Monthly Archives: September 2014

The self-driving car is an idea that Google has apparently been working on for quite some time now. The company strongly believes that the next big thing is for automobiles to neither have a steering wheel or pedals. Currently Google does not have the technology nor solution to the perfect self-driving car, but in ten or so years and the advancement of technology, the idea is likely to become a real possibility for many.  That is, if they find a way around the legal and regulatory challenges imposed on their design.

There are many pros and cons to this idea. For example, having self-driving cars will give Google access a market that many car producers could not reach before: people who dislike driving and those with disabilities. For the first time, those visually impaired will be given the opportunity to have their own car amongst other people with disabilities. It can also be more sustainable by being more fuel efficient for drivers and lastly, people will be able to do other things during the commutes instead of focusing on the road. Self-driving cars should definitely be a viable option in the future.

Along with the benefits of this idea, Google and other self-driving car manufacturers will have difficulty convincing most standard vehicle consumers to switch over to self-driving cars. With the elimination of the driver, many consumers will be anxious about the safety performance of such vehicles. There is the possibility that if self-driving cars take over the car market, there will be minimal amounts of automobile accidents because everything is controlled by computers and software. Intoxicated drivers will no longer have to worry because they are now getting driven on their own. However, I think that it is unlikely that self-driving cars will take over the car market because there are currently many people who enjoy driving and appreciate the customization of their driving experience, such as those who prefer driving standard over automatic. The mix of both self-driving and normal cars will make it difficult for manufacturers to produce the technology to predict each circumstance, and so accidents will continue to occur until we are able to move towards a completely self-driving world.

Markoff, John. “Google’s Next Phase in Driverless Cars: No Steering Wheel or Brake Pedals.” The New York Times.
The New York Times, 27 May 2014. Web. 21 Sept. 2014.

Photo: http://cdn.michiganautolaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Google-driverless-car.jpg

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/new-rogers-shaw-video-streaming-service-to-match-netflix-cost/article20204045/

Surprisingly, two of Canada’s largest communication companies have joined together to create a new service in the television industry. With the declining usage of cable television, I was sure  that both Shaw and Rogers had to find another way to reestablish themselves in the television market. Especially since the appearance of Netflix, more and more users like to watch shows customized to their preferences instead of waiting for it to appear on TV. Especially with the increase in the amount of time people spend on their computers, tablets and phones, this decision will entice customers to Shomi by being able to stream videos, not just from television sets, but from other devices too. There is even the potential of other Canadian Media companies joining Shomi and help to expand the brand. This idea is an intelligent move for both Rogers and Shaw, firstly for combining their resources to create the new video streaming format Shomi and also because this will give both companies the opportunity to reestablish themselves in the television media field.

In addition, with the conflict between the CRTC and Netflix, Canadian customers are being prevented from streaming American Netflix. Many consumers find it unfair that American Netflix viewers are able two view twice the amount of titles than what is available on the Canadian service. With the unsettled Netflix viewers because of this issue, Shomi can take advantage opportunity to take away some of their customers. At the same price of $8.99 a month, Shomi will pose itself as a new threat to Netflix TV in Canada. Depending on the number of titles and selection offered from Shomi, this venture can be either a complete success or an utter failure for both Shaw and Rogers.

This is a response to James Sun’s blog post on conflict diamonds.

How far are people willing to go to pay a lower price? Are we willing to sacrifice the lives and working conditions of others just so that we can benefit from them? Is it alright for us to be ignorant when we really know what happens every time we decide to purchase a diamond ring for a lower premium?

However, businesses don’t care. As Friedman stated, the goal of every company is to maximize profit whether or not we realize it, and without it, companies won’t be able to operate. Such incentives are understandable, CEOs will do whatever they have to do in order to keep their business alive. Instead, I think that it is up to the consumer to send a message to the people running the business that we know what they’re doing, that we know it’s wrong, and that we don’t want diamonds if it comes from those circumstances. Since Freeman believes that “it is important to align all the stakeholder’s general interests towards one common goal”, with the consumers being a large stakeholder, the companies will be forced to change their ways. 

I am glad that people are becoming more educated behind the “Conflict Diamond” issue, and that large companies such as Tiffany and Co. are moving away from selling blood diamonds and considering the ethics behind it. I believe since that more people are aware and unsettled by the circumstances of the blood diamond, it was a smart move for Tiffany and Co. to publicly ensure that their diamonds are “socially and environmentally ethical”. In addition, the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme is another precautionary action to prevent the entrance of blood diamonds in the diamond market.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/09/15/microsoft-to-buy-creator-of-minecraft-for-2-5-billion/?_php=true&_type=blogs&src=me&_r=0

Once again, Microsoft ventures out and buys over Mojang, the creators of Minecraft, for $2.5 billion. By understanding that the gaming industry is becoming increasingly popular amongst electronic device users, Microsoft has made a very smart move in closing the deal with Mojang. Mojang itself is already very established with the simple, yet innovative creation of Minecraft. I believe that buying Mojang and the rights to release Minecraft on Microsoft devices will help with the sales and popularity of Microsoft. This is because Minecraft is a game that several people enjoy playing for fun and has recently been introduced to being used in an educational setting. If Microsoft can take advantage of a new target population such as students, parents, and teachers to invest in creative game tools, like Minecraft, Microsoft will be able to further establish their brand while increasing sales.

Mojang itself was very intelligent in the creation of Minecraft. Being easily-accessible opens the market up for people who are both young and old, without alienating groups in the market, like the many games that are rated M and are only sold to adults. In addition, the open world concept is interesting and gives many players the sense of control they feel they need. With the boost in popularity, technology and the growth of the Minecraft universe, Microsoft will also be able to reap their new benefits and watch their company expand. Having the rights to the game is also an asset to Microsoft because all future releases will be under their jurisdiction. Hopefully the addition of Mojang to the software company will help the company prosper and lead to an even more successful Microsoft.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinkers-with-users-emotions-in-news-feed-experiment-stirring-outcry.html

Like any individual, you would assume that you are in control of your own decisions, thoughts, and emotions. Although this does not prevent companies such as Facebook from trying to influence them, it begs the question: Is it ethical to tinker with people’s emotions to promote revenue?

Many people rely on Facebook for updates on real life and current events. By moderating the content viewed on their news feed, Facebook has distorted the user’s perception of the site. In order for the content modification to have been ethical, users should have been briefed on the basics of the experiment taking place. Furthermore, by insisting that users have given their consent for the study, Facebook’s popularity amongst their angered users continues to decrease. While an increase in time spent on the service enables Facebook to show more ads, the largest source of the company’s revenue, the decrease in users will decrease corporate profit.

Some people say that Facebook’s manipulation was to make their users happier, but while the survey was held to “[create] a more alluring and useful product,” the goal of the marketing scheme was to increase Facebook’s profits. The Stakeholder Theory states that businesses need to create value in their product with the customers. However, by ignoring the aftermath of what many deem to be unethical, several Facebook users will decide to lessen their time on Facebook, potentially leading the business to decline. Facebook is not the first company to manipulate the user experience, nor the last, but how far do you think a business should go to maximize profit?

Goel, Vindu. “Facebook Tinkers With Users’ Emotions in News Feed Experiment, Stirring Outcry.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 29 June 2014. Web. 11 Sept. 2014.

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