According to this article, Microsoft, as part of its five-year $400 million deal with the NFL, had stipulated that the Microsoft Surface will be “the official tablet of the NFL”. What is meant by this is that coaches and players will be shown using the Surface during a game. Additionally, the Surface logo would be used on various NFL equipment such as replay monitors. However, the plan went wrong when several announcers and commentators mistakenly referred to the Surface as an iPad. Consequently, not only was the Surface not mentioned, but the incident had inadvertently boosted the exposure of its competitor, the iPad.

In my view, this incident really highlighted Apple’s position as the industry leader in tablets as the iPad has almost become synonymous with any tablet or tablet-like device. It also draws attention to the market state of the Surface. The Surface has long been trailing behind other brands such as Apple and Samsung in the tablet market share, and this marketing fiasco only cements its situation, At $400 million, it really demonstrates how Microsoft is unrelenting in its attempts to stimulate an influx of popularity with the Surface in order to compete with the iPad. Hopefully, Microsoft will be compensated for this and the deal might carry forth in a more positive direction.

University tuition is reaching record highs, and showing no signs of slowing down. According to this article, tuition rates are expected to triple from 1990 to 2017 in Canada. This is an alarming statistic; before long, the benefits associated with a post-secondary education may be weighed down by the cons.

In the US, college education fees are facing a much more drastic hike according to this article. American institutions have increased their rates by as much as 12 times more than it was 35 years ago. To a Canadian citizen, the price of an average American college education seems insane compared to the already expensive costs in Canada.

This brings up the topic of the cost versus benefit of a University degree. As more and more information is being found on the internet and published for free, going into massive debt for the very same information doesn’t seem like a very good deal. Many seem to view a degree just as “proof of competence” for employers. Of course, the social aspect of college life is and continues to be one of the main justifications of the price. However, with costs rising the way they are, would the “classic” college experience continue to be worth the money?

Recently I came upon the fascinating blog of Trent Abraham. His writings offer very unique commentary on various topics regarding economics and business. One of such topics that piqued my interest was the entry on the issue of Facebook privacy. As many are aware, the notion that Facebook may be too intrusive on personal information is something that has been around since its inception.

This article referred to in the blog post highlights the extent of Facebook’s privacy violations as well as tips to prevent their visibility online. Trent writes that “Facebook ha[d] done nothing wrong” and that any information that is found on Facebook is information that is voluntarily surrendered by the user and so therefore is fair game if it is used for marketing or other revenue purposes.

Personally, this is a sentiment which I very much agree with. Facebook information and Facebook itself is an entirely voluntary service as people are not forced to create social media profiles. I agree that Facebook should exercise some degree of discretion when handling the information of customers, but aside from customized advertisements, there hasn’t really been any use for an individuals personal information. In my opinion, the recent attitudes regarding privacy seem to be mostly paranoia, and Facebook just happens to be the most obvious target of these attitudes.

CVS Caremark, a drug store chain, had announced that it planed to stop selling tobacco and tobacco related products by October. This is motivated by a desire to shift away from being strictly a large retail business to becoming a health care provider as well. Although the company forecast that this move would reduce revenue by two billion, they feel that it is necessary to be able make the transition into health care.

Friedman would call this a purely socialist move, and one which strays from his notion of a “social responsibility” of a business. It is, however, a reality of capitalism. In order for a company to retain a positive public image, it must make decisions which agree with the moral direction of the general public. A strong public image can be as important to a company as a strong product. This can be connected with Freeman’s Stakeholder Theory, where every stakeholder is considered for the benefit of the company. For CVS Caremark, gaining this public support is worth the profits that are lost in transition. Although this is a gamble, it is a calculated gamble that can potentially pay off with more than just profits.