Month: October 2012

In Dabir Rashid’s Blog Post, Is Research in Motion (RIM) Back in Motion?, Dabir talks about how he does not believe RIM is in trouble of bankruptcy right now.  He believes that with the release of Blackberry 10 in 2013 either, RIM will begin to regain its reputation of being among the top mobile technology firms, or another technology firm will buy it out.  Dabir also believes that the company is “too big to fail.”

I agree with Dabir in the sense that the Blackberry 10 is RIM’s last big chance to regain its reputation.  They have fallen far behind their competitors and if they want to work their way back up in this industry they need to be able to develop top of the line products on a regular basis, starting with the Blackberry 10.  However, in contrast to what Dabir said, I do not believe that the company will be bought out nor that they are simply so big that they are not able to go bankrupt.

When I think of companies that are “too big to fail,” I of companies like General Motors.  The only reason this company was bailed out was because the losses to the US economy would have been greater if they had gone bankrupt.  When I look into RIM I simply do not see this.  I do not believe that the company is big enough to cause another technology giant to buy them out because of a loss of research, and I especially do not see the government intervening either.

The NHL lockout is affecting more than just the players and millions of fans, it is also affecting sporting goods companies.  Bauer, an enormous supplier of hockey goods, has decided to expand into the rapidly expanding North American market of lacrosse.  Although the NHL lockout will not affect the company too much, Bauer believes that this plan will lighten the impact.  Dominating the global market for hockey equipment, the company’s biggest customer base are the children around the world who love and play the sport.  Because of the increase in popularity with lacrosse for kids, Bauer believes that it can step up and fill a similar place in this new market.  Having played hockey since I was five years old, I know that Bauer makes phenomenal equipment.  In fact, my favourite stick was the Bauer Vapour 40 which I played with for several years.  As a company that produces such high quality equipment, it is my personal opinion that Bauer is completely capable of expanding into this market and succeeding with selling to kids who are passionate about the sport.  My only question: Why didn’t they do it sooner?

Sources:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/bauer-aims-to-rebound-from-nhl-lockout-with-lacrosse-power-play/article4595424/

The demand for smartphones has been rapidly increasing since their release in 2006.  However, the producers are slowly running low on ideas for newer, better, and different products.  This struggle for originality has caused many disputes between the big smartphone industries and their so called “patented products.”  In such a specific market with distinct consumer tastes, how can a company say that they own a certain idea?

Since 2006, Apple alone has been involved in 142 patent lawsuits with multiple different companies including Samsung and Nokia.  Recently they won a lawsuit over Samsung their Galaxy SIII that contained technology patented by Apple themselves.  A few weeks after winning this battle, Samsung launched an attack of their own on Apple and their newly released IPhone 5.  This war seems endless, as whenever someone comes out with a “new” product, it is trampled on by any company that believes they might have stolen an idea.  Because of this constant fighting, it has become nearly impossible for new companies to enter the market.  Before they can display their products they are completely suffocated by patent infringements that they are spending more money on lawyers than developing their ideas.  It is unbelievable that because of patents in a market of such similar production, new businesses cannot develop and old ones are forced either to sell or into bankruptcy.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/10/08/business/Fighters-in-a-Patent-War.html?ref=technology

Unless you have been in a coma for the past 100 years, the chances are you have heard of the ongoing brand war between Pepsi and Coca-Cola.  The two companies produce the same type of product, cola, but people tend to hold Coke with a higher regard.  Most people believe that Coke simply has a better taste while Pepsi strongly disagrees.  In many marketing campaigns Pepsi has tried to prove to people that their product is superior in taste compared to that of Coca-Cola.  Some of the more popular advertisements include commercials that show a blind folded test of the two companies and their colas.  The people in the advertisement, usually people who prefer Coke, always choose Pepsi as the better tasting product.  In other advertisements, like the one below, Pepsi is trying to prove that people prefer their product over Coke’s by saying that people will go out of their way and shovel through mounds of snow just to get a drink.  Personally, I prefer the taste of Coke to Pepsi.  I believe that most people do.  By advertising in this way, Pepsi is trying to move up the mind ladder people have of the taste of cola; they are fighting a loosing battle.  Instead of fighting for this, I believe it would be more productive for pepsi to take a commanding lead in another area, such as being more healthy or more environmentally friendly.  This tactic may lead people towards their product and away from Coca-Cola.

Sources:

http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/battle-of-the-brands-pepsi-vs-coke-advertisements/