A fellow classmate, Victoria Jiang, published “What is Apple’s Magic?” explaining the reasons why Apple is successful at satisfying their customer segment. She provides the following reasons to support her claim: “iPhone7 is waterproof[,]” “Apple’s value proposition is to make customer’s life more convenient. 3D touch is another good example[,]” and “the competition [between Apple and Samsung] forced Apple to research and develop not only a brand new system—IOS… but also a more attractive marketing strategy.”

I have to disagree with her first claim because “Apple’s Magic” does not revolve around a waterproof phone, and I don’t believe it should be addressed as a supporting claim mainly because it’s not a new innovation. The first waterproof smartphone was the Sony Xperia Z released in February 2013, reaching 4.6 million sales within 40 days of its release, which didn’t come close to the 5 million sales iPhone 5 achieved during the first three days of release.

Although I support Jiang’s latter claim about Apple’s value proposition, I still think it could be more specific than just “3D touch” or “waterproof.” In fact, we (the readers) have no clue how she came up with this information, her article is merely an opinion supported by zero external resources. Nevertheless, Jiang does propose a very insightful topic but doesn’t do a great job at communicating her ideas nor supporting them with evidence.

Simon Sinek performed a Ted Talk titled “Start with Why,” in which he explains exactly why
companies like apple are successful and how they obtain the loyalty of their customer segment.
He claims the main reason companies like apple are successful is because (you guessed it) they start with why. To the right is the diagram he proposed, and is also what I will refer to in order to explain his thesis. Most companies begin with brainstorming what product or service they should offer, then how they will produce it, and finally why they decided to produce it and why the company even exists. The secret is to start with the value proposition, or with “why” as Sinek says. “Why do you get out of bed in the morning, and why should anyone care?” are the words Sinek used to explain the purpose of a business.

To tie that back to what Jiang’s post was meant to offer, Apple started out their business with “Why.” They pay more attention to their value proposition and why they believe they’re the best, and that is Apple’s magic. Jiang was on the right track, claiming apple’s success emerges through their value proposition and ease of use. Unfortunately, she didn’t properly explain nor persuade the reader why her claims should be accepted.

Word Count: 442

References

Correspondent, NDTV. “Sony Xperia Z Sales Top 4.6 Million In 40 Days: Report”. NDTV Gadgets360.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 10 Nov. 2016.

Rushe, Dominic. “Iphone 5: Apple Sells 5M In First Three Days”. the Guardian. N.p., 2016. Web. 10 Nov. 2016.

“Start With Why — How Great Leaders Inspire Action | Simon Sinek | Tedxpugetsound”. YouTube. N.p., 2016. Web. 10 Nov. 2016.

Image Source

“Start With Why Diagram – Google Search”. Google.ca. N.p., 2016. Web. 10 Nov. 2016.

As an international student in Canada, some of the customs may seem unfamiliar. On my first dining experience with fellow foreign classmates; none of us left a tip. As a result, the waiter unhappily asked if there was anything wrong with the service and proceeded to explain the tradition of tipping in North America. I found myself relating to Danson Nguyen‘s blog explaining his own misunderstanding after paying a tip in a country that does not recognize it.

When an employee’s income is mostly based on uncertain “gifts” from consumers, it places them in an uncomfortable and biased situation. Consumers’ tips may vary due to the appearance, ethnicity or race of he employee, in addition to the mood of the consumer. In fact, women earn $1 more an hour in tips than men as Bourree Lam states. It sound bizarre when you say that a waiter’s income is merely based on luck, and that is exactly what happens. The whole idea of percentages is peculiar. Does the waiter work harder when I order a $200 bottle of champagne as oppose to a $30 one?

Any individual’s income is subject to tax, but how can you properly tax a non stable income? Other employees at a restaurant are paid a fixed hourly wage that is taxed after every month. However, waiters can easily report a lower income – not announcing all their earnings from tips – and get away with paying less taxes.

The concept of tips as an income allows some customers to behave in unmannerly attitudes. Research shows that waitresses tolerate sexual harassment from customers because they’re afraid they may not get paid.

With all that being said in addition to the points Nguyen mentioned, its easy to say that tips are an unfair, unstable and unethical form of income to those being tipped and to those not. As a result, I believe tips should be banned and the minimum wage for waiters and waitresses should be raised to the same level as that of any other employee. As Nguyen mentions, food prices will increase as a consequence of the wage raise, however, waiters will enjoy a more stable form of income, and the consumers remain unaffected as the rise in prices takes the place of mandatory tips. Tips are meant to be a generous offer from the customer to the employee, but it stops being a gift once it concludes the employees income.

Word Count: 401

References

“How Much Do Waiters Really Earn In Tips?”. The Atlantic. N.p., 2016. Web. 31 Oct. 2016.

“Why Tipping Is Unethical”. Talking Ethics. N.p., 2016. Web. 31 Oct. 2016.

Image:

“Banned Tips – Google Search”. Google.ca. N.p., 2016. Web. 31 Oct. 2016.

In my previous Blog post, I spoke about how Calico can strategize and Market their “immortality” product whether it may come in pills or an injection. If you haven’t read the first part of this blog post I highly suggest you do. However, there is more to it than that. How will the government allow this? And what are the determinants of who purchases eternity? This one topic arises a huge ethical dilemma yet it does not seem to be commonly discussed.

According to the bioethicist John Harris, science has the moral duty of extending humans’ lifespan to as far as it will go. He claimed that “[w]hen you save a life, you are simply postponing death to another point. Thus, we are committed to extending life indefinitely if we can, for the same reasons that we are committed to life-saving.” To an extent, this is true, but extending a few years of someone’s lifespan is clearly different than allowing them to survive for eternity.

Let’s assume Calico’s product comes in the form of an injection. Will only the rich be immortal? If we think in the same way as John Harris, then the answer will be yes. If you come to think about it, this is the case today with “life-extension.” Only those who can afford medical treatment receive it. Thus, the injustice has always been an issue and will continue to be with life expansion, but is not a valid reason to prevent this product from distribution. Harris claims that preventing a group of people from this technology will not help save the others who can’t manage to pay for it.

Let’s also assume that Calico’s injection would be one where you have to pay an annual installment, much like insurance. What happens when you can’t afford to pay anymore? Does that mean that a producer has the power to give the death sentence? And what is the role of the government in this?

“There is not love of life without despair about life.” Said Albert Camus. We’ve all heard of saying about how life would be meaningless if it had no end and to an extent it’s true. Why would anyone want to get things done if there were no deadline? Perhaps this new technology will make us look at suicide and euthanasia from a very different perspective. Perhaps Science has the right to develop this product. Perhaps this product should be marketed, and only time will truly reveal how life is meant to be.

Word Count: 418

References

“Quotes About Mortality (385 Quotes)”. Goodreads.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 17 Oct. 2016.

Science, Live. “The Ethical Dilemmas Of Immortality”. Live Science. N.p., 2006. Web. 17 Oct. 2016.

“Humans will soon be immortal,” said my high school biology teacher. “Science and technology have advanced far enough that scientists are building human organs, and it won’t be long until they replicate DNA and avoid the sequences from deteriorating.” In the 1900s humans had a lifespan of about 40 years. Nowadays the average human is said to live about 80 years, and newborns today are expected to live up to 150 years! So could these numbers just keep increasing? Will they reach infinity?

Laurie-Anne Vazquez mentions in her blog “How Science is Making Immortality a Reality,” that an enzyme telomerase is responsible for DNA capping. During the process of capping DNA, the cell loses little information on how to rebuild itself, thus aging. Scientists are working on preventing the cell from losing this information, and once they do, humans will be eternal. In fact, google claims that immortality may be reached by 2030!

Calico is a research and development company established by Google with the aim to combat aging and related diseases. But what happens if Calico does, in fact, develop an “anti-aging” cure? What could be some of their possible strategies to sell their product? This I believe is subject to one unanswered questions. Will the cure to aging come in pill form or an injection?

If the cure comes in pills, then the answer is much simpler. Calico could sell their pills to customers and the users will follow a strict dosage. In this case, Calico doesn’t need to set a ridiculous price on their product because the consumer will keep paying for eternity, thus can control the market with a differentiated and cost effective product. Calico can then own a patent, become a monopoly, and make a profit for eternity, literally.

The situation becomes increasingly complex if the cure comes in the form of an injection. Calico will still have a differentiated product, however, this is a one-time deal. You go into a lab, get an injection, and Voilá, you can live forever. Calico will have to set an absurd price for this injection and will only profit from the filthy rich in the short term and will eventually run out of business. They could also set a decent price on their injection with a contract stating that the consumer must pay an annual fee, much like insurance. However, the consequence of not paying may be to receive an antidote to the injection or possibly be deprived of life, almost completely diminishing the market for the cure, that is if the government even allows a producer to give the “death sentence.”

Word Count: 436

References

“Calico”. Calicolabs.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 30 Sept. 2016.

“Calico (Company)”. Wikipedia. N.p., 2016. Web. 30 Sept. 2016.

“Google Ventures And The Search For Immortality”. Bloomberg.com. N.p., 2015. Web. 30 Sept. 2016.

“How Science Is Making Immortality A Reality | Fiat Physica Blog”. Fiatphysica. N.p., 2016. Web. 30 Sept. 2016.

Joslin, Jeffrey and Jeffrey Joslin. “Immortality Is Achievable, Says Google’s Biotech Firm Calico”. Tech Gen Mag. N.p., 2015. Web. 30 Sept. 2016.

“Could Your Child Live To Be 150 Years Old?”. Mail Online. N.p., 2016. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.

Reading and evaluating both sources “Corporate Ethics and Corporate Governance” and “Stakeholder theory”, I tend to side with the theory of maximizing profits TO A CERTAIN EXTENT. What do I mean by “a certain extent”? For a business to cause a negative externality is where the line should be drawn. In other words, a side effect to those who are not even remotely related to the industry. For example, having a firm dump their waste in river water causing infected water and food which in turn harms those who live nearby that water is causing a negative externality.

On the other hand, we have the drug industry which receives negativity due to their products such as tobacco or alcohol. Yes these products cause negative externalities, but the product is not to be mistaken with the producer. the negative externality here emerges from those who use the product and not the firm. An individual under the influence may cause harm to others around him/her but it’s not the product to blame just as car companies aren’t condemned for car crashes.

The opposing view of Dr. Freeman suggests that businesses who’s aims are not to better the world are ones in decline. They are the businesses who’s employees aren’t in consensus with the firm and don’t enjoy their work. I believe this is more of a subjective opinion rather than a well supported piece of evidence. Fast food restaurants and bars are all over the place but they seem to be ascending businesses, in which case, Freeman’s theory is merely a perspective.

“What does it mean to say that “business” has responsibilities? Only people can have responsibilities.” That sentence stood out to me the most as it’s true in a literal sense. The manager has responsibilities and so do the employees and it’s their job to carry them out at their own expense, not the firm.

Word Count: 314

Citation:

Friedman, Milton. “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits.” Corporate Ethics and Corporate Governance. N.p.: Springer, 2007. 173-78. Print.

Freeman, R. Edward. “Stakeholder Theory.” YouTube. YouTube, 13 May 2009. Web. 12 Sept. 2016.

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