Uber, the extremely popular ride share company has just began expanding into Canada. The company has already been creating waves of controversy and resistance in the US, but this has not seemed to stop them from expanding into Canada. However this has not been easy. There has been a lawsuit, or several, filed against Uber by taxi companies in Vancouver. They have been accused of “bypassing” many rules that other public transit cannot, and illegally operating. Many of the vehicles are not up to the safety standards for this industry and there have already been over a dozen cars, found by undercover inspector’s, that have been impounded. The drivers are not licensed to chauffeur, have unlicensed cars, are not necessarily insured, and are charging improper fares.

I found these articles very interesting for both points of view represented. Uber, in my opinion, needs better practice as to the licensing they require their drivers to have and regulations around them. It is not acceptable that the driver not have proof of insurance, and a chauffeur license is a very reasonable cost, considering they are bypassing so many other costs. However their fees should be totally separate and I believe they should be allowed to charge whatever they like. Uber’s business model revolves around putting microeconomics to the test, influencing both supply and demand through pricing schemes; this should be totally acceptable as both parties are agreeing to it. Overall I think Uber is a genius idea, but has flaws that should be addressed immediately.

Other Sources:

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/business/2014/03/uber-insurance-inline.jpg

https://www.uber.com/

Shaw and Rogers have come together to compete against netflix with their new online streaming service, Shomi. They have put together a collection similar to Netflix for $8.99 a month, in hopes of finding a way to stop Netflix’s dominance in this industry. They claim to have a better interface, better programs and overall a better product.

I found this strategy fairly weak. My first impression was simply “what’s the difference?“, that is between Shomi and Netflix. Netflix already dominates this market, and currently have a solid hold on the “top of the ladder”. Shomi is not a disruptive innovation by any means, with a higher price and similar content; pushing Netflix off the top might be a bit of a far fetched dream. Shomi claims to have better content, which is a personal opinion for each user. Sure, Netflix will lose costumers as they will no longer monopolize the market for online streaming, but I struggle to believe that Shomi will overtake Netflix; especially not within the first few years of it’s existence.

Other sources:

http://cdn.streamdaily.tv/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/shomi2.jpg

https://shomi.rogers.com/

https://www.shaw.ca/shomi/

Nestle has seemingly stepped up to the plate when it comes to shared value, leading the way on this new role for businesses. They have been hosting forums that assemble members of academia, industry, international institutions and civil society from around the world for a discussion and debate on the topic of creating shared value; they have even established a Creating Shared Value Prize for a innovative business or non-profit that addresses the issues of nutrition, water or rural development. 

I found this article interesting because of it’s relevance to what we’ve been learning. Nestle is one of the biggest coffee companies in the world and they have altered their whole business structure to create more shared value. What this shows is that they believe they will be more profitable, even though they will have larger costs, by using the shared value as a marketing tool. This demonstrates a shift in the consumer’s preferences and values. When a company this large shifts into a strategy involving shared value it is clear that change is on the way, and maybe soon companies without shared value will struggle to stay alive in their respective industries.

Other sources:

http://www.nestle-me.com/en/csv/creatingsharedvalueatnestle/publishingimages/csv_triangle_highres.jpg

http://www.nestle.com/csv/what-is-csv

http://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/36842-Full-2013-Nestl-in-Society-Creating-Shared-Value-and-Meeting-Our-Commitments-Report-Published

In Eric Floresca’s blog for ITBusiness.ca, he discusses a disruptive innovation that has disrupted innovation itself: the smartphone. He discusses the way smartphones have disrupted not just the phone industry, but several others as well. Two model industries for this phenomenon are those of mp3 players and point and shoot cameras; both are now incorporated into the technology behind the smartphone. The industries had to adapt to such changes, forcing them to innovate.

With so many people with such ease of access to smartphones, innovation has rapidly increased. Innovation, due to multi-use products like smartphones, has turned away from material innovation, and shifted towards software innovation and intangible commodities. I believe that ideas themselves have more potential to become a reality than ever before. Entire industries are becoming intangible, changing market behaviour and creating an interesting phenomenon from a value perspective. How is it that a company without revenue, and without any tangible product, can be valued at $3 billion? Let’s ask Snapchat. A revenue free, tech company who was offered $3 billion for their company by Facebook in the fall of 2013. This phenomenon is unlike any usual market behaviour and falls back on the idea of innovation itself changing. Value is changing, products are changing, markets are changing, and undoubtedly we are entering an era of mass technological innovation and ease of access.

Other sources:

http://www.justellus.com/assets/iphone-5-feature.png

http://www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/disruptive_innovation.html

Jia Wei Liew’s recent blog discussed the new innovation of a “salt water car”. He mentioned how this innovation could be a “Tesla Killer”, and is extremely innovative. However, there are many flaws in this argument. First of all, contrary to what Jia said, salt water is not an unlimited resource; in fact not many resources on earth, if any, are unlimited. Scarcity is what shapes much of the modern world, and is the backbone of economic theory. Even more important to note is that this car doesn’t, in fact, run on salt water. Does it run on a salty liquid? Yes, however it is actually a man-made liquid similar to an electrolyte compound.

One of the main issues I’ve found with this is the ability for consumers to access such a form of petroleum. Unlike Tesla, which runs on electricity by way of plug-in, this car needs this electrolyte substance in order to run. Unless this kind of car rapidly increases in popularity, which is hard to imagine being priced at $1 million, it will be extremely difficult and expensive to make this fuel easily accessible to consumers. The costs involved in making such a product easily accessible to the consumers are overwhelming, and exponentially bigger than those of Tesla’s supercharger stations.

Other sources:

http://www.intelligentliving.co/salt-water-powered-car-gets-european-approval/

http://www.kitco.com/ind/Albrecht/2014-03-06-Flow-Cell-Batteries-A-Substitute-For-Lithium-Ion.html

Samsung was, for several years, the leader in smartphone sales. However, recently two new companies, Xiaomi and Micromax, have overtaken them in the world’s two largest countries, India and China. Samsung’s sales have fallen 20%, earnings 60%. These are huge numbers that have been taking their toll on the company, and it’s stock price. What interested me is how two fairly new companies could outcompete the world’s biggest. What was the answer? Strategy. China and India are both countries with significant wealth, and poverty. Both Xiaomi and Micromax implemented a lost cost focus strategy in China and India respectfully, which has seemed to pay off.

Pictured above is one of Micromax’s smartphones. Not very often does a company outdo one of the world’s biggest, but this is proof that a well implemented strategy can reap rewards. In my mind, what these two companies have done is brilliant. Take the worlds biggest country, give them a cheaper alternative to a modern day necessity, and watch your company grow. I think this is a great lesson in strategy and how important it can be.

Other Sources:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-10-08/trouble-for-samsung-after-stock-swoon-is-the-worst-over#r=hpt-ls

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-08-06/its-not-just-china-dot-samsung-is-falling-behind-in-india-too

http://cdn.androidadvices.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Micromax-Canvas-Knight-A350.jpg

As is well known, Blackberry has been on the decline for the last couple of years. The reasons for which are not certain, but there is strong emphasis on their inability to keep up with the innovation of it’s competition. However, just as the IPhone 6 was being released, Blackberry chose to fight back. As it released it’s newest phone, the Passport, it’s steady decline in revenue stopped.

Blackberry’s decision to implement a new strategy may have been their saving grace. Taking on a low cost focus strategy, as apposed to trying to out-innovate it’s competition seem’s to be working. At the same time their design is differentiating them from their competition. Blackberry is the last smartphone with a keyboard, which may seem worthless, but there is certainly a niche market for that alone. With blackberry’s ability to bounce back at this crucial time, it’s important for them to continue to strategize, and re-strategize. The market is constantly changing, and Blackberry, after failing to do so in the past, must stay one step ahead.

This article describes this generation is obsessed with telling people how passionate they are. In the very competitive business world, being passionate might not make the cut. When employers are hiring they hear dozens or more people talk about how passionate they are about the subject at hand. What people don’t realize is when a job meet’s your passions, that’s a benefit to you, not the employer. The employer simply wants the very best person for the job, not someone who is “willing to learn”, or that can “bring more passion than anyone else to the job.”

It’s important for people looking for a job to show how their passions can help others, not benefit themselves. If a person’s passion will benefit the company, and not vice-versa, there may be a serious advantage for them. When looking for a job, people should think about ways they can help their employer, this is what will land you the job; thinking about how the job will benefit oneself will do the opposite.

In Paul Lam’s last blog he questioned the ethics of Apple when it comes to Foxconn, the company that makes their products. Violations of the legal work hours, child labour, and human rights have all been at the forefront of this scandal. I found it very interesting that Apple has finally been called out for such crimes; but more than anything that so many other companies still get away with it. Child labour, human right’s violations and overall unethical behaviour lie within an uncountable number of companies that somehow manage not to get caught. The only way for many companies to optimize profit is to use these unethical, inhumane practices; and many still believe that money is more important than ethics.

Companies such Nike have been accused of this, but with varying laws in different countries and being limited by jurisdiction, it is very hard to prosecute. There is no saying how many companies use unethical business decisions to reduce costs, but I’m sure the number would be staggering. I believe it’s time for governments to intervene and crack down on this issue, and put an end to the exploitation of those who are less fortunate.

This article it describes how business men, and organizations, have been suffering from a subconscious lowering of their morale standards. While competing for profit, people’s vision of what is right or wrong becomes blurred, blinded by so many distractions, mostly money.

So many people, no matter what the rulebook says, will find loopholes to break ethical codes. I believe the best answer for solving the problem of unethical practice is simply better people. Although it is seemingly simple, that is not easy to do; even the best people slowly lose ethical standards when immersed in this cycle of greed. The only way to fix this is by putting strong, ethical role models in positions of power and authority. If the ‘top of the food chain’ is ethical, the rest of the organization has no choice but to follow. An organization with ethical leaders would have a tough time shifting their standards, and breaking business ethics would not be seen as a reasonable option. This is a tough cycle to break considering the ethical way is not always the most profitable way, but if ethical leaders can find their way to the top of such organizations, there is hope for change.