Being a broke student, I have no choice but to chant “PC master race” as I secretly lament how I’m too poor to afford any of Apple’s cool hardware. However, that doesn’t make me any less excited whenever Apple releases something new, like the iPad Pro.

This article discusses the features of the iPad Pro, as well as some ideas on the audiences that Apple is trying to market to with this product. I agree with some, but not with all of their ideas.

1) The iPad Pro is directed at “Artists, Doodlers, [and] Dreamers”.

I mostly disagree with this point of view. Personally, I do not think that the iPad Pro can target serious, professional artists efficiently.  The reason is, most artists already have a tool that do the exact same thing as the iPad Pro at a lower price– the drawing tablet.

Drawing tablets can sell for as low as $60 apiece, and has been a more than viable tool since the dawn of digital art. Knowing this, A budding professional artist would be more likely to pick up a light, equally useful, and hardy tablet rather than Apple’s bulky and fragile gadget.

On a side note though, I noticed how they’re partnering up with Adobe (the software firm who created programs like Photoshop) to increase the revenue of both firms. Photoshop is a necessity for many artists; by noticing and keeping up with this trend, Apple can increase the chances that iPad Pros are purchased by artists. In the meantime, Adobe gains more sales revenue since Photoshop is proprietary.

2) The iPad Pro is for “Serious Note-Takers”

I agree with this opinion; however, I believe it should more effectively be reworded into “The iPad Pro is for scatterbrained students that keep losing their stuff”.

While it is true that diagrams are important to notes, most of us do draw them already– on paper. Then, scatterbrains like me proceed to lose those notes like we lose our IDs, phones, and other things.

The best perk of electronic notes is how they cannot be lost easily like paper notes. If Apple can market the iPad Pro to students that lose things often, it could solve a huge pain that many students worldwide experience daily. The iPad Pro is definitely a very attractive gadget for students.

3) The iPad Pro is directed at “Mobile Workers”.

I do not think this one makes much sense. In my opinion, people who are “out in the field” for their jobs would benefit much more from traditional pen-and-paper clipboards than a fragile device that weighs almost a kilogram. There are already phones for photos, and diagrams for engineers and architects do not need to have 365 shades of color– red, blue, and black are enough.

The “fragile” aspect of the iPad Pro (or any Apple device in general) especially hurts its potential in this sense. The types of occupations that could receive some benefits from the iPad Pro at work also tend to be professions that see a lot of rough, outdoors work. Therefore, it would be better for them to have a tool that can actually survive being dropped a few times.

(For those who have yet to experience how ridiculously fragile Apple Devices can be, here is an informative video.)

3) The iPad Pro is directed at “Retailers”.

I agree with this statement. I think the iPad Pro would make a good piece of physical capital. Like any other Apple Product, it is so easy to use (even children can use it!) compared to the “proprietary devices like cash registers and kiosks”. If small stores invest in an iPad Pro, they can cut down on employee training time and improve efficiency during data processing.

When combined with the Apple Pencil, it would have the ability to have forms that customers can write on directly. Then, the retailer can have the forms in digital form that would not be lost easily.

For this post, I will be giving my thoughts on the blog post of a fellow classmate (Thank you for the inspiration, Arina!) whose observations gave me much food for thought.

At the risk of sounding like an old graybeard, back in the days when I was young, you would 100% see only boys in Nerf Gun ads, and only girls in bracelet-making kit ads. No exceptions. From Arina’s post, I’m glad to see that things have changed.

To add to what she’s written, here are two reasons why toy firms should market toys gender-neutrally, and how that can bring benefits to both society and firms.

1) Choosing gender-neutral marketing can be a way for toy sellers to practice corporate social responsibility.

Gender-based toy marketing can be damaging to human relationships in society, especially in families. Growing up, I always liked stereotypical boys’ toys more; because of this, I have had countless fights with my parents who think there is something “wrong” with me.

Looking back, I see how their viewpoints could be caused by gender-based marketing. A good toy firm or reseller should not be pepetuating these social divides by arbitrarily grouping children into archetypes. By marketing gender-neutrally, firms can not only give children the freedom to choose toys with less fear of discrimination, but also make Society more harmonious.

Yet, it’s not only about equality, or the freedom of human choice or fighting gender stereotypes, because…

2) Firms who market toys based on gender lose opportunities to profit.

Each gender can be considered as its own customer segment. If more customers means more revenue, why should firms miss out on the chance to gain a whole new customer segment for just the minimal cost of slightly changing an advertising strategy?

Essentially, toy firms that still practice gender-based marketing might be losing customers who are ashamed to buy their products even though they demand it. In some cases, those customers might even purchase from competitors.

Ever since studying international economics in high school senior year, I’ve always been a believer in “trade for aid” policies rather than “aid” only or even “aid, not trade”. Hence, I am opposed to one-for-one programs in general.

While it’s true that Fair Trade doesn’t work for technically complex industries as Warby Parker’s eyeglasses, it still works fantastically for loads of other products such as shoes, clothing, or food items– which are arguably more necessary to human survival.

As stated in the preparation articles, the disruption of local economies is a huge problem with one-to-one programs. I fully agree with this statement; ruining the livelihoods of some to benefit others makes no sense, and is counterproductive in the long run as dependencies on giveaways form. The effects of one-for-one programs are almost akin to that of dumping, which the WTO prohibits.

Still, I am not completely against corporate giveaways in developing countries; the trick is figuring out how, when, and what to give to maximize productivity over time. Figuratively speaking, it is impossible to teach people to fish if they are starving and have no energy. So, the best option there would be to feed them first, and then gradually do other things to help that society become productive and wealthy.

With regards to that, I think Lauren Walters (mentioned in this article) is doing a good job with its giveaway model. By purchasing the raw materials for its donated meals from local sources, 2 Degrees is injecting money into the local economy, invigorating the flow of money instead of stagnating it like traditional one-for-one programs do. Hungry people become less hungry, and they also make more money that they can invest in productivity with.

In the end, even though I doubt the effectiveness of one-for-one, I still commend firms like Tom’s for taking the initiative to help people and solve poverty. After all, there are tons of firms that do not even think about contributing to society to begin with.

This article reports that BlackRock Inc., the world’s largest asset management firm, has begun to consider climate change in its risk assessment process. Blackrock fears that the UN climate change summit taking place at the end of November would spawn “a raft of new rules to curb carbon emissions”; thus, the impact of these rules (dubbed “regulatory risks”) would now be considered in their investment portfolios.

I think a large majority of political officials across the globe recognize climate change as a very real threat. There’s a good chance that some new policies that come out of the summit will have large impacts on many industrial firms.

Specifically, old, gas, and fossil fuel firms in general are highly vulnerable to the Political factors listed in the PEST environmental analysis tool. Because of a change in laws or industrial regulations, they have to change their behaviors in order to continue maximizing profit.

However, any new carbon-control rules will undoubtedly hit inefficient, high-polluting producers the hardest, reducing competition for firms that do manage to adapt and survive. For some fossil fuel firms, this could potentially be beneficial; according to Porter’s five forces, reduced rivalry means increased bargaining power for suppliers and decreased bargaining power for buyers.

In any case, oil, gas, and other fossil fuel firms as well as their investors might have to drastically change the ways they operate or invest in the near future.

This article details an interesting and funny incident that happened in California yesterday, in which a Google self-driving vehicle was pulled over by police for “driving too slowly” and causing a traffic backlog.

Since Google began developing the self-driving car six years ago, I have always had great faith in it despite how unreal it seemed. In the past, Google has always had success in bringing sustaining innovation to the public, and given enough time (and funding), I would not be surprised if they eventually revolutionize the transportation market.

Google’s self-driving car would no doubt be a disruptive innovation; specifically, it would cause a technical disruption in the car market that perhaps would eventually render human-driven cars obsolete. Having a car drive itself comes with many advantages. A robot cannot drink and drive, nor fall asleep at the wheel. As long as the rider is sober enough to slam the brakes if the AI malfunctions, the car will be much safer than a human-driven vehicle.

Furthermore, from a marketing point of view, Google’s self-driving car will open up new customer segments as it makes city road travel accessible and convenient for everyone. Young students will no longer stress over not being able to parallel park, and society’s senior citizens will be able to tour the city from the comfort of their own vehicle like they did when they were young. This car will solve some major pains in transportation that people have today.

The road to creating revolutionary inventions is often rocky, and takes so much effort and funding. From yesterday’s humorous incident, it’s plain that the self-driving car is not quite marketable yet. However, incident does not make me lose any faith. Rather, I commend Google for continuing investing more time and money to research this project that has so much potential.

This Friday, Goldman Sachs announced their future plans to give guaranteed promotions to their junior analysts in an attempt to keep them for longer (source).

Jobs at famous companies on Wall Street are notorious for their “all-nighters and 100-hour work weeks”. While I’d definitely be proud to work with a big name like Goldman Sachs, I’d probably have to quit if my body starts to shut down after a couple sleep-deprived months. Looking at this article, I think many of GS’s young employees feel the same.

As we learned in our management lessons, high employee turnover is a waste of company resources; the benefits from time and money spent on employee training do not stay in the company long enough to give sufficient returns. In Goldman Sachs’ case, it was even noted that defected employees often found work at “hedge funds and private equity firms”; in essence, their resources are migrating to competing firms!

Although Goldman Sachs seems to be competing fairly well over the past 5 years (at least, from looking at its stock trends), GS probably noticed that employee turnover rates were high, and it was losing precious productivity because of it.

From a Human Resources standpoint, the well-being and satisfaction of a company’s employees not only affects productivity, but also the company’s ability to hire good employees in the future. High quality human resources would not wish to work at companies known for bleeding out employees, if there are other options available.

I think it’s a good move for GS to have “[interviewed] hundreds of junior employees at the firm” about their gripes. This shows that the company is reflective, and willing to effectively find ways to target the root causes of their junior employee turnover rates.

As investment banking division co-head David Solomon said, GS needs to “make sure [they’re] doing all the things [they] need to do to be as competitive as [they] can be”. The tangible results of the new policy has yet to be released publicly; however, the willingness to make changes alone is already a step in the right direction.

After reading a post by a fellow student, I found it interesting how ZARA can still be successful while maintaining the traditional Vertical Integration system.

The Dell example we discussed in class seemed to imply that virtual integration is the way to go in modern business; however, firms like Zara and Ikea prove that, with the right strategy, it is possible to survive and thrive with a vertically integrated system.

Why does vertical integration work well with firms like Zara, but not with firms like Dell? First, I thought it is due to the differences in the products they manufacture. According to this article, Zara has retained vertical integration because of the “fickleness” of fashion trends.

Computers are about research, development, who has the thinner chips and faster processors at the end of the day. Outer aesthetics and software aside, all firms are aiming for the exact same goal.

On the other hand, fashion is about high-quality, unique products that cannot be copied by other competitors. In this sense, it would be worthwhile to keep seamstresses and designers in your company as loyal employees, rather than outsource their work to temporary partners that might emulate their styles in the future.

This is why Zara is constantly sending its designers across the globe to attend fashion conventions and catwalks; it wants to stay one step ahead of its competitors in the fashion market. With the information designers bring back and its company-owned factories, Zara can quickly design, manufacture, and market a new line of products in merely 3 weeks. This is something that other virtually integrated clothing brands (like GAP, H&M) cannot do.

This article is the first that I’ve read about the recent Volkswagen “clean diesel scandal”.

I’ve always thought diesel could be a way for people to drive in a more environmentally conscious fashion as the world waits for green technology to improve. For almost a decade, Volkswagen’s “clean diesel vehicles” championed that idea. Or, at least, it tricked the public into thinking that it did.

Clearly, deceiving the masses, breaking the law, and selfishly polluting the environment for profits is unethical. They have not released any other reason why they have fitted their vehicles with “defeat devices” besides wanting to get past emission tests.

However, I think business ethics isn’t the only issue revealed by this scandal. The US emissions testing system only tests vehicles in laboratory environments, doing artificial and predictable movements (read more about it here). Not only does this mean that test results can possibly be inaccurate, but also that the test can easily be gamed. The VW scandal is not just an issue about business ethics; it also reveals how governments may not be doing enough to keep businesses in line.

Meanwhile, as the fines and recall fees rack up for VW, it’s up to consumers and shareholders to reprimand them for their unethical practices by not buying their products.

In a nutshell, this article explains how Toronto is trying to become a city that evolves with changing times and technologies by allowing Uber to prosper with traditional taxi services.

I agree with the article’s perspective that the future of transportation lies in Uber, and not taxis. Cities should, like Toronto, aim to adapt their laws to accommodate for the drawbacks in ride-sharing services, while still giving them room to prosper and contribute to the economy.

The Toronto government’s stance boils down to this; Despite the fact that Uber’s existence lethally threaten the taxi industry, Uber should be allowed because people love it for its low price and high efficiency over traditional cabs. From a utilitarian perspective, it’s a good move.

Still, the livelihoods of thousands of taxi drivers will be compromised. Although Toronto’s aim is to “balance fair regulation for taxi industries while safely introducing… Uber to the market”, this is easier said than done. There will inevitably be a painful adjusting period where cab drivers are losing jobs.

The article states that banning Uber is like “trying to stop people from using smartphones or ATMs.” When the world transitioned from bank tellers to ATMs, there was also a painful period where tellers lost jobs. But the ATM transition had, in the long term, advanced the banking industry by making deposits and withdrawals more convenient. Uber is much like that.

For new ideas to live, old ideas must die.

The two viewpoints expressed in an excerpt from this book by Milton Friedman and in this video interview with R. Edward Freeman don’t necessarily oppose one another.

Friedman argues that for a corporate executive to take up “social responsibility”, meant taxing others’ money to do things that may not be in the interests of those who gave him the executive position (stockholders, employers, etc). In other words, it’s “taxation without representation”.

Second, when companies take action for “social responsibility”, it’s often merely a disguise for self-interest.

These ideas seem to clash with Freeman’s Theory, which states that a thriving business sees the interests of all its stakeholders, including society, as equally important.

I think there’s a natural symbiosis between the self-interests of business and society. It’s unlikely that actions taken by a company is completely in social responsibility. However, a company needs to keep up its brand image, and it can achieve that by contributing socially.

This blog lists two “genuine” examples of how a company can “promote the interests of society as a whole”. I agree that they are more genuine; however if a company decides to pursue them, it would still gain benefits such as a better reputation.