Lance Wu's Blog

I came across a blog post  by Vincent Wang, talking about how Snapchat recently rejected a 3 billion dollar buyout from Facebook.

https://blogs.ubc.ca/yixiwang/

In his post, Vincent talked about how Snapchat has emerged as a competitor to Facebook due to its very unique product. Because Snapchat has grown its customer base so fast in just two years, it would be better for Facebook to simply buy the company now before it becomes a threat.

In short, I don’t agree with the fact that Snapchat will be a serious threat to Facebook in the  future. Facebook has integrated itself to become a vital part of society. Snapchat is just a toy that teenagers play with and will eventually out grow. Getting rid of one’s Facebook account would be like cutting off an arm, but no one has the same kind of attachment to Snapchat.

So why would Facebook want to buy Snapchat? It is possible that Facebook feels threatened by Snapchat’s growth, but I think Snapchat would actually be a great asset for Facebook to acquire. Both companies would benefit from each other and share their huge customer base. I would not be surprised if Snapchat was acquired by Facebook in the future, but at the moment the owners of Snapchat are probably feeling a little more ambitious than 3 billion dollars.

Magic the Gathering is a strategic card game that is so popular that there are tournaments with cash prizes every week and a community of professional players exists. Some of these tournaments are played online on Magic the Gathering Online (MTGO).

On November 9, the Magic Online Championship Series was held. This is the most important tournament of the year for online Magic players, with a first place prize of $25,000. After more than 10 hours the server crashed, and all the results of the tournament were lost.

Brian Kibler, a professional magic player who was in the running to win the tournament, wrote about his experience on his blog here.

http://bmkgaming.com/magic-online-championship-series-exist/

The MTGO server has been crashing repeatedly in major events worth thousands of dollars for years now, and the developers haven’t taken action. But because this happened to a well recognized player, a lot of attention was given to this incident.

Wizards, company that makes Magic cards, generates huge revenues and profits every year, yet they’ve been unwilling to allocate the money to fix these issues. As a huge fan and a customer, this is saddening: How a company can be so deep in its riches that they’re blind to the needs of their consumers until its reputation is at stake. And while Magic will continue to remain popular, this incident has opened the door for other games and competitors to take away dissatisfied customers.

As Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo get set to debut their next-gen consoles in the next few weeks, let’s take a look in the past at Sega’s failure in the console industry. While it may be hard to imagine, there was a time when Sega was the dominant force in the video game industry. There were a few points and thoughts that Mr Takezaki, a Sega veteran shared in the article below, but I believe there was more to be discussed.

http://www.polygon.com/2013/8/7/4599588/why-did-the-dreamcast-fail-segas-marketing-veteran-looks-back

Something people may not have thought of was the fact Sega came out with a new console far too often, which made their previous consoles outdated along with games that people bought. In Sega’s mind, consumers wanted the most advanced technology at their fingertips, and so they came out with a new console every 2 or 3 years. This is a relatively short time in comparison to the fact that the PS3 came out almost 7 years ago, and the short development times led to some issues with quality. EA also refused to develop games for Sega consoles anymore, which is a big gap in the customer segment for Sega. 

Based on COMM 101, I think Sega could’ve adopted a more “lean” approach to their ideas. They could’ve gotten feedback from customers who would’ve tested their hardware, rather than making a huge investments based on intuition.

http://ubyssey.ca/news/cus-referendum-fails-123/

The UBC Commerce Undergraduate Society referendum of the decision to spend $200,000 in response to the incidents at Sauder Frosh has failed. Of those who had voted almost 70% were against this allocation of funds, which is a staggering amount.

This is a sensitive issue that has been felt through out the Faculty of Commerce, and so I’m going to try to provide a non-biased, neutral collection of thoughts about this subject.

First of all this incident was only relevant to those who were directly connected with Frosh, so the first years, the frosh leaders, and the organizing committee. Almost all the second, third and fourth years weren’t part of it, which is almost 75% of the undergrads in Sauder. So, in regards to Frosh, for almost three quarters of the undergrad commerce students this wasn’t an issue. So it sort of makes sense that they were against this usage of their tuition.

However, I don’t believe that this is the right decision necessarily because the majority voted on it. These events have tarnished Sauder’s reputation, and if nothing else these programs and money are a step towards salvaging it. Also, these programs can still benefit the whole university at large. Either way, all the students would still pay the same tuition, and if we don’t spend it on this the CUS would just spend it somewhere else.

http://www.treehugger.com/cars/toyotas-new-fuel-cell-vehicle-what-it-how-it-works-and-how-it-drives.html

After over a decade of speculation and criticism, by 2015 it appears we’re going to have a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle available in the commercial market. This is not just a great achievement for Toyota within the motor industry but for the world as a whole.

For those who don’t know, these cars run on (gasp) hydrogen. Basically, the hydrogen reacts with oxygen so that the only output is water and energy to power the car. This could replace cars that run on gasoline, cut greenhouse gas emissions, and perhaps end all these arguments about the environment.

However, there has been a lot of negative talk going on over the past few years about hydrogen cars. One of which is that these cars are very expensive to produce and will not be immediately accessible to the general public. When cars were first invented, not a lot of people could afford them either. So I’m confident that our engineers can find a way to manufacture these fuel cells at a low cost.

Another debate is how fuel cells compare to electric cars. While I believe personally that both are viable for the future, batteries tend to wear out and are quite heavy. I also prefer to only spend a few minutes refuelling my car rather than a few hours recharging it, a problem for long road trips. In the end, it comes down to personal preference.

http://www.bnn.ca/News/2013/10/7/Force-companies-to-have-3-female-directors-or-face-delisting-Teachers.aspx

What the heck? Companies are being forced to have at least 3 women on the boards, or get booted off the TSX? Is this article for real?

Apparently so.

Yes, I find the idea a bit ludicrous, but I suppose I can understand why this could happen. Gender equality in the work field is something that society has been trying to improve for a long time. No one would argue that men have it better than women on average at work, and that shouldn’t be the case.

But forcing companies to put women on the board simply to fulfill this requirement is ridiculous. I doubt that companies are focusing on gender equality in the board rooms, but instead on the revenues and the profits and all that other good stuff. Whether you have a man or a woman in the board room is of little importance. I don’t think people would mind if the board was full of women, if it meant that the company would be more successful.

A woman shouldn’t be given a position of influence over a man who possibly deserved it more, because the law forced it to happen. And there’s no real evidence in the article that suggests any benefit for the company to implement this change. Women should earn that top executive position, and the same goes for men.

https://blogs.ubc.ca/yixiwang/2013/10/07/samsung-dominates-third-quarter-with-record-high-profit/

Above is a blog post by Vincent Wang, a fellow classmate in COMM 101. Vincent talks about the immense success Samsung has had within the Smartphone Industry, the reason being the sheer variety Samsung offers with their handset products. It’s a valid point, but I think there’s a bit more to it than that.

This article offers a great summary of different reasons that explain Samsung’s success.

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Samsung-Smartphone-Tablet-Success-10-Reasons-Why-They-Are-So-Popular-457840/

There are more factors involved with Samsung’s No. 1 place within the industry than just variety. If variety was the key to success, then many other companies would also be very successful. I’m sure Nokia, Motorola, LG and other cellphone manufacturers offer more choices from their brand than Apple does.

The main difference, is that Samsung delivers a higher quality product over its competitors for a similar cost. Why is Apple so successful? Even if it’s a bit overpriced and there’s just one model to choose from, consumers know they’re going to get a consistently excellent product that’s better than the rest. However, Samsung’s phones are fully capable of matching the iPhone in performance, and at half the price.

But it’s nice to have some flexibility in choice, which is where Samsung takes the lead. In Vincent’s post, he talks about all the different models Samsung offers depending on what consumers want for whatever price. But no matter what product a consumer decides on, they know they’re going to get a great piece of hardware. And this is where Samsung shines above all: Value.

After talking about BlackBerry in COMM 101 a few classes ago, I was a bit intrigued and wanted to find out more about the company. After a quick Google search, I came across this.

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/personal-tech/BlackBerry+stock+trading+halted+across+North/8948060/story.html

I’ve never really followed the downfall of BlackBerry. I wasn’t obsessed with smartphones like other people, though I have one today (that I just talk and text with). But I’ve done some research around the Internet, and here are my thoughts.

BlackBerry, for many years, was way ahead of the curve. They practically dominated the smartphone market, and even the iPhone, when it came out, didn’t make an immediate impact. However, they acknowledged it as a threat, and they knew they had to compete with it.

Blackberry started to play catch up with the new touch screen trend, but the products they were putting out were sub-par. In a rapidly changing environment, they were struggling to find its identity. On one hand consumers wanted a touch screen, but this completely clashed with BlackBerry’s keyboard feature that the company was built on. As we know, everything they put out was a let down, and the revenues plummeted.

I believe that BlackBerry should never have abandoned their core handset phone in the first place. It was quite obviously their strongest product and it differentiated themselves from the other competitors. They would still retain some hold over the cell phone market with those who prefer the keyboard to the touch screen, rather than lose everything.

Hopefully having a smaller group of more dedicated investors and financiers can take this company back to its roots and bring things into focus.