http://steveblank.com/2014/01/06/15756/

Steve Blanks blog on continuous deployment is immediately caught my eye because it uses Tesla, a case study we used in class, as an example. In the blog he talks about how companies are beginning to explore outside traditional business models like Waterfall product development into agile continuous development schemes.

Firstly, the concept of Waterfall product development influences consumers to purchase the new and improved goods or services the firms provide. By creating different, new and improved goods such as faster computers, better cards or new phones this creates a revenue stream that is continuous over time. Consumers will replace their existing goods with new goods even sometimes when the old good is still useable but they desire that upgraded new god.

This reflects how it is common for the modern society to discard working and good electronic devices for new ones. We do not need them but want them because they are new, better and trendy. This creates a huge amount of electronic waste and is a very unsustainable way of living. By producing goods after goods and not fully utilizing old goods it causes a major wastage.

By companies like Tesla and Adobe fighting this and having this agile development that looks at improving existing items incrementally makes their products more sustainable. By improving a car quarterly by updates is way more efficient and sustainable than buying a new car every 5 years. In Adobes case providing subscribers to new software allows Adobe to have a steady monthly income instead of annual spikes during the release of new products. This is more sustainable because instead of purchasing new software, you simply upgrade your existing software.

Although this is sustainable and appears to be a great idea, Steve Blank highlights a very crucial point which I agree with. The consumer mentality of wanting new things. It is as he says, irrational, inefficient and illogical.

In conclusion, I hope that this new business concept of continuous development and upgrades kicks off because not only is it way more sustainable but it could save consumers as well as producers a lot of resources. With the way we are striving forward unsustainably in the past decade, we will lead to a resource shortage, so hopefully with time large companies will understand this problem and address it accordingly by modifying their business models and values.

Original blog:https://blogs.ubc.ca/kenjiseng/

Article from – http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/business/in-suburban-seattle-new-nests-for-chinas-rich.html?ref=business&_r=0

It is an interesting article that really highlights the issue of many countries. The developing countries that host many millionaires/billionaires like India, Indonesia and Thailand that face social issues like traffic congestion, overcrowding, pollution and so on actually pressure those who are wealthy to immigrate to other countries.

Like China in this example, many of the wealthy tycoons are choosing to move and essentially spend their capital overseas. This reduces the economy of their local countries and actually improve the economy of their countries of destination.

Places like China face a problem where they need to continuously grow and develop but need to find a way to maintain the countries wealthy people. A good idea would be to simply create a desirable area to reside in within the country only for the wealthy but this sparks social injustices and could perhaps cause social tensions.

Kenji is right in saying that this type of immigration largely benefits the target destinations as rich Chinese people are purchasing expensive goods and services adding to the economy. Furthermore, creating established businesses in those new “homes”. But the more important issue that this raises is the loss of wealth associated with this move to the home country.

There might still be income derived from areas like remittance and the rich tycoons running their businesses from overseas however by losing this demographic of people will impact the economy in more ways than one. So, to conclude countries like China need to also consciously look to improve the quality of life if it wishes to maintain the higher-income cohort and improve things like local education systems to reduce the amount of talent lost to other countries. With migration and travel being so readily available in modern society it will prove to be quite a challenge to achieve this.

Oringinal Link: http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/sep/05/oil-companies-british-petroleum-should-pay-oil-spills-pollution-greenhouse-gas

This is an interesting article that highlights the impact oil spills have had on the environment and how famous spill like BP gulf of Mexico incident have improved legislations and rules on oil rigs but greenhouse gas emission has continued to remain in the shadows.

It would be ethical for large production companies to take it up themselves to try and reduce the amount of greenhouse gases they emit. However, this will impact the amount of profit. It appears that there needs to be a disaster similar to the BP oil spill to generate pressure for these production companies to impose rules and restrictions.

Prior to the BP oil spill there were only a small conservation group that was rallying against the oil rigs and measurements of extracting oil from offshore rigs that were occurring. After the spill there was much more public involvement with the issue and BP responded in spending millions to try and repair the issue but furthermore implement new regulations that will stop this from happening in the future. It’s ironic that there needs to be a big disaster for things to change.

Large companies should prepare for these disasters before they even occur and place procedures that prevent them. Currently many large production companies are producing greenhouse gases at an unsustainable manner but they are unnoticed as unlike an oil-spill there is no immediate visual impact of emissions. By adding more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere it is adding to the effect of climate change. Sadly, it will be too late to spend millions to try and revert climate change once it has already occurred so business need to take action now. They need to put profits aside and ethically decide what needs to be done.

Origincal link: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29431412

Windows has unveiled its new operating system Windows 10, a large move away from its recent Windows 8 system. It is reintroducing its Start menu and reverting back to the successes of Windows XP and steering away from the failures of Windows 8 style

Buying a Windows 8 computer a few months ago was a change for me as I went from Macintosh to a new ASUS windows 8. Similar to a lot of the users of Windows 8 I was initially very lost with the layout and features of the Windows 8 platform. This common problem faced by a lot of the consumers of the Windows 8 largely impacted the sales of Windows. As mentioned in the article, most people are still using the obsolete windows XP version which was successful in its easy to navigate and user friendly style.

The launch of windows 8 was an example to product differentiation as Windows hoped to create a cross platform for all tablet/smartphone/computer but received negative feedback as people who purchased the computers hoped for the traditional easy to use Windows style. This is where the competitors Macintosh soared in sales as their iOS barely changed but only came with easy to adjust to improvements.

By Microsoft reverting back to the Start menu and marketing it as an improved version of the original successful Windows XP will gain popular recognition. This is a classic example of how product differentiation did not work and it is smart for Microsoft to act quickly on this matter to regain its lost market of consumers.

Microsoft being one of the largest companies it was a bold move to drastically change its operating system and in my opinion it should only try to improve what is already has because its brand is well-known and popular for what it has done in the past, so to change it is risky.

Original link: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29421555

Netflix has announced that it will be working with the film company Weinstein, to produce its first full feature-length film next year.

This move by the company Netflix reflects how dramatically the company has changed from when it first started in 1997. From starting as a postal DVD rental service, to moving to a major online pay-to-stream platform and subsequently producing Netflix original TV series. The large revenue Netflix has grossed from monthly subscribers of customers has allowed the company to expand its business.

Its success in the TV series that are Netflix originals, like the “House of Cards,” has boosted the brand image and name from not only a platform of watching existing films and series but producing original and successful content.

By moving to full feature Films, Netflix opens another corridor for opportunity. By releasing films on Netflix the same time as movie theatres, it will influence movie-goers to rethink spending money on going out, buying movie tickets and traveling. Instead they will resort to paying a small subscription fees to watch movies in the comfort of their own home on Netflix.

Although beneficial for Netflix, could this possibly harm the cinema industry? Obviously, the experience of iMAX is incomparable to watching a film at home but with ever-improving home entertainment systems like surround sound, 3D television and extremely high quality TVs this could strike up a very competitive alternative. I foresee most people would much prefer to watch films with privacy and comfort of their homes and this can largely impact the cinema industry.

Original link: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-29430229

This article is talking about the protests that are occurring in Hong Kong against the Chinese governments where people from Hong Kong are protesting in the streets for democracy.

The protesting within the CBD of Hong Kong will cause an upset to Hong Kong economic activity. Throughout time, Hong Kong has been noted to be a huge economic hub for Asia, especially in the financial sector along with other major cities like Singapore, Kuala Lumpur and Shanghai. During the period of Hong Kong being a colony of the United Kingdom it served as a pinnacle point to expand and reach consumers in Asia from halfway around the world.

By protesters occupying the CBD area and refusing to work, this will largely impact China’s economic activity because since it has been reabsorbed by the People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong has been an epicentre for financial activity assisting in the expansion of China.

It will be interesting to see how long these protests go on for and how much impact it will cause on China’s economy. When will the government draw the line between the importance of politics and the sovereignty of Hong Kong and China’s greater economic prosperity? Having been to Hong Kong many times, there is an obvious difference in terms of lifestyle, culture and identity Hong Kong has compared to China. I analyse that Hong Kong wanting its own political structure is the first of many changes the people of Hong Kong will demand, and the Chinese government must know that accepting the terms of protesters may possibly light the fuse of a larger problem.

“Thoughts on Plus Talent Aquisition

CVs vowing to quit selling tobacco actually highlights business ethics because of the negative impacts smoking has on health and society despite their impressive $2 billion in sales.

CV Caremark is an enormous drugstore chain in North America that promotes healthy living through its variety of over the counter drugs, vitamins and clinics. It is actually hypocritical that they were selling tobacco products in the first place as they are a drugstore looking to improve the health of its customers.

Now, by stopping the sale of tobacco they are showing that they are not only interested in profit gained from sales, but caring for their customer’s wellbeing at the risk of declining their annual income.

By ceasing tobacco sales, they might affect their overall shares due to a portion of their sales being stopped but the companies image to the public is improved and the employees will begin to recognize the company is not only searching for maximum outcome but for development of society and its people.

It’s interesting to see a company do this as it will begin to pressure other similar chains to follow suit. The real question remains, will they regret this decision or prosper in its improved image to the public.

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