Long Wei Lau

The article “Burger King to open in South Africa” reports the plan of Burger King to expand their franchise in South Africa. Burger King would be up against the most successful fast food chain in South Africa, Mc Donald who has 165 outlets in the country and opened its first outlet in 1995.

( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18466764 )

In my opinion, in terms of marketing, Mc Donald has the total edge against Burger King as they have been in the market for quite a long time. In the mind of consumers in South Africa, Mc Donald would be the first choice when it comes to fast food and burger as they have the first-mover advantage. In generic strategies, Burger King has not so much of differentiated product compared with Mc Donald which will make them second to Mc Donald in the market of South Africa. Thus, it will be a question whether it is a good investment of Grand Parade Investment to hold the exclusive agreement of franchising from Burger King.

As a third world and developing country, the news can make a lot of significant changes to the population in South Africa. By opening outlets in the country, it will significantly add to the employment rate and helping to make the life of people in South Africa. Thus, this move from Burger King can be regarded as socially beneficial.

In the blog post of Steve Dotto, he tries to defend that smart meter is bringing more benefit than the risk that it bears. Smart meter has caused a lot of controversial in BC with the fear of invasion in privacy and harm on health of consumers.

( http://www.techvibes.com/blog/the-lowdown-on-bc-hydros-highly-controversial-smart-meters-2011-11-30 )

In my opinion, it is inevitable for the information technology to keep on evolving, including how the way electrical meter is measured. The concern of privacy is correct as almost every security system in the world is can be hacked including the information gathered by BC Hydro. The information can be used to commit crime or any other illegal usage. But, consumers must acknowledge that their privacy is invaded all the time even without smart meter if you read my first post. Google, Facebook and etc (social media and search engine) use the information that you key inside and sell it to the third party.

In addition, for health issue, there is a concern that the radiation from smart meters when transmitting information to BC Hydro will harm the body. But, even without the existence of smart meter, people are always exposed to radiation such as mobile phone and the connection of internet.

So, does smart meter really makes so much of difference in people’s lives?

In the article “Huawei and ZTE pose security threat, warns US panel”, the two firms have been stopped by US government from merging and acquiring any telecommunication of any US company. Thus, causing a dispute between the Chinese companies and US government. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19867399)

The House Intelligence Committee of US reported in an unclassified report that the two Chinese companies have strong links with China’s government and military. With that US government strongly believed that it will cause threat to national security of US. The report also alleges that the companies are corrupted with bribery, discriminatory behavior and copyright infringement. But, the Huawei and ZTE claim that they meet all standards set by US and posed no threat.

Though it appears to be a harsh action by the US government, but it seems logical for them to take the move as the founder of Huawei is a former member of the People’s Liberation Army. While ZTE faced accusations that their equipment contains codes to relay sensitive information back to China.

Still, there has been no clear evidence by US that espionage is the true reason behind the acquisition. And, this is the first time US government blocks a foreign investment since 22 years ago. This may violent what seems to be a market economy image that US has. But, as Huawei and ZTE grows to be the one of the largest global players, is it possible that the true fear is that US is afraid of the dominance of these companies of the industry in US and eclipsing others? Or they are fearful of both possibilities and hence come to this decision as a precaution.

This article is concerned about the labeling of genetically modified ingredients. As the health awareness is increasing, people in California are attempting to change the labeling laws on genetically modified foods via legislation (voting through ballot paper). (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-19828142)  The labeling laws at the current do not require the food industry to label on raw or processed food offered for sales to consumers.

From the stand of consumers, it is totally their rights to know what are they consuming. But, for the view of suppliers especially those who have genetically modified ingredients in their food products, the statute would have incur additional cost to them to regulate the labeling of genetically modified foods. By regulating the label it would mean changing the label of for products supplied to other parts of United States as it will be troublesome and expensive to have separate packaging. (http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2012/general/pdf/37-title-summ-analysis.pdf)

Meanwhile, saying that it would have incurred around 1 million annually as one of their reasons. It actually does not make sense as they are willing to pay 40 million mainly on TV advertisements in an attempt to convince people not to vote against them.

From the point of consumers’ rightist, it appropriate to make such a call and it is the first step to make a revolution for labeling law as consumers need to know what they are eating. Although, it may not be fair in GM’s view as the current labeling law does not include antibiotics, pesticides or hormones to be labeled on package too. But, I believe it is just the matter of time given that the health awareness is escalating everywhere.

According to the article (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19816642), Samsung is challenging the Apple’s $1 billion award verdict by a California court around August of this year. Apple has actually accused Samsung of infringing the following patents:

i)                    Use of a single search interface such as Siri

ii)                   Sliding gesture to unlock

iii)                 Tries to anticipate which words the user wants to type and makes recommendations.

iv)                 A way to manipulate structures such as phone numbers or postcodes within computer data.

(http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18705285)

Samsung made paperwork on 21 September to appeal for a retrial as Samsung believed an incomplete answer had been provided during jury selection. Samsung also questioned the verdict and result of the lawsuit has been unfair as there were restrictions imposed by Judge Lucy Koh.

The consequence of this kind of vicious competition causes the Galaxy Nexus smartphone to be banned in the US. At the same time, Apple has lost their court cases in Netherlands and South Korean. (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-18529756) The main concern for consumer is that both the giant firms have been involved in dozens of patents cases and causing bans on certain products in certain countries. Thus, it led to the inconvenience to consumers as they are actually cancelling out our freedom of choice. Rather than concentrating on decreasing each other’s market share using lawsuits, they should concentrate on winning each other with introduction of new gadgets and innovation to position themselves as the genuine leader in innovation of phone and tablet products in consumers’ minds. In the consumer’s point of view, do you think the current fight in court is good for you?