A blog by Peter Nowak, called “Tablets in the classroom will soon be the norm,” discusses the emerging popularity of tablets in educational institutes.

Personally, I do not own a tablet because I like the full capability of a real computer. A tablet just won’t cut it for me if it is incompatible with many popular software and programs. However, I admire the size factor, which is a selling point that has really caught my attention – thanks to all the marketing involved.

Would you rather have an iPad or a slim but heavier laptop?

Two points arise in my opinion:

1)      Do students really need a tablet or is it a trend that companies’ successfully created?

2)      Companies found a gap for tablets in the portable device market.

Most people who have a tablet also have a laptop/desktop computer. Consumers are willing to spend extra money on a device that is smaller, more portable, but less compatible. In a classroom, what functions of a device is exactly needed? Typing? Researching? Presenting? Or is it just an entertainment device disguised as a working device? By combining the “working” functions in a device that is capable of playing games specifically designed for it, such as Apple’s iPad and Google Nexus 7, consumers blindly purchase it thinking it’s so great it can do everything and it’s so portable! A tablet fits perfectly between an Ultrabook (thin and light laptops) and a smartphone.

Apple’s iPad Mini versus Google Nexus 7

Lastly, an interest fact about the history of tablets: IBM (later transferred to Lenovo) created tablets back in 1992, but it didn’t create such a big hit in the market. The size wasn’t necessarily much larger than a normal laptop. Why does Apple’s iPad become so popular globally? Are people buying it because it’s Apple and everyone else just follows along thinking it must be great if so many people are buying it?

I came upon this article about social enterprise and the development of Myanmar. It talks about the potential that exists in the country for investors. One major idea that caught my attention is that instead of just donating money for the development of this country, a bridge should be built to connect the business world with the capital given to the country.

World Vision

Thinking globally, not just in Myanmar, organizations like World Vision and UNICEF deliver resources to people in Africa who are in need. While this is helping those in immediate need, it doesn’t necessarily solve the root problems, such as poverty.

UNICEF

Wouldn’t developing countries through business developments be effective? Businesses employ people and possibly educate them during their employment. Of course, it is not to say that charities aren’t doing the right thing currently; millions could die if charities don’t help.

S.U.C.C.E.S.S.

Look at S.U.C.C.E.S.S., one of the largest social service agencies in BC, they provide services in settlement, employment, housing, community development and many more. They also own Canada Social Enterprises Inc., which is wholly-owned by S.U.C.C.E.S.S. Instead of just providing free services to those in need, they provide higher level of services, such as training or education programs, at a price that is just enough to cover the costs. With enough cash flow, they can open more programs and benefit more people. This way, people are able to reach higher goals and standards, instead of only making sure they are meet the minimum standard, such as having a shelter or understanding English.

Overall, I’m sure there are many entrepreneurs who have thought about creating a business in African countries to help the poor, but there could be many barriers that prevent the success of this plan.

Currently, the gaming industry is at a point where rumours and speculations are made about the next generation gaming console hardware. Nintendo is the first to release its newest flagship product, the Wii U.

Nintendo’s new console: Wii U

Creating a new console is like deciding the company’s fate for the next several years – especially important to Nintendo, which has its market share decreased due to Sony and Microsoft. The development of a console requires extensive research, and crucial decisions are made. As I obtain more knowledge about businesses, I realized how sophisticated it is in developing a new console – not just physically developing it.

Just imagine how difficult it is to speculate the future and predict the trend of the gaming industry, as well as the competitors’ strategy. Then, there are cost issues. What pricing will consumers accept? At that price, what hardware should be sacrificed to reduce the costs? In the future, will the cost of this component decrease significantly? How long will it take before we can see promising profits? Is it even worth developing this console right now? Next, there are issues with marketing. The company needs to identify the points of difference with its console. But when should the console be released? Will this time period be overshadowed by other events or will it clash with the release of another product? Lastly, will we be able to meet our customer’s demands? What if the hardware is very sophisticated and one part of it can only be produced in a specific factory in Europe? How do we get the individual parts together in time from so many different manufacturers?

After reading Brandon Pearl’s blog article, “Vancouver Gets Even Greener,” I feel that, yes, the City of Vancouver is becoming greener with their usage of plastic bottles in asphalt pavements, but is this news article just something to make Vancouver look good?

Out of all the usage of plastic bottles, melting them and combining it with asphalt is the choice they select. Again, I agree with their points of being green, but what happens when they tare the asphalt and replace them again? The removed asphalt goes to some landfill with the plastic fused together.

A better alternative would be for a business to develop some kind of pavement that is sustainable and durable, while maintaining a similar cost. By developing an environmentally friendly material for the road, it’s obviously beneficial for the environment, but also it would create a big impact for the world as there are millions of kilometres of asphalt roads. Most importantly, by creating a more durable material, there would be less of a need to replace the road. The concern about pollution during the manufacturing and paving of asphalt is lessened if there isn’t as much of a need for asphalt anyways.

Hostess, the company that makes Twinkies, is going bankrupt, and someone has created a petition to the White House to “immediately nationalize the Twinkie industry and prevent our nation from losing her sweet creamy center.”  As of the day I am writing this, one day has passed since the petition started, nearly 2800 signatures have been collected.

Twinkies made by Hostess

In all seriousness, the publicity and popularity of Twinkies are a success. Not many products in the world can attain such a magnitude of popularity and support. According to Huffington Post, Hostess is shutting down because of labour union disputes. Also, the company is unable to make a profit, and wages and benefits have been constantly decreasing.

In my opinion, Twinkies is a name that is very valuable.  The decrease in profit could have been caused by two issues: management problem, which resulted in labour disputes and profit problems, and the decline in desire of Twinkies. I remember when I was just a toddler what Twinkies were like and currently, they are almost the same. With so many new products over the years, consumers may still like Twinkies but they are also given so many other choices as well. They substituted to other products, but Twinkies weren’t necessarily much worse than others. It had a position in consumers’ minds. Therefore, if Twinkies were to be purchased by a different company, they could potentially profit from it because the marketing of this product is unnecessary; the name is already so famous. All they need to do is create a point of difference for this snack, whether it’s the taste or appearance.

The first thought I had about this new thin and flexible display screen was “AMAZING!” But then I realized… so what?

Samsung flexible AMOLED screen

According to the article, Samsung is rumoured to take the lead in this technological development. Immediately, I think of Apple’s patent war with Samsung. How much is Samsung going to try to prevent its competitors from using this technology, or how much will Samsung charge its competitors for it? Apple’s products are famous for their thinness and lightness, and this new flexible display is so thin it’s bendable! Not only can Samsung use this technology in smartphones, they can also use it in TV’s and other electronics.

Aside from patents, other businesses are affected by this technology. For example, Gorilla Glass, known for its strength and durability, is used in many smartphones as the display glass. With this new technology, there is no need for a piece of glass anymore; the display is made from plastic. Gorilla Glass should make sure their main customers aren’t just smartphone producers because their sales would decrease quite a lot. Also, depending on how easy it is to repair or replace this screen in a product, many local repair shops around the world will be affected. Considering the millions of smartphone units sold worldwide, there would be an enormous effect on the repairing industry.

In Arman Mazhari’s blog post about facebook’s new advertisement, it discusses two agreeable points:

1)      Facebook’s new ad seems ineffective since they are an advertising behemoth anyways

2)      This ad will bring the message to people who don’t know much about Facebook

In my perspective, the point of this ad isn’t to attract users onto Facebook; they are trying to attract investors and companies. General Motors, which invested $10 million annually to Facebook for advertising, decided to terminate their business deal in May and “unliked” them. Although $10 million isn’t a lot compared to the billions earned annual by Facebook, this is a sign that large companies are beginning to lose confidence in Facebook.

Facebook advertising…? Meh…
(click for credit link)

The new ad by Facebook is demonstrating that their 1 billion active users are still here, and they aren’t affected by stock prices or other news. To those who want to advertise or is wary about it, Facebook is still the best since it can target specific people out of their 1 billion active users. Its efficiency is another story as it may depend on which industry, for example, video game in Vancouver vs. real estate in Nunavut, but it does reach a large market which newspapers and television can’t do.

Youtube is popular and grew because of the diverse content that was uploaded by millions of people around the world – from gamers to dog-lovers to parents who upload videos of their children.

Now, Youtube decides to invest millions of dollars to promote high production film makers in creating and uploading videos to Youtube.

This entails a decrease in views of normal and sub-par videos, as viewers are going to watch higher quality videos with the limited amount of time they have. This will dissuade current video makers from creating new content on Youtube as they can’t compete with the higher quality videos.

Youtube is losing its value proposition. Once they are filled with professionally made videos, it would be indifferent from television, where there are professionally made shows and movies along with long commercial breaks. The only point of difference between TV and Youtube is that one is seen from computer and the other from TV.

Once it has established this new image, current video makers could upload their content to other sites, such as Youtube’s competitors, thus, gain popularity. Viewers, who contribute to Youtube’s income, could leave and watch from other websites with more diverse content.

I have always thought that renting a house is a bad decision since money is gone once spent, unlike buying a house where the cash is converted into another form of asset. This article provides reasons why renting is better than buying (perfect for Vancouver’s expensive houses!).

In terms of finance, we need to determine whether the money saved has a higher value now or in the future. There are three key points:

2001 average monthly housing costs data from Census, Statistics Canada. Inflation not adjusted. Credit: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

1)      Renting is usually cheaper than paying for mortgages every month plus owner expenses

2)      House prices are high and should fall in the future

3)      How high are mortgage and savings rates?

Simply put, assuming house prices are at its peak, the cash being used to buy a house would have a lower value in the future once house prices drop. It would be better to save the cash and invest it or earn interest in the bank until house prices drop (meanwhile I rent a house). Secondly, if mortgage and savings rates are high, I would definitely keep my money in the bank until mortgage rates and house prices drop. Not only am I not paying for the high interest, I’m also not losing asset value once the house price drops because I never purchased one yet.

Bibliography:

• “Comparing Neighbourhoods – Vancouver.” Www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, n.d. Web. 06 Oct. 2012.

• Neary, Claire. “The Globe and Why I’m Going to Wait to Buy a House and Keep Renting.” Www.theglobeandmail.com. The Globe and Mail, 17 Sept. 2012. Web. 06 Oct. 2012.

This article talks about how the wireless market today in Canada is “functioning well”, in terms of technological advancements and pricing levels.

Factually, the data and numbers are supported by a report from CRTC. However…

The wireless services market is dominated by the Big 3 (Rogers, Telus, and Bell). Smaller companies, such as Fido, Chatr, and Virgin Mobile, are actually subsidiaries of the Big 3. Canadian consumers have very little choice. The Big 3 can strategically market the subsidiary companies to contrast their services in order to gain favour for their parent company’s services. For example, Fido (subsidiary) can offer expensive and high-end phone plans whereas Rogers (parent) would offer “economical” plans which may have a larger market share.

The article states that Canadian wireless service prices are ranked in the middle, but that doesn’t mean we, and the other half of the countries, aren’t being ripped off. As shown HERE (dated 2008) Canadian wireless service is the most profitable sector for companies like Rogers.

New entrants to this field, such as Wind Mobile, are able to sell their services for a very low price, despite needing money to improve and expand their network. The Big 3, on the other hand, have their infrastructure built already but is still asking for ridiculously high prices for their services, especially all the extra fees and features. Why? Because they can.

Since there is so little competition, the Big 3 seems as if they are working together as a union to maintain the prices at this level. The Canadian wireless industry is not functioning well; the only thing functioning well is the profit for the Big 3.