Brian Zhou's Blog

In an information and efficiency based era, the prevalence of technology continues to demonstrate itself in our everyday lives. We use technology for emailing, GPS, for communication, and for remembering people’s birthdays. Through the luxurious designs and appearances of such phones and technology, does one ever consider the problem that subtly exists? This shift in technology is evidenced by the fact that Apple has knocked Coca-Cola off No. 1 spot on Interbrand’s list of Best Global Brands. Apple’s estimated value is $98.3 billion which is a 28% leap from 2012 while Coca-Cola’s value rose by approximately 2% to 79.2 billion. Out of the top 10 most valuable brands, five of them operate in the technology industry. Startling? Definitely not, but this brings up the question of whether technology actually negatively affects us. Despite the global brands, Vancouver itself has boasted many enterprises based on technology. Technology is “…changing our behavior: how we buy, how we communicate with each other, even whether we speak with each other… [and] have literally changed the way we live our lives.” As a result of such sleek, lavish, and elegant design, we, as humans, have become a rather anti-social generation that lacks proper mannerisms and knowledge in networking and communicating face to face. Technology has allowed people in its respective sector to gain great financial rewards, but at what cost? It’s at the expense of a generation that lacks etiquette and confidence with face to face interaction. This is not to say that everyone lacks these qualities, but for the vast majority, people cannot function properly without technology as it has integrated itself into part of our identity.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/30/business/media/apple-passes-coca-cola-as-most-valuable-brand.html?ref=business&_r=0

Ethics remains a questionable topic not in the principle or intention, but in the subjective idea of when the ethical line is crossed. Like any other event, multiple sides of the story exist and with this in mind, one must consider how such a vague “line” determines whether one acts in an ethical or unethical manner. The tragedy 12 years ago remains appalling, but surely 4,383 days later, an ad by AT&T can exist without being called “‘tacky,’ ‘terrible,’ and ‘gross’ among other criticisms.” The ad consisted of a “photo of a hand against the New York skyline, holding up a smartphone to take a photo of…where the twin towers used to stand.” I understand the tragedy of thousands of deaths, and I truly sympathize with those who lost loved ones, but nevertheless AT&T remains a telecommunications corporation that has a sole purpose of expanding its clientele and dominating the market. AT&T did not exploit overseas labour costs, bribe, nor (as we know) have any horrendous working conditions, or have intentions to ridicule the suffering and pain of 9/11. They simply had a photo of ground zero which allowed them to fulfill its “one and only one social responsibility: to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits” (Friedman).

Sources:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/marketing/att-its-still-too-soon-for-a-911-themed-ad/article14248783/

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