Monthly Archives: October 2014

Technology enthusiasts everywhere are talking about the Oculus Rift, a headset that could soon make the virtual reality experience a reality. This could revolutionize the gaming industry, if not everyday life.

Oculus Rift

Though not completely aligned with Clayton Christensen’s definition of disruptive innovation, the Oculus Rift is certainly a form of it. Samsung recognizes this, and has already cooperated with Oculus to form the Samsung Gear VR. Some businesses, especially those that provide platforms for gaming (such as Sony and their PS3), may view the Rift as an impractical, expensive, and unnecessary innovation. I disagree, even though it has not yet been put to the test on the market. In the not too distant future, I predict the companies not incorporating virtual gaming into their product line will be left behind, seeing a fate similar to that of Blackberry’s.

Zeiss’ VR One

Some people, such as Carl Zeiss, see an opportunity with the Oculus Rift. Rather than cooperating with Oculus like Samsung, Carl Zeiss has formed his own virtual reality product, the VR One. Though nothing is set in stone, Zeiss’ VR One is predicted to have a slightly worse quality than the Rift and not support larger mobile devices. However, the VR One is also cheaper and supports a larger range of the smaller mobile devices. In every sense of Christensen’s definition, the VR One is a disruptive innovation of a disruptive innovation, and could very well outdo its Samsung and Oculus counterparts in the later stages of the virtual reality era if left unanswered.

For the original article, see this link.

Image sources:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/03/25/microsoft-should-have-acquired-oculus-rift-not-facebook/

http://www.wired.com/2014/10/carl-zeiss-vr-headset/

Based on the PESTEL analysis, used to analyze macro-environmental factors, the focus of this post will be on the political and environmental factors surrounding the Northern Gateway Pipeline, a hot topic involving Aboriginal contention to Enbridge’s pipeline.

Enbridge (Photo Credits: INGAA)

From a political standpoint, though Enbridge has received the support (or neutrality) from many Aboriginal groups directly affected by the pipeline (about 40% of the B.C. Aboriginal groups have signed deals to take a financial cut from the project), there is still enough opposition to stop the deal from going through. One group for example, the Nak’ azdli, are concerned about the possible environmental repercussions. To address these issues, Enbridge should have ongoing discussions with these groups to find a compromise (such as larger financial stakes, or greater investment in the pipeline’s integrity), which happens to be exactly the course of action they are currently taking.

Aboriginal Protest against the Enbridge Pipeline (Photo Credits: Financial Post)

Oil pipelines will always spark environmental concern due to the risks associated with them. Therefore, necessary precautions should be taken to ensure their integrity. Currently, the Northern Gateway project is quite safe, with minimal chance of disaster. According to Enbridge, the likelihood of a major rupture in B.C. is 1 in 1566 years, and for a “pinhole” leak is 1 in 79 years. As well, improvements may also be made in the future from the ongoing discussions with Aboriginal groups that are still reluctant.

Given all the right steps that Enbridge is taking to address Aboriginal and environmental concerns, it is difficult to see a future without the Northern Gateway Pipeline in existence, though only time can tell.

For the original article, see this link.