Review 

Ziyue Han (Dennie) has shared many meaningful ideas, but I cannot agree with her on some issues. In her blog, she wrote Zuckerberg had taken her social responsibilities and tried to help the people in the third world. In my opinion, the Internet cannot save the people in the Africa and Zuckerberg is not a social entrepreneur.

To start with, let me assume Zuckerberg does have that kind of dream for a social reason(Actually, I think he just wants to expand market), but I have to say if he really wants to save people in the third world by using the Internet, he is too stupid. First, if a person do not have water to drink and food to eat, will he or she care about the Internet. He will not. Compared with basic need to survive, the Internet is nothing. Second, if people have an access to the Internet, will the Internet help he or her learn more about health problems, such as diarrhea and malaria. Probably not. Because if he can surf on the Internet, he must have basic wealth to support him to use the Internet which means he can cure him just by going to hospital. As a result, he does not need that kind of knowledge.

As far as I am concerned, social entrepreneur is one of the most difficult jobs to do in the world because he has to take care of his business and the public interest at the same time. It is not an evil thing to not be a social entrepreneur, but pretending to be is evil.

Review

(Source: https://blogs.ubc.ca/chitleungleung/)

There are not too many companies who have both the ability and willingness to refuse 3 billion dollars offered by Facebook. However, interestingly, Snapchat was reported to have done that.

Chit Leung (Kenny) Leung believed that it was a bad decision to refuse the offer. Actually, I am not totally agree with him.

Before judging the decision whether it is good or not, we should know what are Facebook and Snapchat. Facebook is the giant in the social media which owned another application: very similar to Snapchat. Snapchat is a just photo messaging application.

Why does Facebook want buy this company when they have already got a similar one? It was because of the data: Instagram users post almost 55 million pictures a day. Snapchat said its users are sharing 350 million pictures a day which is almost exactly the same as Facebook. In brief, Snapchat has the potential ability to beat Facebook in the field of photos. At the same time, if Facebook bought Snapchat, Facebook can control all the market and eliminate an enemy easily.

Is it a good idea to refuse the offer from Facebook? It is not necessarily bad. According to the data published by Analytics company Onavo: the owners of Instagram is increasing by 2.5% a month, and that of Snapchat is increasing by 4% a month. Snapchat may have the chance to beat Facebook at last in the field of photo. But it takes risks.

Business is a gambling game. I think if we want to make profits, we have to take risks. If the directors of Snapchat think it is a good idea to take risks, just take it.

(source:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2416808/Artificial-egg-PLANTS-backed-Bill-Gates-set-revolutionize-cooking-goes-sale-Whole-Foods.html)

Josh Tetrick, the founder of Hampton Creek, announced his company had created the artificial eggs. The raw materials of this kind of eggs come from plants, and Hampton Creek Foods’ website claimed its product was healthier and 19 percent cheaper than normal eggs. What’s more, if its product is put into cakes or cookies, they taste much better.

The market of the artificial eggs

In my opinion, if the artificial eggs were really healthier or at least as healthy as the normal eggs, although it may take some time, artificial eggs will take place of the normal eggs in the industry of  a variety of baked goods. Because all the producers cannot refuse the aggressively  decreasing cost. Moreover, as is said in the article, the company has taken animals out of the equation which means Hampton Creek can produce eggs as quickly as producing cars, and all the process of the production will never be limited by climate or seasons.

However, we should not be too optimistic about the market of artificial eggs. At least, the artificial eggs are not real eggs, and a lot of people may refuse to eat them, just like genetically modified food. Although people do not have any evidence that genetically modified food is unhealthy, a lot of people still do not like it.

Source:Michael Porter: Why business can be good at solving social problems

Mr. Michael Porter mainly talked about why business could solve social problems and how business solved social problems. He gave several interesting ideas.

To start with, business is the best way to tackle the social problems. As is shown in the graph, resources controlled by corporations account for more than 82 percent. The corporations are the most powerful force in the world, and if they want to take more responsibilities, they can do better than anyone else.

Moreover, Mr. Michael Porter gave several strong examples for how business solves the problems. To be specific, a Brazilian company found a way to produce more paper without cutting down any trees.

However, I am not totally agree with his idea that company can make more profits when it is trying to take more social responsibilities. Admittedly, the Brazilian company mentioned above actually is making more money, but I still doubt Mr. Michael Porter’s ideas. In some situations, corporations just cannot do both at the same time. For instance, pollution. If companies do not cope with pollution, they can save much money. If not, they harm the  public interests.

So who should take the responsibility to solve social problems? In my opinion, business is the tool like guns, but government is the hunter. Also take pollution as an example, government can just make the behavior of polluting environment illegal.

(Source:http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/20131030235010_Michael_Dell_and_Silver_Lake_Complete_Privatization_of_Dell.html)

Why are the companies like Twitter eager to be listed but Dell just did the opposite thing? In my opinion, it is because that there will be a great change in Dell.

To start with, why do the CEO want to privatize this company? The direct answer is that the stock price was so low that CEO wanted to buy it and it was high enough for the share holder to sell the shares, but what is the real reason for the CEO to do it? Or we can change this question to another one: what can Dell get from privatization. I think it is the stability and flexibility for a change. The CEO wanted to make sure that any decisions he would make in the future would not affect the whole asset.

Here comes to another problem: why does Dell need a change? First of all, the revenue of Dell has been keeping declining recently. What’s more, it is because of the big picture. Here is a table about the PC market of Europe.

According to the table, the whole PC market has been declining. At the same time, Dell is focusing on PC. This corporation has been suffering a lot from this declining.

In conclusion, the desperate demand to change forced the progress of the privatization.