobile devices in the past few months. Lots of other companies, such as Acer, are planning to follow suit. As the number of smartphones available from carriers balloons in the upcoming holiday season, consumer confusion should increase further.

Is there a solution to this problem? Clearly, retailers, device manufacturers and carriers need to do a better job explaining capabilities and features of the different devices to consumers. That's where Best Buy, which has stepped up its mobiles sales push, hopes to make its mark. Still, I don't think consumers should expect any miracles. After all, manufacturers and retailers have tried but failed making PC and camera purchases easy. To make the right buy, consumers have to peruse product reviews and to survey friends. While, today, many people don't research phones before buying, perhaps that should change. Consumers need to start approaching buying phones the same way they do laptops, and to start doing more homework.

The changes, which will be tested with 40,000 members in the U.S. in the next week and around the world the week after that, don't add a lot of new options so much as make them simpler to access and set. Facebook hopes the new system, which consolidates 40 different settings on six separate pages, will encourage people to become more comfortable with posting items as freely as they do on Twitter and other services.

The gist is this: You will be able to go to one page to set whom you want to see whatever you post or personal information in your Facebook profile: from just friends to people in a chosen network you're in to the whole world--which means people who aren't Facebook members too, unless you're a minor. And if you want, you can change those settings for each piece of content you post--such as a job complaint you want only close friends to see, not your company network. A "recommended" setting will make your basic info and content posts public--in other words more Twitterlike--but provide more privacy for other things like Wall posting from others and contact info.

You can get the details on the privacy enhancements at a slide show here (and embedded above), as well as on the Facebook blog, which you can also read after the jump here.

The upshot: While the new system is clearly simpler, and will be presented by default when people initially try to post content, I suspect it will still be too much for some people to bother with. The basic problem is that Facebook aims to offer many kinds of messaging, from intimate posts to friends to rants you want the world to read. That inherently involves people making choices, sometimes post-by-post, inevitably making the process more complex. (One blogger, Jason Kincaid at TechCrunch, thinks the new system is a looming disaster because too many people won't realize the implications of public sharing. I'm not so sure it will be worse than it is today, though.)

Twitter is popular partly because it's so simple: Posts are public, or they're not. It's to Facebook's credit that it's providing choices, and to its further credit that it's now trying to make those choices simpler. But it's no sure thing yet that the new system will keep Twitter from becoming the Internet's biggest community bulletin board.

Facebook Blog: Improving Sharing Through Control, Simplicity and Connection

The power to share is the cornerstone of Facebook. Privacy and the tools for tailoring what information is shared with whom are at the heart of trust. Over the past five years, Facebook has learned that effective privacy is grounded in three basic principles:

Control. When people can easily control the audience for their information and content, they share more and they're able to better connect with the people who matter in their lives.

Simplicity. When tools are simple, people are more likely to use them and understand them.

Connection. With effective tools, people can successfully balance their desire to control access to information with their desire to connect – to discover and be discovered by those they care about.

That's why in the coming days, we'll be improving privacy on Facebook by launching a series of tests that guide people to new, simpler tools of control and connection.

Control

We're committed to giving people even greater control over the information they share and the audiences with whom they share it. At one extreme, we believe people should have the tools to "broadcast" information across the web and make it available to everyone. For example, back in March, we added an "Everyone" option to give people more control and enable them to share more broadly if they want, something that wasn't possible on Facebook before.

At the other extreme, we want to give people the power to limit who should receive any particular piece of information they want to share. The Publisher Privacy Control, which we launched in a beta last week, allows you to decide who can see the content you publish on a per-post basis. For example, you may want to make some posts available to everyone, while restricting others to your friends and family. You should be able to make that decision every time you share something on Facebook, and soon you'll be able to do this.

Just a few weeks ago, we started the process of phasing out regional networks, since they did not adequately reflect a world where people choose exactly the audience with whom they wish to share. Regional networks made sense for those who wanted to be more open when Facebook was small, but they lost their utility as the site became global.

Now, if you want to share with a smaller, more targeted group, you have a number of options, including specific Friend Lists, all of your friends, your friends and people in your school or work networks, and friends of friends. To share with more people and contribute to the general conversation going on in the world, you can select "Everyone."

Simplicity

When we add new features to Facebook, we usually include a corresponding privacy setting. While this has helped give some people more individualized controls over particular features, the compounding effect of more and more settings has made controlling privacy on Facebook too complicated.

With the test we're announcing today, we'll move towards simplifying these settings and putting them all on the same page. We'll also standardize the options we provide for each setting so the choices are always the same. Lastly, we'll remove overlapping settings to reduce confusion and combine profile fields that are similar, so you only have to make one decision.

Connection

In the next few days, we will begin to explore how to make the transition to the new settings. In the process, we will be asking you to revisit and reaffirm the way you present yourself on Facebook. To do this, we will be offering a Transition Tool that asks you to select your own level of sharing. We think Facebook is most useful when people can find and connect with each other, which is why this tool will enable you to make available those parts of your profile that you feel comfortable sharing in order to facilitate better connection. You will have the choice of being as open or as limited in the sharing of this information as you want.

Two Important Notes

First, we've designed the Transition Tool to respect previous decisions to limit access to information. If you have selected settings that restrict who has access to information, those choices are carried over to the new privacy settings.

Second, none of the improvements we will be testing changes the information Facebook provides to advertisers. Facebook does not share personal information with advertisers except under the direction and control of a user. These new tools do not alter that policy or practice. You can feel confident that Facebook will not share your personal information with advertisers unless and until you want to share that information.

The test we're launching today will include a small fraction of the total number of people on Facebook. This group will receive the new, simpler settings and one of six different versions of the Transition Tool. Over the next few weeks, we'll be collecting direct feedback from the testing group and using it to make improvements to the Tool. Our goal is to ensure that people understand the changes to our privacy settings and make choices that reflect their comfort level. After the testing and feedback phase is complete, we expect to offer final versions of the Tool and the new settings to everyone on Facebook.

We're excited about having our users enjoy even greater control over how they share their content and information. We're confident that greater control will lead to richer and more useful sharing through Facebook.

Chris Kelly, Facebook's chief privacy officer, is glad to be offering you more control.

The U.S. will fare relatively better than the rest of the world, with spending there forecast to fall 5.1%. According to Forrester, purchases of computer equipment will be down 13.5% for the year, communications equipment down 12.4%, software down 8.2% and IT consulting and outsourcing down 8.6%.

But the precipitous drop in first-quarter tech spending will mean a faster-than-expected recovery starting later this year, according to analyst Andrew Bartels (and flagged in a mid-April story in BusinessWeek):

While Q1 2009 saw a scary drop in purchases in the US tech market, ironically that is good news for the long run and we expect to see a stronger rebound sooner. The big drops are not precursors to further declines; rather, we think they are evidence of a temporary pause in US tech purchases, which we expect to start recovering in Q4 as businesses realize that they overreacted in the first quarter. We also expect that tech markets in Europe and Asia will start to recover in the first half of 2010.

It appears that investors also are already anticipating this. The tech-driven Nasdaq is up 17% so far this year, compared with less than a 3% rise in the S&P 500.

According to this story, users of Windows Mobile devices who buy apps through the store will be able to return them within 24 hours. My initial reaction: I am not sure that's a good idea.

Surveys show that most Apple App Store users rarely use mobile apps they download for more than a day. That makes sense: You may download a game today, and play it for a couple of hours. By tomorrow, you are sick of it, and you move on to something else.

So Microsoft's generous return policy could backfire: People may download a game, play it, and then return it. Essentially, users might use this policy to take independent app developers for a ride. The developers will get less money -- and might be less willing to create apps for Microsoft.

The latest edition of Firefox offers a considerable boost in speed, especially in running JavaScript programs. I don't do any formal testing, but it is definitely much faster that Microsoft's Internet Explorer 8 (which is not saying all that much) on Windows, and seems roughly on a par with Google's Chrome 2.0 and Apple's Safari 4.0.

More interesting for the future is Firefox's compliance with the new HTML 5.0 standard. This doesn't mean much today, because almost no Web sites implement 5.0 features, but the new HTML standard gives Web designers some attractive choices. On is to use the Ogg-theora standard for streaming video directly to the browser with no plug-ins or players required. Another is the ability to download fonts, which will assure that pages appear in a browser just the way designers intended. Currently, the only way to do this is to create a PDF file and then rely on an Adobe Acrobat Reader plug-in (or Preview on a Mac) to render it correctly.

The two senators have called on Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to pressure the European Union to stop telcom sales to Iran. They also said they would introduce legislation that would bar U.S. government contracts to companies that sell Iran equipment that facilitate monitoring.

There's one little problem. Such monitoring capability is required in wireless gear by virtually all governments and it is part of the GSM Assn. and European Telecommunications Standards Institute standards. In the U.S., the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA) requires that all wireless carriers provide the technological means for law enforcement authorities to tap wireless accounts. In theory, of course, such taps in the U.S. require a court order. In practice, we know that this requirement has not always been met. We don't know if Schumer, then in the House, voted for CALEA; it was sufficiently uncontroversial that it passed on a voice vote. Graham didn't enter congress until 1995.

U.S. firms are generally barred from selling much of anything to Iran under unilateral sanctions that have been in place for more than 25 years. But if they did, gear from Motorola or Lucent would have the same capabilities provided by Nokia Siemens.

In years past, Comcast had resold Sprint Nextel's wireless calling plans under a brand called Pivot in a few markets including Portland. But these efforts hadn't attracted as many users as Comcast hoped, and were eventually discontinued.

Tomorrow's launch will mark yet another effort by Comcast to become a national player in wireless services. This time around, the company comes armed with Comcast High-Speed 2go service, which provides wireless Internet access via wireless data cards. Comcast will be selling the service bundled with one or more of its other offerings, such as at-home TV channels. And it's offering pretty good prices. Existing Comcast customers may be able to sign up for the service for as little as $30 a month.

There's also an attractively priced bundle: Comcast's $49.99 a month Fast Pack Metro service includes Comcast’s 12 Mbps home Internet service, a free Wi-Fi router for mobility and extended coverage in the home, plus the wireless data card access. Clearwire currently offers a combination service of home Internet and a PC card for $70 a month. I am currently paying Verizon $40 a month just for my Digital Subscriber Line (DSL). So Comcast customers are getting a pretty good deal.

While these attractive prices don't guarantee success, they should certainly help Comcast make more inroads into fixed Internet access, as well as to gain a toehold in wireless Web access on the go. Much will depend, of course, on whether the service will be promoted well enough. The service is expected to become available in Atlanta, Philadelphia and Chicago by year-end.

In the Betamax case of quarter-century ago, the Supreme Court upheld the fair-use right of consumers to tape TV shows for their own viewing at the time and place of their choice and the right was later extended to digital recording. But when cable operator Cablevision in 2006 announced plans for a system that would let customers record programming on on remote servers rather than on digital recorders in their homes, TV networks and studios charged this was a copyright violation not covered by the exemptions carved out in the earlier cases.

The studios won an injunction against Cablevision in U.S. district court, but the decision was overturned by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals last year. The Supreme Court effectively upheld the appeals court by refusing to hear the case. As is customary, the denial of certiorari was issued without comment by the justices. The Obama Administration had filed a brief urging the high court not to take the case.

There were several good panels but the one on venture capital and private equity really caught my attention. Luiz Figueiredo, president of the Brazilian Association for Private Equity and Venture Capital, told the audience that as of the end of 2008 investors had committed $28 billion in venture and private equity capital to Brazil. That is up from $6 billion in 2004, amounting to an incredible 50% compound annual growth rate over the last four years. To date, 500 Brazilian companies have received venture capital or private equity investments, and there is $12 billion left to invest over the next few years from that $28 billion kitty.

The conference was capped by two big announcements. On June 25, the Brazilian stock exchange Bovespa hosted the world’s largest IPO of the year, a $4.3 billion offering by Brazil credit card processor VisaNet. On the same day, Boston-based private equity firm Advent International announced that it bought a 50% stake in Brazilian holding company PAP for $142 million. PAP control Kroton Educational, a fast-growing education company. It was Advent’s 15th investment in Brazil since 1997.

An April 2009 survey by Coller Capital found that investors plan to increase their exposure to emerging markets, and that Brazil's stock was rising. In the survey, Brazil ranked as the second most attractive choice for private equity investment, behind China and ahead of India. Last year, Brazil ranked fourth.

Why is Brazil such a hotbed for investment? Figueiredo pointed to several factors. Among them: A large and stable economy, a solid and modern financial system that escaped the financial crisis, an improving legal system, a strong local investor base, and robust capital markets, including the country’s Bovespa stock exchange.

More than 50% of the growth in capital came from the nation’s pension funds. In Brazil, pension funds are allowed to invest up to 20% of their funds in alternative investments such as private equity and venture capital. “The industry is getting new money and we are ready for it,” says Figueiredo. “We are really well positioned to attract foreign capital.”

One of those new foreign investors is Draper Fisher Jurvetson. In May 2007, the Silicon Valley firm launched a partnership with a Brazil-based firm called FIR Capital. The two firms launched a $170 million fund. Marcus Regueira, a founding partner of FIR Capital who was on the panel, said that his firm is looking to invest in information technology, mining technology and agribusiness. “We’ve never had the quality of entrepreneurs that we have now,” said Regueira, a former executive at Bank of America who received an MBA from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Brazil has yet to produce a breakout technology startup that is a leader on the global scene. But Regueira says the influx of new capital will help the country reach that next level. As an example, he cited the experience of Akwan Information Technologies, a Brazilian search engine that FIR invested in. In 2005, Google bought Akwan Information Technologies and used it to set up a research and development center for Latin America. Regueira says Akwan and its investors had to sell the company because it could not attract more follow-on investment. Now, he says, that won’t be so much of a problem. Thanks to the flood of new capital, “now is the time to invest in Brazil.”

DFJ director Elizabeth Clarkson, who was also on the panel, predicted that the new vintage of Brazil funds will produce extraordinary returns. “DFJ was early in China,” she said. “We are looking for Brazil to be a similar experience.”

- Spencer Ante also publishes the Creative Capital blog. Click here to see more.

The good news for investors is, Vestburg is unlikely to implement any dramatic changes right the way. "We are very much the same [with Svanberg] in terms of strategy and where we are going," Vestburg says. He does say the telecom equipment and services supplier will focus more on helping its carriers customers with gear and advice as their fixed and mobile broadband networks converge. Ericsson will also help carriers support new types of devices, such as home appliances, cameras and parking meters, which will connect to the carriers' wireless networks.

Vestburg emphasized that, as of right now, he is not considering implementing any additional cost cuts at the company. He also reiterated his company's support for Sony Ericsson, its handset-making joint venture that's been flailing as of late. "What we are very focused on is that we give them the right support so they can return to profit," Vestburg says. He wouldn't comment on whether Ericsson or Sony are considering exiting the joint venture.

I'll update this post from the bottom, so keep refreshing for the latest. And you can listen to the Webcast here.

10:00 a.m.: And we're underway with the usual slick video, with Regis Philbin, yodelers, and so on saying Yahoo about a gazillion times in the process of showing how many different services the company offers. (Regis even called it a search engine.)

10:05: She introduces the board, including Yang. Carl Icahn's not here, though, so now we know things will be relatively tame. Top execs take bows too.

The boring business stuff comes first, then Bartz will talk.

10:20: Shareholder Michael Loeb has made a non-binding proposal for "say on pay" and outlines his reasons. Yahoo recommends against it. A shareholder I think I saw at Google's annual meeting recently also recommends no. Somebody else says why not, since it's non-binding anyway: "This is a toothless proposal, it only gives you more information," he says.

10:28: Big surprise, all 12 directors elected. And the say-on-pay proposal goes down to defeat.

10:30: Finally, Bartz is up. Says when Yang asks if she wanted to be CEO, she replied: "You've gotta be kidding." Met him for a glass of wine at his house, says after a half-hour she was hooked. Why? Yahoo's huge online presence. "It's a fantastic, fantastic place."

But what really convinced her: Yahoo's org chart, which was hopelessly complex. She says she knows how to fix that kind of thing.

Two questions were asked of me: What are you going to do about Microsoft? And what does Yahoo stand for?

On Microsoft: If we ever have a deal with Microsoft, it will be announced publicly. Until then, we have nothing to say.

As for what Yahoo is, simple: largest online media company, place where people go for what they're interested in every day.

First thing she did when she arrived: new staff structure to make things simpler. Global infrastructure for all operations. Ari Balogh the tech chief, Hilary Schneider to run North American field operations. Still have a slot open for VP of international. Brought in Elisa Steele as new chief marketing officer, to reinvigorate our brand. "We're working very, very hard on that." Jeff Russakow as senior VP of customer advocacy. Dave Dibble to make operations like data centers run well. And just hired Timothy Morse as chief financial officer, starting July 1, replacing Blake Jorgensen.

10:38: Yahoo's trying to clear out "space debris," which is sites that aren't doing well. We've been looking at sites that we should shut down, sites that we should repair, and perhaps sites that we should outsource.

We're at the end of a whole new design for our home page. You don't need the MyYahoo quite so much (hmm, not so sure about that, as a dedicated MyYahoo user) because you can customize the regular home page. Ran 142 different experiments on the home page with different kinds of people. Same with advertisers.

The other thing that we've been working on is Yahoo Mail. Needs to be more modern, less cluttered, faster.

10:40: Search: We haven't been standing still. We've been doing an incredible amount of work on the search engine, such as Yahoo BOSS (Build your Own Search Service) and SearchMonkey. Still, Bartz quickly moves on to other subjects, which won't convince people Yahoo is really dedicated to search, since she has already sent mixed signals.

Calls out mobile as doing very well.

10:42: On advertisers: Yahoo has a distinct opportunity in this area: We are not just a search company. Also can offer display ads, which allow an emotional reaction. None of us mind ads; we just hate crappy ads. It's very hard to buy online; that's an action item we want to take.

So that's really what we've been up to. I have discovered smart, smart people inside Yahoo who really want to make a difference. We are committed to growing that audience and to be the place where you want to come as your online home.

10:45: Now to Q&A from shareholders:

10:46: Q on business model robustness: Yahoo's stock not doing as well as Google, even old-line media companies like Omnicom. Why does the average Yahoo employee produce about half the revenue of a Google employee? (Missed one question.) Why does Yahoo shy away from breaking out search revenues?

Bartz: We do break out search revenue. It is about half our business.

We have a very different model than Google. Search is algorithmic, it has cleaner process, there are no people in involved in the sales process. We are not "Yahoo/Google." We have a whole other business, display advertising. We don't do exactly the same thing.

Yahoo should be more efficient. Looking at back-end systems. Some of that got away from the company.

10:50: Q: Thank you for taking the attention off Microsoft. It was just embarrassing to the company. Loves Bartz's previous comments that Microsoft would need boatloads of money to do a deal. No question seems to be coming, just comments. One on the old Yahoo Mail interface, which he says many like but which is really slow. "Not acceptable," says Bartz.

The other issue he has is with the Yahoo homepage. Barrage of information, especially on Hollywood news. I'm sick of hearing about those guys with the eight kids. Please stop dumbing down the home page.

Bartz: I'm the same way. If I see another Britney Spears thing, I'm going to throw up. Have an internal "fluffometer." She wants to allow people to declare, "I want all hard news," "I want entertainment." We totally understand the issue.

10:54: Guy wearing sweatshirt reading "Release All Political and Religious Prisoners NOW" rambles about what Yahoo should do in China on civil rights. Bartz shows admirable patience. She defends Yahoo's stance, but says it's tough to accede to everyone's agenda. We have actually done a lot, but it's never enough.

10:58: Q: Is Yahoo's main challenge a better vision or better execution?

Bartz: We already have a vision. We know what we're doing. We don't have a vision problem. We have an execution problem.

Q: Someone from Amnesty International asks about filtering of Internet information in China.

Bartz: I'll make this real simple: Yahoo was not incorporated to fix China. It was incorporated to give people a free flow of information. 10 years ago Yahoo made a mistake, and you can't hold us up as the bad boy forever forever. It is not our job to fix the Chinese government. That's not the mandate our shareholders gave us. (OK, no messing around on that.)

11:03: Guy makes a statement basically defending Yahoo's participation internationally, citing Iran dissidents' use of Internet technologies to protest. Bartz agrees, not surprisingly.

Q: What stops Yahoo from being more successful like Facebook in social networking? Bartz: We're taking a very hard look at many aspects of social. Trying to help people be social inside existing services. Key is to be more seamless with many services and socialize those services more.

11:06: Q: Could Google deal be resurrected? Bartz: No. Can't fight Justice Department, especially now.

Q: What might be done with properties such as Yahoo's stake in China's Alibaba? Bartz: It's really about getting revenue up when the economy comes back. I just ask to give us a chance.

As for Alibaba and other overseas investments: Not so easy to sell because other companies are involved. Not the best idea to sell it because of taxes involved.

11:10: Will you buy newspapers? Bartz: We don't necessarily need to buy newspapers. We have a very good relationship with newspapers, thanks to newspaper consortium where advertising is shared.

And that's it. No fireworks. Even the critics seemed polite. And Bartz perhaps has bought another few months from shareholders to show some results, assuming Microsoft's Steve Ballmer doesn't throw a wrench into the works.