As an iPhone 4S user who had been contemplating between Samsung’s Galaxy Note 4 and Apple’s iPhone 6 Plus, Vivian Lee’s blog post “So, Who’s the Copycat?” caught my attention. In the blog post, Vivian wittily talks about the marketing competition between the two technology giants, Samsung and Apple.

A few weeks ago, Apple launched the 5.5-inch iPhone 6 Plus with the slogan “bigger than bigger.” Although Samsung users had been using 5.3+ inch smartphones since 2011, Apple emphasized the new iPhone’s big screen size as if it was one of their latest mind-blowing brainwaves that had never existed before. However, Apple’s “new invention” is seemingly contradictory to what Steve Jobs had said about large smartphones. “You can’t get your hand around it,” Jobs had said, “no one’s going to buy that.”

In response to Apple’s new product, Samsung came up with numerous humiliating parody advertisements mocking the iPhone 6. In one of the advertisements, an ad comes up that reads ” ‘No one is going to buy a big phone.’ Guess who surprised themselves and changed their minds.”

Mocking and poking fun of Apple’s products shouldn’t be the top strategy for Samsung in order it to be reputed as an honorable fair player in the technology market. Nonetheless, completely abandoning the iPhone’s unique feature of being “small and easy to grab” and making the iPhone less unique and more similar to Samsung’s smartphones wasn’t a good strategy for Apple either. I agree with Vivian’s point: Samsung and Apple, the world’s leading technology companies should both create two distinctive, exceptional products and marketing strategies instead of spending most of their time peeping at each other.

Sources:

Vivian Lee’s blog post: https://blogs.ubc.ca/leeviviann/2014/09/22/so-whos-the-copycat/

http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-was-wrong-about-big-phones-2014-9

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/mobiles/samsung-mocks-apples-iphone-6-watch-in-new-ads-20140912-10fxp3.html

Photo: http://www.techfever.net/2012/11/samsung-galaxy-s-iii-overtakes-the-iphone-4s-in-worldwide-sales/

I’m sure you too have experienced countless breathtaking moments in the midst of BC’s west coast – the fragile boundary between the land and ocean that changes by the hour, the majestic mountain ranges, the rivers, islands, lakes, and trees make me proud to be able to call this beautiful place my home. Other than being home for you and I, BC is home to countless more, fostering more diversity of organisms than anywhere else in North America. However, the Northern Gateway Project is threatening BC’s environment. Proposed by the Canadian oil company Enbridge, two pipelines would be built between the Albertan oil sands and BC’s west coast. This project is not in the public’s interest and will severely harm our environment. By selling Canada’s own oil to tidewater, Canada’s economy surely would be freed from the U.S. market where Canadian products are low-priced.

Nonetheless, the environmental damage is impossible to put a dollar value to. Enbridge reported that it “experienced over 65,047 barrels of oil spills between 2006 and 2010.” If a spill were to occur, it would be “especially hazardous due to the explosive properties of diluted bitumen.” Furthermore, the pipeline traverses the traditional territories of the First Nations. The government had promised the land to the Aboriginals, but now they are taking them back for profit. “It is a shame we have to go to court, not to establish law, but to uphold existing law,” says Ross, chief councilor for the Haisla.

Is the benefit to Alberta, Enbridge Inc., and the government from supplying Asian markets oil worth the risk, even if it means putting BC’s coast to a threat of a disastrous spill? If money is the most important decision-making factor of a country, haven’t we gone back 200 years back to the times when human rights were not respected?

Sources:

http://www.raincoast.org/wp-content/uploads/Conclusions-about-Northern-Gateway.pdf

http://forestethics.org/enbridge-the-facts

http://www.ppwc.ca/pulp-paper-and-woodworkers-of-canada-oppose-enbridge-northern-gateway-project/

Have you ever bought a cheap t-shirt only to wear it once and never again because it makes you look like a fashion terrorist? Have you ever thought: “why repair or mend clothes when it is way cheaper to buy a new one?”

Congratulations, you’re officially an active consumer of the fast fashion industry.

Fast fashion, cheap, overwhelmingly fast, and trendy, refers to low-cost, affordable clothing brands such as Forever 21, H&M, and Uniqlo that mimic the most up-to-date luxury fashion trends. However, although this highly profitable fashion business may seem like a win-win solution to both businesses and consumers, many questions are being raised as to how ethical the fast fashion industry really is.

According to Elizabeth Cline’s book Overdressed: The Shockingly High Cost of Cheap Fashion, merchandises of the fast fashion industry are designed to make consumers feel out of trend after a single week. Furthermore, the clothes are not meant to last more than a season in terms of quality. According to the Center for Environmental Health, Forever 21 and other fast fashion brands are selling lead-contaminated purses, belts, and shoes above the legal amount, and in 2012, Greenpeace revealed that companies such as H&M and Zara were selling products containing hazardous chemicals that were cancer causing and hormone disrupting. The growing demand for cheap fashion also leads to the establishment of more factories in countries such as Bangladesh where labor is cheap and there are little emission regulations.

Will it be possible for fast fashion and business ethics to be synonymous? Ethical solutions must be made.

Sources:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shannon-whitehead/5-truths-the-fast-fashion_b_5690575.html

https://www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools/5-effects-fast-fashion