Stephen Ilagan's Blog

Few men have been as influential in shaping the way the world operates as Steve Jobs. Many credit Jobs with single-handedly lifting Apple one of the world’s most valuable and successful companies. With his passing, Apple now looks to Tim Cook to lead the way into the post – Jobs era.

This brings to question one thing: How much impact can individuals have on a business? Undoubtedly, there have been prime examples of individuals shaping not only their business, but the world around them. The Gates’, Fords, Edisons, and so on. Traditionally, as we are taught here in Sauder, running a business is as much a team effort than anything else. Would these men be in the same place without their “teams”? Or were they so driven that they influenced the people around them and pushed themselves to success? It’s a question that deserves some recognition, especially considering that many of us Sauderites are leaders in our ways.

Interestingly enough, I am currently reading Driven, written by Dragon’s Den host Robert Herjavec, a person who carved out individual success in his own right. He emphasizes the power of determination and “being driven”, and ultimately loving what you do in business and life. Funnily enough, these same points are emphasized in Steve Job’s 2005 Stanford Commencement Address.

Sorry, Mr. Hubbert, the "pimple" doesn't exist

Reynolds, Neil. “A Peak Oil Technocrat Ignored the Power of Technology.” The Globe and Mail 5 Oct 2011: B2. Print.

“Hubbert’s Peak is still not in sight”. Marion King Hubbert’s prediction that the world oil production would begin to decline after the 1970s has been squashed, according to U.S. Energy historian Daniel Yergin. All that fear about oil running out and OPEC crippling the American economy? Pure fantasy. The power of technology has allowed the Western Hemisphere “to move back into self-sufficiency” (Reynolds). Oil drilling has become more efficient with the technology to tap into shale oil reserves. In fact, countries like Venezuela and Argentina have untapped reserves the size of Saudi Arabia’s. America’s dependence on foreign oil in going down.

Hubbert, who was a Technocrat, failed to see a major component built in to the global market economy. If demand exists for a good – we will find a way to get that. Technology now lets us achieve that. In today’s world, technology has become a driving force behind every industry, even in conservative markets like oil drilling and mining. As Reynolds concludes in his article, drill, baby, drill.

The catastrophe that is unfolding in the Euro Zone is one for the history books. Europe’s future, both politically and financially, has literally been hanging in the balance in the past few weeks. Here is my two cents on what is happening on the EU and what could possibly be done to save Europe:

The way I see it, the structure of the EU is the major problem. This “crisis” has shown just how slowly a united front of democratic nations moves into action. Here in Canada, we always complain about the government being slow to react to public demands. Compound that with 27 governments and you have a recipe for disaster. True, when at it’s peak, the EU has the capability to compete economically with global powerhouses like China and the US. However, at its worst, unnecessary expenditure falls heavy on countries like Germany, one of the few economically “stable” countries.

At his point, the only solution I see is letting the ECB take control and pull Greece out of debt. The EU cannot risk a Greek default, since that would result in an incomprehensible amount of investor confidence lost in the EU. Then, begin slowly contracting the EU to avoid such disaster in the future.

While reading Thursday’s issue of the Globe and Mail, one of the articles that caught my eye was the investigation by the antitrust subcommittee of the American Senate into Google possibly “abusing its dominant position to stifle rivals”. In fact, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt was busy this past week testifiying to a group of US Senators, who are claiming that Google rigs its search results to have it’s products appear before competitors.

Now, my instant reaction to the article was that the Senate was wasting its time. Logically, if I were Google, of course I would list my own products and services (such as Google Shop) first on my search list. The reasoning is that I invented the search engine, after all. I am merely trying to maximize my profit by getting one step ahead of my competitors who didn’t invent search engines. Boo-hoo for them, welcome to capitalism.

The more I thought about it, however, the more I realized just exactly why the Senate is going through all this trouble. Google was recently involved in two substantial transactions – the purchase of Motorola and Zagat. Ever since their inception, Google has been steadily acquiring technology and internet based companies (they own YouTube, as well). What I find alarming is that given their dominance over any other search engine, Google can control what the average consumer sees on the internet. Now, coupled with the fact that Google is further expanding into other sectors (Flight and Food Reviews, to name a few), this is quite a scary thought. To the average person, an internet search is merely that – a simple search for information. Now, imagine how many internet searches on Google are run everyday. To Google, each search is becoming an opportunity for profit, not only from advertising (which was their original plan), but now from a wealth of services that the company is quickly acquiring. If you were to think of the internet as a city, you could say that Google is re-directing all roads to their companies alone. Now, that is some pretty powerful stuff. In a sense, they are becoming the Wal-Mart of internet businesses. Like Wal-Mart suffocating small businesses every time it builds one of its esteemed “supercenters”, Google is doing the same to internet businesses every time it enters a new market by purchasing another company.

Video: Google’s Schmidt denies cooking results to favour own products (via the Globe and Mail website)

Perhaps one of the biggest news stories to hit the headlines this past year has been the News Corp. phone hacking scandal. If you dont already know about the metaphorical earthquake that has seemingly struck Rupert Murdoch’s empire, a quick guide can be found here.

As I alluded to in my previous (and much more informal) post, the fallout of the scandal has been humongous. The ethics involved in the case are quite obvious, as breaking the law to get the edge on competition is undoubtedly the most extreme form of unethical behaviour. With News Corp being second only to the BBC as a multinational media corporate giant, the question to ask is how much more did News Corp get away with? Considering the fact that they own some of the world’s biggest newspapers (including News of the World, the tabloid which the scandal is focused on and at the time happened to be the number newspaper in Britain), the incentive undeniably exists to get every edge over competitors, especially in the fast paced world of news.

Did other cases of questionable ethics help News Corp become one of the most powerful companies in the world? And if they did, how does one punish News Corp? Despite the fact that CEO James Murdoch may very well lose his job, News Corp will continue to be a gigantic force in the media world. They are just that big. Its like stabbing an elephant with a toothpick. News Corp the company will continue to thrive. How can that be fair to smaller companies? Or dare I ask, is that just the brutal nature of business in the “real world”?

Link to News Corp’s website: http://www.newscorp.com/

I recommend you check out the press releases.

Hello Sauder and the rest of the world,

As my first crack at the blogging cyberspace (yes, I know, I’m a bit late to the party), I feel the urge to make this somewhat memorable. Unfortunately, the creeping drowsiness that seems to rear its head at the most inconvenient times is back with a vengeance. In other words, I’m a bit tired and my brain is drawing blanks. My body must be hinting at payback for that Frosh weekend. Go figure.

Scrambling for business stories really isnt the best way for someone to start their blogging foray, as you can imagine. And considering this is the first post, and Kroeker (I really hope I nailed that spelling; true, I could check online for the proper spelling, but I figure this post wont formally count since we have not gotten to talking about the blogging portion about our mark in class yet). Scratch that, instead of “I figure”, I really should have typed “I hope”. Oh well. So much for backspace.

Anyways, I could actually move on and start talking business now. This is about as informal as it gets, with clauses and sentence structure being thrown wherever my somewhat deranged mind places them. I could ramble on about the events that have transpired with News Corp, more specifically its now defunct tabloid News of the World. If you have no idea who or what News Corp is… they are only one of the biggest media empires in the world. I believe they rank only second to the BBC in the world as the largest and most influential media group. Not only do they own television channels like FOX and National Geographic,  but they also own a vast majority of the world’s major newspapers, including News of the World, one of Britians most popular tabloids, which has also gotten them into a little bit of trouble… If you’re not sure about the trial I’m referring too… I suggest you google it or wiki it. Pretty interesting stuff. Honestly, its Murdoch’s son James thats getting the short end of the stick here (Thats Rupert Murdoch, the founder of the company). James is likely to lose his job as CEO of the company… and lets face it, Rupert is already among the rich of the rich, and the guy is getting up there in age. Unfortunately for James, hes a young guy, and well, so much for inheriting the company on a good note. But hey, daddy’s inheritance must be pretty good right?