In response to Nathan’s comment, I’d like to expand a little further. While I do agree with many of Nathan’s points, I believe that Apples key positioning is what is keeping it at the top of the ladder in its respective market but falling in comparison to its values.

With reference to the mobile phone market, whenever someone thinks about a stylish, touch screen product, they think Apple Iphone’s. Since its inception into the market as the first touch screen phone, Apple established its place at the top of the ladder. Despite its many initial problems, the masses loved it and wanted more. As time went on Android has started to creep up the ladder, surpassing the Iphone in many of her undervalued areas, the Iphone will forever be our first choice. From personal experience I have always loved my Samsung because of its reliability and the fact that it does break if I drop it from a few inches off the ground, but my friends always default to the newest Iphone.

Although the Iphone does have its perks, when it comes to value, Samsung is on top. Apple’s main concept is to keep the Iphone as simple as possible while remaining original. With its all white design being matched by Samsung’s all black design, Samsung has moved to the top of the list in customer satisfaction and reliability. Being able to last over two days, match the apps of Apple, take higher quality pictures and be more affordable is what has led Samsung to move forward in terms of values. That being said, Apple has spent a lot more money on its firm position in the market, hence Apples higher sales rates and revenues.

Although I will never be a fan of Apple, the Iphone as a flagship product will keep Samsung below in terms of position, ultimately leaving Apple with the burden of producing better, while Samsung has the burden of “catching up.”

I agree with Johnathan on many of his points, but one of which that I disagree with is “Automation has reduced the need for employees in the production process, which has led to a large decrease in employment levels.” Huge technological advances in the last few decades have made it possible to convert from Man-power to  machine-powered operations. Although this does cut out many employees, it does bring in many other opportunities for employment. Mechanics will be needed to fix the various equipment when it breaks down, trained operators who have the knowledge to use the machines themselves to “reduce human error” and as well the assembly line style that Ford has been accustomed too will not be cut out entirely.

I do agree that it is odd for Ford to be bringing in this new plant and opening up that many positions but in the long run it can prove to be very effective. As locals become comfortable and aware of Fords capabilities, releasing new products to an area that-if from the outside- might not have been as popular. Ford has the chance to improve costumer relations and expand its customer segments while maintaining profitability.

Back in 2012, Canada cut its funding to marine biology, causing many of Canada’s leading biologists to leave the country to find work else where like in Australia where they are funding this research. With many more examples of scrapped projects-like the Avro-Aero-that could have out our country at the frontier of research again our government decides to give up something we should be embracing.

The message for the last decade has been “go green,” this message has been seen on commercials for restoration projects of Canadian mines, to researching more sustainable farming techniques, but now Canada is starting to back away from its once prestigious position in the world.

While many other nations, such as China, Germany and the USA are pouring billions of dollars into the research of greener energy like solar power, and wind energy, Canada remains on the rear-end of the band wagon. Although we have major government corporations like B.C Hydro doing research on more efficient techniques of sustainability, the government as a whole is lacking.

Now if Canada wants to continue to spend money on already expensive fossil fuels, and wait until many of the larger economies of the world are saving money on greener-practices than it is safe to say that the money has gone somewhere else. Of course our taxes are collected to spend on important issues but this issue is just as important. Our planet is being damaged by Canada’s addiction to unsustainable practices. From fracking to polluting, Canada is climbing down the environmentally friendly ladder, and eventually if Canada doesn’t start being more ethical with its business opportunities, than this country wont be so great to live in any more. Living costs, electricity, hydro, etc..would be cheaper world wide and Canada would just be catching up.

So my question is, do you think Canada should move funding away from other projects to this important one? Why or why not? What is a better alternative?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-missing-out-on-green-energy-revolution-report-says-1.2774192

Freeman brings up the point that, “For any business to be successful, it has to create value for costumers, suppliers…and financiers…the people with the money.” For B.C teachers the people with the money is the government and as it stands they are viewing the BCTF in isolation, instead of having their interests go together.

The job of the government (“manager”) “…is to figure out how the interests of customers (families)..and employees (teachers) go in the same direction.” Having lost two major court cases ordering for smaller class sizes and for new, more advanced technology and teaching aids, the government has a big bill of Lawyers fees to pay. It is unethical of the government to hold the teachers out, if they, the winners of these cases do not want to pay. The few propositions brought forward by the government argues that they will give the pay the teachers want, and that they will give the benefits but will not pay for its losses in the supreme court. Is this ethical?

By not providing Public Education to the youth of British Columbia, the government has yet broken another law, and for this the teachers have to suffer. This system we have now is more like “a business in decline,” where neither side is considerate of the shareholders and third parties affected by them. To add insult to injury the government is making it so that its employees do not want to be there. This unethical step is pushing teachers to leave their jobs to work in other sectors. Violating the communities of BC by breaking the law, the government has moved from its roots as an ethical body to an unethical “manager,” which is pushing all of its stakeholders out.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/striking-bc-teachers-vote-for-binding-arbitration-with-provincial-government/article20528238/

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!