This blog post discusses whether data visualization is truly necessary for all businesses.  Businesses are all different so it is true they have different uses for different information technology (IT) products, but it is a problem when companies purchase expensive technologic expeditions to ‘innovate’ their company when it is truly not necessary.  Data visualization “can be expensive, especially if it involves large amounts of data and complex algorithms or deep interactive experiences.”  Not all companies need to use data visualization and if companies are not spending the time to understand what these new products are, they may be mindlessly spending large quantities of money on something they do not truly need.  However, data visualization does have its benefits and can benefit a company, if utilized properly.  It can personalize data as well as save time and money making visualized data.  It is extremely important for companies to understand what they are purchasing especially when it has to do with the boundless realm of technology as it can save the company a plethora of money or it can cost the company way too much money with way too little benefits.

http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/11/does-your-company-actually-need-data-visualization/

Samsung recently came out with a new watch, but not just any watch, a smart watch.  It includes functions such as notifying the owner of telephone calls and text messages as well as of course, telling the time.  Shomas stated that he did not think this product would take off in the market.  I disagree in the sense that Samsung is taking a stance that is risky but also beneficial as they are drawing attention to not only their new smart watch, but also the specific phone that hooks up with it, the Galaxy Note 3.  This attention could cause customers to purchase this phone just to use this new and intriguing watch, which would increase sales and publicity of their phone, and possibly new smart phone customers.  However, I do agree with Shomas as the individual product, the smart watch, does not seem very useful and holds no real value proposition to a customer, giving little motivation for the customer to buy or keep the watch.  In a recent article, the techradar, it stated that these new Galaxy Gear watches have a 30% return rate, which shows the lack of value proposition to customers, and ultimately the lack of success of the Samsung Galaxy Gear watch.

https://blogs.ubc.ca/shomasmah/2013/10/14/samsung-announces-the-galaxy-smartwatch-but-frogets-to-include-the-smart/

http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/who-s-keeping-watch-a-third-of-all-samsung-galaxy-gears-returned-to-store-1193959

Blackberry used to be a huge competitor in the phone industry and was a staple for most businesses and for youth with their BBM application.  However, technology is always changing and companies are always evolving with new and better ideas.  In Blackberry’s case, Apple was the contender that ended up beating Blackberry in this technology race.  Apple’s iPhone offers a much better value proposition as its applications make the usage of the phone easier for the customer (touch screen, quality, applications, new model.)  This “technology race” does not specifically pertain to Apple, as the new smart phones are also a huge contender in the phone industry, but during Blackberry’s peak of sales, Apple was a definite rival.  This article illustrates not only how technology is continually evolving, but also how companies must be cognizant of their value proposition and continually evaluate their product in correlation with value proposition and technology.  Blackberry failed to integrate what customers wanted with new technology available, and ended up where they are now; “free falling” into bankruptcy.

CBC News: Business; Blackberry Losses $965M in 2nd Quarter; http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/blackberry-loses-965m-in-2nd-quarter-1.1870447

https://blogs.ubc.ca/baileybecker/2013/10/01/blackberrys-free-fall/