Month: October 2017

Nowadays automation is omnipresent: self-service kiosks in McDonald, self-scanners at Shoppers, self-service check-in kiosks in the airport. While we are getting used to these new changes and praising for the convenience they bring, automation also influences our life more profoundly in another aspect, and it is not welcomed.

According to CBC news, Walmart recently introduces self-scanners to 20 stores in B.C. and Fedex is going to close all retail stores in Canada. These news haves sparked discussions about whether robots will completely replace human labor in the future, which causes a huge unemployment.

From my perspective, I think it is inevitable that in the future some jobs will be replaced by robots, but some jobs will also be created because of automation. Using SWOT analysis, the strength of human labor is that human beings have social intelligence and creativity, which are irreplaceable and extremely important when doing business. For example, social intelligence can be applied to providing better customer services and creativity is essential when companies want to innovate. Moreover, in the short-term human costs relatively less since companies have to spend money on robots’ hardware and software. Therefore, opportunity generated by the strength of human labor will be a higher demand for high-skilled workers since companies need human resources for the overall management, marketing and innovation. However, the weakness of human labor is obviously its lower working efficiency when compared to robots since robots are programmed to do the job and therefore they have unlimited “patience”. In this way the threat generated by this will probably be less low-skilled workers needed. The analysis from McKinsey Global Institute implies the similar trend: automation mainly replaces low-skilled workers while some jobs that require high intelligence cannot be largely replaced.

Judging from the SWOT analysis above, personally I think the automation may not have a huge impact on the overall number of the job position required by companies, instead, it is highly likely to widen the income gap. Just as what is analyzed above, in the future companies will compete for high-skilled workers while low-skilled workers may lose their jobs because of automation. Since low-skilled workers are normally not well-educated because of their poor financial conditions, they will be even poorer when their jobs are replaced by robots. While some experts suggest introducing a universal base wage for every worker, I don’t think this method will help reduce the income gap since high-skilled workers can still be rewarded with bonus or other benefits. From my point of view, I think in order to reduce the income gap, government should focus primarily on giving everyone an equal opportunity to receive education, which in turn will help poor people be more competitive.

Word Count:448

Recently, Apple released its new products: iPhone 8 and iPhone X, which, as always, caught huge public attention. While iPhone 8 is slightly refined compared to iPhone 7, iPhone X revolutionizes the whole industry by using face ID to unlock the phone. As an android user who just switched to iPhone, I begin to wonder why people continue to buy new iPhone even if it updates really quickly.

First and foremost, Apple gains the largest market share by getting and maintaining its leading position in the industry. A decade ago, different from Blackberry and Motorola, Steve Jobs abandoned the physical keyboard and introduced the multi-touch interface that let the iPhone smoothly pinch-to-zoom. Innovation and successful marketing strategies enable Apple to always be the first in customers’ mind, which is of great importance. According to AI Ries and Jack Trout, the top three brands in a product category occupy market in a ratio of 4:2:1. Just as people normally only remember the name of champions, customers tend to have a deeper impression on the brand that takes the first place.

Also, Apple delivers its value proposition consistently through all products. The most vital value proposition Apple supports is simplicity. From the product design to the ads, Apple emphasizes the beauty of simplicity. And removing home button on iPhone X shows Apple’s aspiration on simplicity as well. Moreover, instead of aiming at targeting as many as customers possible, Apple makes the product for people who value function and quality over prices.  As we all know, Apple charges premium prices (an iPhone can be twice or thrice more expensive than the flagship Android smartphones of other manufacturers) to show that their products have higher qualities. This pricing strategy gives people a sense of superiority, and nowadays some people may even regard buying new iPhone as a proof of attaining higher social standing.

There are some criticisms regarding the marketing strategy of Apple. According to William, a classmate of mine in Commerce 101, he criticized Apple for being unethical in his blog ” Business Ethics” because Apple updates its product too frequently. However, from my point of view, I think updating products is inevitable for all kinds of brand in the mobile device industry since the technology is developing at an astounding rate, and whoever gets left behind will fail. Moreover, contrary to what William said, I think Apple does better on product sustainability than other phones do. For example, a friend of mine is still using iPhone 6 now with a few dysfunctions occurred in his phone. Moreover, ios 11, the latest version, can still be used on iPhone 5s. Therefore, the longevity of iPhone is actually longer than that of most android phones.

Word Count: 445