Why is it that even if we have the latest iPhone 4S, Apple is able to convince us to purchase the newest, but very comparable, iPhone 5?

In the past, Apple has released considerably improved products compared to their precedents, such as the jump from iPhone 3GS to iPhone 4. However, the differences between the iPhone 4S and iPhone 5 are minimal and certainly not significant enough to have most consumers feel the need to make the switch. Physically, the new iPhone measures the same width as the previous, 0.37 inches taller, and 0.07 inches thinner. The main difference is the size of the screen, which is 0.5 inches larger. Even this, however, isn’t much of a perk considering the size of many Android phone screens measure nearly an inch larger than that of the iPhone 5.

It is evident that Apple’s marketing scheme, of keeping information about its upcoming products in the dark, has dedicated customers waiting at its side. Apple develops vague headlines for each product. When announcing the release of the iPhone, the marketing chief delivered the headline: “The iPhone 5 is the thinnest and lightest iPhone we have ever made.” Before its release, all talk about the product was speculation of its lighter and thinner features, which turned out to be much less significant than imagined.

Apple products are categorized as “wants” because they’re luxurious compared to more inexpensive and basic products that do essentially the same thing. However, their marketing team is able to portray the products and their features as “needs” and “benefits” giving consumers the ability to justify their purchases.

Without containing many points of difference compared to the iPhone 4S, the new product has been quick to sell out all over the world. Is this due to Apple’s unique marketing scheme? Or has having the latest iPhone become a fad regardless of its minimal upgrades?

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/digital-life/computers/blogs/gadgets-on-the-go/hands-on-iphone-5-screen-20120923-26eni.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/carminegallo/2012/09/21/why-apple-uses-68-characters-to-describe-the-iphone-5/

http://www.geeky-gadgets.com/difference-between-the-iphone-4s-and-iphone-5-13-09-2012/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthof/2012/09/17/why-2-million-apple-fans-ignored-my-advice-and-bought-an-iphone-5-anyway/

Workplace sex discrimination had seemingly been declining in the media over the last few decades. However, three months ago CPP nurses lit up the media as they learned that they would share over $160 million in a pay equity settlement dating back over three decades and indicating that this business ethics issue still exists.

Eight years ago, a group of dominantly female nurses working for Canadian Pension Plan filed a complaint with the CHRT indicating that their salaries of $50,000-$60,000 per year halved those of CPP doctors, a primarily male group, that performed essentially the same job.

In the lawsuit, the pay scales of the female job classification required employees to work up to three years before reaching the top pay rate, one that was attainable in one year, in parallel male classifications. The Ontario Superior Court said “as long as female employees can eventually achieve the same level ofpay as men in comparable jobs, the fact that it takes them three times longer to get there does not create gender inequality.” Equality, it seems, is a prize for those who are patient rather than an immediate working right.

Incidents like this beg the question, why don’t officials promote gender equality rather than argue against the ethical treatment of women in the workplace? From this particular case we see that the promotion of equality among genders should be increased. This case should lend an optimistic view for women, showing the possibility to change the system. It should also encourage us to continue striving for workers rights until true equality is reached, and laws are not required in order to sustain fairness.

Video:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Video+Canada+Pension+Plan+nurses+million+settlement/6877733/story.html

Sources:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/03/nurses-to-receive-160m-settlement-from-ottawa-in-sex-discrimination-case/

http://www.canada.com/health/Nurses+group+awarded+million+government+gender+discrimination/6876630/story.html

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