Despite the fact that UN has made a huge progress in helping with communities and tackling poverty and human rights for the past century, it is still however, very necessary for the Arc and social enterprise to exist for now and for always, even when the UN is fully funded.

Speaking of funds, money has always been associated with power and authority, as well as constraints. Because there is only so many things in the world that are priceless, which makes money vain. Insight and intelligence are two vital factors for our world today. This is one of the top reasons why the world still needs social entrepreneurs. Their distinct view of value and insight are matchless; their resources and intellect are things the world solely need.

On the other hand, you should start with walking before you want to run. Mindless investments in developing countries, rural areas and places of poverty doesn’t work. The development of the human society and of an economy needs to be moderated, combined with a sense of omniscience insight guiding the way. For instance, the Cape Town football stadium built for the 2014 world cup in Africa can hold up to 64,000 people. But once the world cup was over and the parade and cheering was gone, the town was back to its old days where no one would rent such a huge stadium. The stadium now only holds serval events that has a minimum effect on local residents and only manages to attract serval thousands of people. The economic condition has determined that the town can’t host such big assets like this. A rough attempt as such will only result in a liability for the community, as the town now needs to pay hundreds of thousands of maintenance and protection fee.

Infinite amounts of funds would yet seem useless when it’s not used wisely with an industrial insight. Social enterprise and projects such as the Arc is able to find such small places that’s too small for the UN to attempt to help and make slight differences to our economy. With a whole lot of them doing this all together, it makes a big difference. And this is why social enterprise plays a vital role in this, even when the UN is fully funded.

The leap from imitator to innovator

The Chinese economy has been developing rapidly for the past decade, and I agree to some extent that China is eventually taking its step to become an innovator. However, I must confess that China still has a long way to go until it is really able to be regarded as a true innovator.

http://consumer.huawei.com/minisite/worldwide/Ascend-Mate7/

Looking at this year’s Huawei Flagship, the Ascend-Mate, it’s not hard to find that it looks incredibly non-innovative. The phone, from it’s design, to the OS, the screen or the processor, even the built in accessibilities, I find it hard not to relate to the iPhone, or the Samsung. In fact, if you take a look at all the Chinese Smartphone manufacturers, with absolutely no exceptions, they have been adopting either Apple’s designs or features or all of them; The reason why companies like XIAOMI, MEIZU, YIJIA, HAMMER TECH and HUAWEI can achieve such astonishing success in the Chinese market is due to nothing but two reasons:

1. China is a HUGE market.

2. There’s a very large gap in the low-end market ($50 or less) that companies such as Apple and Samsung don’t pursue.

Personally, I find it sad when the industry (in China) regarding themselves as innovators and sell millions on the market left over by other market leaders. It’s also kind of sad when they can blazingly copy from others and promote as if they were the first to achieve such amazingness. (Not specifically talking about Huawei but the whole of the industry in China)

Here is an example:

The Lenovo Flagship S90(I think currently it’s only available on the Lenovo China Website):

Snapshots from: http://www.lenovomobile.com/imodel-cn/zh/打开目录/手机/VIBE系列/S90-小笋尖-宝石银/p/s90?intcmp=L20141106_2

And Apple’s iPhone 6:

Snapshots from: http://www.apple.com/iphone-6/design/

I genuine hope that one day China’s smartphone manufacturers grasp the true meaning of innovation and think outside the box. Innovating doesn’t just mean taking what’s originally called “Touch ID” and put it straight into an Android Phone and changing its name to 360° fingerprint scan. Engineers should start looking forward rather than looking at others. Apple introduced Siri and Touch ID. Maybe we can innovate some new features that other manufacturers haven’t thought of. And up to this point I don’t think it’s about the technology; It’s about thinking instead. Don’t “innovate” like Apple, think like Apple, think different(ly).

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-26/electro-optic-systems-shares-in-orbit-after-space-junk-deal-wit/5697544

Amongst all news I’ve read about recently, I find this Australian firm EOS(Electro Optic Systems) the most interesting. It is great to see companies starting to care about these environmental issues, especially issues like this that people aren’t so familiar with. And yet I was shocked when the article mentioned that due to the space junk issue, it was expected that a global catastrophe may occur in 5 to 15 years! I’m also very curious why governments didn’t step up and act against it until quite recently, knowing this issue is so lethal? I think it’s credible that EOS and Lockheed Martin stepped up and took the action, and this type of action should be widely promoted and supported.  In such a busy world today, maybe it’s time to stop the work ahead and think about what we can leave for our future generations, and how can we develop on a basis that does not compromise the well-being of future mankind. EOS and lockheed Martin sets a great example for the world, and they shouldn’t be the only ones doing the job. EOS invested 1 trillion dollars into this project, but this does’t mean that ordinary companies can’t do anything to help. Companies can start from small things such as reducing waste, preventing pollution or innovative ideas to become more sustainable and environmentally friendly. I believe with millions of companies all working together, there shall be a big difference.

http://www.microsoft.com/microsoft-band/en-us   Last Thursday, Microsoft quietly announced its first wearable hardware, the Microsoft Band. It started shipping the next day and could be purchased at Microsoft retails stores. This action makes me wonder the strategy Microsoft is adopting behind it. As we are all aware of, a vast majority of Microsoft’s revenue comes from business and OEM(other equipment manufacturer) sales. Microsoft authorizes other PC manufacturers to pre-install windows and at the same time, hopes that the manufacturers can make great products. But when manufacturers failed to do so (like the PC sales downturn a couple of years ago), Microsoft launched the Surface. Surface was never an act of competing with the others, it was made to stimulate PC manufacturers to make better products. This is the reason why the performance of Surface isn’t the key issue for Microsoft, the more truthful meaning behind was other manufacturers managed to make tablet-pcs, making PC even more portable and even “touchable”. In my opinion, Microsoft Band adopts this strategy as well. Microsoft probably never expected its Band leading the fitness wearable industry, the company hopes that the OEMs purchase its hardware and software license, just like what they did to PCs. The Band itself may be an excellence in the field, but it would never be so outstanding that it scares away its potential partners.     Another thing, just one day before the announcement of the Microsoft Band, Microsoft uploaded its app Microsoft Health Vault in most mobile app stores. This may be a sign indicating Microsoft is willing to use the Band as its first attempt to the market, attracting attentions from other OEMs and as well as compete against Google Fitness and Apple HealthKit by using Microsoft Band to partner with other OEMs to enhance its platform — Microsoft Health. I also noticed that there isn’t an icon or any labeling saying Microsoft on the Microsoft Band. This might be another sign showing Microsoft’s long-term strategy.