Right, because I end up forgetting for weeks on end and then perpetually having to play catch up. Or something like that. Woe is me? I've definitely been busy the last couple weeks, and part of me has already kind of accepted my fate of always having to play this catch up. Better than never doing it at all I...hope.
Overview of things that went on since November 9th, the last posting:
1. Hanson case A
2. Hanson case B
3. First day of team presentations
4. Dragging out Kroger's boring posterior for some more exposure.
1. Hanson case A
To be completely honest, I thought both Hanson cases were an extremely dull read. I suppose this is the case with companies who don't actually DO things themselves, but instead facilitate the links between other companies and act as the middle man. To examine this middleman link is to mostly find theoretical discussion of their business approach and strategy. To read theoretical discussion is to be bored and sludge through dull reading, because there's just not as much solid material to connect to.
Hanson seems like it is a good company though. If it was a really dull company then it wouldn't have actually achieved the level of success that Hanson did. (Maybe I'm just an uninspired and uneducated reader, but I still can't let go of how tedious it was to educate myself on Hanson-and I want to say it over and over again, as this is more or less my personal blog of rantings.) The essential principle governing its operations-that the company should carefully select under-performing other companies to acquire and turn around, is sound. It to me is somewhat like picking stocks and investing in financial markets. Investing is a brilliant way to get rich if one has the financial knowledge, because one is not actually putting in the hard labor for all of the monetary returns. Hanson and its operations felt like an investor to stocks relationship on a massive scale.
Overall, I just marvel at the fact that Hanson made its entire empire off of acquisitions. They didn't reinvent the wheel and pioneer the next great product for mankind. They were more or less just savvy businessmen, who knew the right companies to get in and get out of at the right times and executed their strategy. In a way it is also inspiring, because it represents to the common person that he does not need to be blessed with inventive genius but instead could also acquire such business knowledge and make money off of it.
Hanson and White's policy of going to any means necessary to turn around the company, including moves that would have them accused of asset stripping, was radical, but to be applauded. Personally, I feel like companies that take the biggest risks are the only ones that end up reaping the biggest rewards. If leaders are not willing to push the way things are done and come up with new ideas, then they are bound for simply "acceptable" performance. Jobs at Apple was famously known for his temper and ruthless operations. Jack Welch(which I just learned about in Philosophy yesterday), was also known as a ruthless, Machiavellian leader during his time at GE. Yet, both led their companies to greatness. I did not get a sense that Hanson and White were cut-throat in the same way, but that they did what had to be done. Effective leaders should be willing to do the same-whatever that has to be done to achieve the end objectives, within basic reason of not abusing the employees so that they suffer unneeded trauma physically or psychologically.
2. Hanson case B
This case, as previously mentioned, was just as dull as its predecessor to read. Perhaps this means I was not actually a suitable business school student? (Wow, what have I been doing for years in that case) Any time business delves into the overly theoretical mixed with dashes of obvious common sense I lose interest. I seem to like the more concrete cases...
Just as much as Hanson PLC's success was something to be marveled at because it was born from relatively common (as compared to, for example, Alexander Graham Bell and his changing the world with telephone. Then again, was Bell even filthy rich because of this invention? Hasn't it been said that the actual inventors of any given product don't get rich from it, but instead, the company who sells it does?) knowledge, Hanson's eventual breakup made a lot of sense. I feel like Hanson broke up because of the side effects of getting too big. It no longer had massive growth potential with each acquisition, and because it had acquired so many companies it was simply running out of feasible new additions to its lineup. All of the carefully chosen under-performing companies with the right potential had already BEEN chosen, and adding new ones on only contributed a miniscule increase to Hanson's performance.
Hanson hit stagnation because of the nature of its business. With companies that both manufactured their own products and profited from strategic acquisitions and alliances, they could rely on one or the other when things stagnated somewhere. Hanson could not switch to making Hanson branded items, because there was no such thing as Hanson branded items. Therefore, Hanson had to break up.
Hanson after the breakup and after being restructured to acquire only building materials companies is much more focused. Here's hoping it can rebuild off the success of its PLC days and become good at its new objectives.
3. First day of presentations
The first day of presentations saw three companies: A...cloud computing software company (I'm not sure whether this is a negative reflection of my short term memory powers or of the excitement generated from their presentation), Netflix, and Electronic Arts.
The software company...was dull. As dull as the Hanson cases I just discussed. I feel like they were knowledgeable about the subject, but did not present it in an engaging enough manner. Overall, all speakers had a relatively monotone voice, and one kept glancing at note cards. Using note cards does not automatically make a presentation dull, persay, but I feel like he wrote more then just a few prompt words on there and relied on it more than he should have.
Their graphics were lacking, and included at most one chart(if I remember correctly), along with many company logos. I feel like company logos are not useful graphics, unless one is doing a report on a marketing company who is in the business of designing such logos.
Maybe this presentation just suffered from the same situation as Info Systems class. Professor Tuggle, you were an interesting lecturer considering the technical nature of the material, but in the end the material was just too technical for our business school brains. Aside from understanding that this group's company worked in cloud computing, I don't think I took anything else away from the presentation.
Netflix, on the other hand, was probably the best that day out of the three. They utilized the Netflix logo, but as a background to bring a sharp image to their presentation slides. The material was still technical, and did not involve any showy pictures or videos, but it was presented in a more interesting manner. The presenters spoke with varied tone, which allowed me to engage in their presentation. There was even a small interactive portion, in which one presenter asked if anyone used the Netflix service and what they thought about it. The team was also knowledgeable, just like the other team.
Electronic Arts was a hard presentation to give a definite review for. Their presentation slides were oddly organized-all black, centered instead of bullet points and the more traditional powerpoint look, as well as many company logos (though perhaps this is somewhat more appropriate given that the "look" of a game or game company is important to their business). The video they had at the end was also fun! I enjoyed the video a lot, but it was unexpected and could have been a good introduction instead of at the not quite end place they used it in their presentation.
The presenters for EA were all over the place though. The opening presenter seemed nervous, but knowledgeable. One presenter who talked for a large amount in the middle of the presentation was really passionate, and motivated me to give their team a one point higher score for his overflowing passion and enthusiasm for their project. The very last presenter however stood off to the side for much of the presentation, and seemed disengaged from the group. When she spoke, she did not seem as well prepared as perhaps she should be, nor as passionate as the previous speaker. Then again, his passion for the material was extraordinary across ALL of the presenters that day.
Here's hoping that our group, Amazon, will be received well on Thursday when we present! Writing all of these critical reviews is fun from the reviewer's side, but thinking forward to how harshly we may be judged in return terrifies me...
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Metapost the second about the last few...classes
I really need to get out of the habit of abandoning this blog. It's simply not acceptable to abandon my duties when I have personal problems-nobody else gets a bye and I shouldn't be assuming I get one either.
Having said that, here is metapost the second about each class period I missed and up to now, which will encompass: the test, the McDonalds case, the Nukor case, and Kroger.
I was extremely nervous going into the test, to be quite honest. I was so nervous that I couldn't even study, but because I couldn't find anything to study. It reminded me of Info Systems, except not even that, in that Info Systems always had the great quantity of informative slides which contained all of the information I needed to know. However much I was unprepared even by trying to will osmosis of the powerpoints into my brain I felt more at ease. At least there was a guarantee of right and wrong. There wasn't such a thing here, and considering the number of marks on my previous case study homework( an A-, and yes, I fully admit to being nitpicky because it is an A still. But as Glee says, A- is the Asian F), I fully expected there to be in depth questions.
For the test, and for the second case study homework that just passed, I continue to have the feeling that it is hard to split my answers for the questions appropriately. I will include additional information to answer question 1 fully, but then discover that this additional information was exactly what question 2 asked for. Then I would have to repeat it, because it was asked for again, but feel uneasy at the thought that I was so repetitive. This was true on the first two test questions. I included the problems about unattractive market segments in answering the part about Tonka's weaknesses, but the second question needed me to answer about unattractive segments of the toy market, specifically!
Regardless, I'm happy that I made it out of the test well, and am pleasantly surprised at the result.
The McDonalds case was...interesting. While growing up in China McDonalds was like magic to me. I remembered hearing that Beijing had gotten the new McDonalds store, and how it had an enormous play place with things in the food like coca cola and french fries, and being so excited to try. I suppose this shows that McDonald's standardized quality strategy worked quite well. It built a formidable name for itself, to the point where after a while the rest of my family were all curious about it. As American society began to transform into more a more health and environmentally conscious one, however, McDonalds is falling behind. Granted, it now has such an old, large, and loyal following who would pay no heed to the wave of healthy transformations in restaurants.
However, it may be hard for McDonalds to continue expanding its "fanbase", so to speak. The new wave of kids growing up would grow up with more of a health conscious mindset, on the whole. Not to say that kids will not still be kids, and clamor for junk food, but french fries and hamburgers, especially McDonalds' plain standardized versions, will not be as novel anymore. McDonalds is making a good effort to get with the health trend (I hear ads occasionally on the radio about how its apple slices for Kid's meals is supposed to be the new sensation for busy health conscious moms), but I hope it keeps doing more.
Nukor, now was a very technical read. Nothing has reminded me of the time Professor Sudek brought Paul Darbie to speak about his inventions in video projection and lighting than this case. More sections than I cared to count were devoted to explaining how exactly Nukor's inventions were innovative and ahead of the curve. I wanted to care, but felt like I had to be in the steel or at least civil engineering industry to actually appreciate the case, as they intended for me to do. Although I've got a civil engineering dad, his excited techno-babble over the years has yet to succeed in converting me to appreciation of the industry. The science behind it is just...a lot of science.
The company's management and payment style is worth admiration. I commend this company for willing to go against the "productivity" grain and not be distant with its employees. I commend this company for not needing to ax unproductive employees, and not treating them as simple cogs in the machine. Because the company bred absolute loyalty with excellent treatment to its employees, and instead held its managers to a tighter leash, it felt kind of a like a reverse of the traditional structure to me. And that's really interesting to see, especially in a steel company like this. It's not some fast fashion clothing company, or quirky small advertising company, but a steel company producing commodities which has this brilliant employee treatment.
I don't care if I just said I knew not a single thing about steel, it doesn't sound like a bad idea to be hired. If need be, I'll study up. It sounds like these people get decent pay, great treatment by the employers, and ample rest time. In this society of either no pay and no job security, or stress and overwork, such a balance is so rare.
Finally, about Kroger. Kroger, Kroger, Kroger. I initially threw you on my list just because I was running out of things to throw on the list, had vaguely heard of your name on tv or radio, and was late to the ballgame of sending ANY list to the professor(Something I regret terribly, considering I got stuck with you dear grocery store). Imagine to my horrified surprise when you were actually chosen, and with closer inspection, I realized you were a grocery store. What can I say about a grocery store? I tried. You are not PepsiCo, you are not Netflix. On the average weekly basis, all that happens with you can be summarized in the following four things:
1. Change or reporting of this period's stock prices.
2. Some promotion of the month or week. Veteran's day food drive. Breast cancer awareness products. Sustainable seafood promotion.
3. Robbery(Why are there so many robberies in Krogers?)
4. Labor issues, not nation wide, but some random store or the other in the Midwest.
You don't actually seem to be...doing all that much. I'm pretty sure it has to do with the grocery industry, but what a dull company to have been stuck with. After a while all the promotions of the week or month(how in the world are there that many themes to promote on every time?) begin to sound the same. Specific robberies of specific stores are so specific that they belong more on the nightly local news than a generalized report of the firm as a whole. The same with labor issues that affect perhaps one state. I reported on a labor issue in class before, but it was because it affected OUR state, California.
As this is a blog (I certainly HOPE I will never be tried on it in person), I will now admit: I am extremely saddened by the fact that our group has been stuck with the sad fate of reporting on Kroger. Is it because, due to my apathy, that I have not blogged enough updates on Kroger? Is this why Kroger was selected, because out of the five of us in my group I provided the least information thus far about my company? If this is so I sincerely apologize to my group for letting them know of the dullness that is writing about grocery stores.
If this is not, is it at all possible for us to request a company switch? I do not know what companies the rest of my group, besides Eva Wong, is reporting on. Unless someone among us also has Safeway(was that on the list?) and Safeway ends up being the Professor's second decision upon my request...If that is the case, Kroger is fine. If there are no other grocery stores:
I sincerely plead, semi-anonymously, for there to be a company switch for us.
Having said that, here is metapost the second about each class period I missed and up to now, which will encompass: the test, the McDonalds case, the Nukor case, and Kroger.
I was extremely nervous going into the test, to be quite honest. I was so nervous that I couldn't even study, but because I couldn't find anything to study. It reminded me of Info Systems, except not even that, in that Info Systems always had the great quantity of informative slides which contained all of the information I needed to know. However much I was unprepared even by trying to will osmosis of the powerpoints into my brain I felt more at ease. At least there was a guarantee of right and wrong. There wasn't such a thing here, and considering the number of marks on my previous case study homework( an A-, and yes, I fully admit to being nitpicky because it is an A still. But as Glee says, A- is the Asian F), I fully expected there to be in depth questions.
For the test, and for the second case study homework that just passed, I continue to have the feeling that it is hard to split my answers for the questions appropriately. I will include additional information to answer question 1 fully, but then discover that this additional information was exactly what question 2 asked for. Then I would have to repeat it, because it was asked for again, but feel uneasy at the thought that I was so repetitive. This was true on the first two test questions. I included the problems about unattractive market segments in answering the part about Tonka's weaknesses, but the second question needed me to answer about unattractive segments of the toy market, specifically!
Regardless, I'm happy that I made it out of the test well, and am pleasantly surprised at the result.
The McDonalds case was...interesting. While growing up in China McDonalds was like magic to me. I remembered hearing that Beijing had gotten the new McDonalds store, and how it had an enormous play place with things in the food like coca cola and french fries, and being so excited to try. I suppose this shows that McDonald's standardized quality strategy worked quite well. It built a formidable name for itself, to the point where after a while the rest of my family were all curious about it. As American society began to transform into more a more health and environmentally conscious one, however, McDonalds is falling behind. Granted, it now has such an old, large, and loyal following who would pay no heed to the wave of healthy transformations in restaurants.
However, it may be hard for McDonalds to continue expanding its "fanbase", so to speak. The new wave of kids growing up would grow up with more of a health conscious mindset, on the whole. Not to say that kids will not still be kids, and clamor for junk food, but french fries and hamburgers, especially McDonalds' plain standardized versions, will not be as novel anymore. McDonalds is making a good effort to get with the health trend (I hear ads occasionally on the radio about how its apple slices for Kid's meals is supposed to be the new sensation for busy health conscious moms), but I hope it keeps doing more.
Nukor, now was a very technical read. Nothing has reminded me of the time Professor Sudek brought Paul Darbie to speak about his inventions in video projection and lighting than this case. More sections than I cared to count were devoted to explaining how exactly Nukor's inventions were innovative and ahead of the curve. I wanted to care, but felt like I had to be in the steel or at least civil engineering industry to actually appreciate the case, as they intended for me to do. Although I've got a civil engineering dad, his excited techno-babble over the years has yet to succeed in converting me to appreciation of the industry. The science behind it is just...a lot of science.
The company's management and payment style is worth admiration. I commend this company for willing to go against the "productivity" grain and not be distant with its employees. I commend this company for not needing to ax unproductive employees, and not treating them as simple cogs in the machine. Because the company bred absolute loyalty with excellent treatment to its employees, and instead held its managers to a tighter leash, it felt kind of a like a reverse of the traditional structure to me. And that's really interesting to see, especially in a steel company like this. It's not some fast fashion clothing company, or quirky small advertising company, but a steel company producing commodities which has this brilliant employee treatment.
I don't care if I just said I knew not a single thing about steel, it doesn't sound like a bad idea to be hired. If need be, I'll study up. It sounds like these people get decent pay, great treatment by the employers, and ample rest time. In this society of either no pay and no job security, or stress and overwork, such a balance is so rare.
Finally, about Kroger. Kroger, Kroger, Kroger. I initially threw you on my list just because I was running out of things to throw on the list, had vaguely heard of your name on tv or radio, and was late to the ballgame of sending ANY list to the professor(Something I regret terribly, considering I got stuck with you dear grocery store). Imagine to my horrified surprise when you were actually chosen, and with closer inspection, I realized you were a grocery store. What can I say about a grocery store? I tried. You are not PepsiCo, you are not Netflix. On the average weekly basis, all that happens with you can be summarized in the following four things:
1. Change or reporting of this period's stock prices.
2. Some promotion of the month or week. Veteran's day food drive. Breast cancer awareness products. Sustainable seafood promotion.
3. Robbery(Why are there so many robberies in Krogers?)
4. Labor issues, not nation wide, but some random store or the other in the Midwest.
You don't actually seem to be...doing all that much. I'm pretty sure it has to do with the grocery industry, but what a dull company to have been stuck with. After a while all the promotions of the week or month(how in the world are there that many themes to promote on every time?) begin to sound the same. Specific robberies of specific stores are so specific that they belong more on the nightly local news than a generalized report of the firm as a whole. The same with labor issues that affect perhaps one state. I reported on a labor issue in class before, but it was because it affected OUR state, California.
As this is a blog (I certainly HOPE I will never be tried on it in person), I will now admit: I am extremely saddened by the fact that our group has been stuck with the sad fate of reporting on Kroger. Is it because, due to my apathy, that I have not blogged enough updates on Kroger? Is this why Kroger was selected, because out of the five of us in my group I provided the least information thus far about my company? If this is so I sincerely apologize to my group for letting them know of the dullness that is writing about grocery stores.
If this is not, is it at all possible for us to request a company switch? I do not know what companies the rest of my group, besides Eva Wong, is reporting on. Unless someone among us also has Safeway(was that on the list?) and Safeway ends up being the Professor's second decision upon my request...If that is the case, Kroger is fine. If there are no other grocery stores:
I sincerely plead, semi-anonymously, for there to be a company switch for us.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
I seem to really enjoy metaposts. Because they keep getting larger
And larger. I realize somehow I've forgotten the post about last week's case. Without going into too much detail I've been feeling emotionally low, and a blog post that was accessible at any time was the first and easiest thing to forget. Thus, it was forgotten. But it will now be combined with the post for this week.
Ever since the MGSC 300 class...spring 2010? Earlier? I remember blogging about being fascinated with technology(or at least, much of it-when it got too technical later in the class my interest sadly waned). Although I couldn't comprehend its workings, its end product was fascinating, and I liked to at least amuse myself with trying to understand some of it. Thus, this rush of technology companies, including Intel of last week, was all quite fun to read about, even given the geeky language.
Ever since I came to America and owned my first computer, Intel was much like a common noun for me. I would always notice the "Intel Inside" stickers on the computers, but never think much of it. This case allowed me to do so!
Andy Grove was quite an interesting character to read about. I remember watching the Silicon Valley movie(as discussed in an earlier blog post). It was interesting to note the similarities between Grove and Jobs, as far as their authoritarian governing style went-and how that contributed to each company's success. Andy Grove was even more of a character for Intel, however, because he began being authoritarian before he was put in the position of highest power as CEO. At least with Jobs, Apple was half his invention; he created the company, and in a way he had the right to be demanding and strict. Grove...just came right out strict. It was intimidating to read and imagine, and yet kind of inspiring to imagine living up to his excellence. Not sure if I could.
Why does it seem as though the Japanese and their technological innovations creep into every industry? I just have to ask...
To be honest, I can't imagine a day that will come when the age of the laptop computer has died, and it all goes to handheld devices like tablets and smart phones. As much as touch screens are cool-I'm terrible at typing without an actual keypad! And I'm quite fond of typing. I was the weird child who played type to learn over and over for fun.
No matter the direction, I feel like Intel is one of those companies who have handled its transitions well, and will be likely to adapt to coming technologies.
Now, for this week and the TiVO case:
Perhaps it was a good thing these two blog posts are combined. There is pitifully little to say about TiVO. I remember back to the Charles Schwab case when you said that some cases are for analyzing a company's strategy, problems, and future direction, and some cases are kind of just to appreciate or get to know the company. When I was going through TiVO, it really seemed to me that this was one of the second types. Granted, TiVO was not and is not successful, so there is nothing to appreciate,persay, but I thought it was just one of those things to read and go "That's nice"...
I'm still in debate over their technology issue. True, it is a mistake to let their brand become a verb, instead of a brand, but perhaps it was also just one of the things that was bound to go that way? Could kleenex have really, with good company planning, cornered the market on tissues and made people not confuse kleenex with tissue? Could the same be said of google(in its search engine sense, at least). I'm at least somewhat of the opinion that certain things were inevitable. The world was going to want convenience and comfort in disposable tissues sooner or later-there was that much demand. The same with online searching, as the internet grew and web service sped up. Perhaps the same could be said with advanced controls for television viewing, as the population grew more affluent.
Otherwise, all I can is that I'm rather disappointed in TiVO. I completely agree with what was said in class about a genius product not being able to sell itself. Without the right marketing, all that compromise humanity's basic desires is: food, shelter, and sex. All created products are outside of that. Nobody is going to come after an invention without being made aware of its benefits, cost effectiveness, or other good points. TiVO was deficient in this area-truly a bunch of engineers playing around and being happy with creating fancy new technologies because they could.
I don't personally know how much having more partnerships would save TiVO in the long run. I feel like it is almost a terminally ill patient waiting to take its last breath, unless it does indeed come out with the TiVO 2.0 that is again just as disruptive, but keeps this technology well protected. Because the DVR technology is so widespread now, it would take an act of God for TiVO to rise to the top and differentiate, even with all of the help of various partners.
But maybe I'm just a cynic.
Ever since the MGSC 300 class...spring 2010? Earlier? I remember blogging about being fascinated with technology(or at least, much of it-when it got too technical later in the class my interest sadly waned). Although I couldn't comprehend its workings, its end product was fascinating, and I liked to at least amuse myself with trying to understand some of it. Thus, this rush of technology companies, including Intel of last week, was all quite fun to read about, even given the geeky language.
Ever since I came to America and owned my first computer, Intel was much like a common noun for me. I would always notice the "Intel Inside" stickers on the computers, but never think much of it. This case allowed me to do so!
Andy Grove was quite an interesting character to read about. I remember watching the Silicon Valley movie(as discussed in an earlier blog post). It was interesting to note the similarities between Grove and Jobs, as far as their authoritarian governing style went-and how that contributed to each company's success. Andy Grove was even more of a character for Intel, however, because he began being authoritarian before he was put in the position of highest power as CEO. At least with Jobs, Apple was half his invention; he created the company, and in a way he had the right to be demanding and strict. Grove...just came right out strict. It was intimidating to read and imagine, and yet kind of inspiring to imagine living up to his excellence. Not sure if I could.
Why does it seem as though the Japanese and their technological innovations creep into every industry? I just have to ask...
To be honest, I can't imagine a day that will come when the age of the laptop computer has died, and it all goes to handheld devices like tablets and smart phones. As much as touch screens are cool-I'm terrible at typing without an actual keypad! And I'm quite fond of typing. I was the weird child who played type to learn over and over for fun.
No matter the direction, I feel like Intel is one of those companies who have handled its transitions well, and will be likely to adapt to coming technologies.
Now, for this week and the TiVO case:
Perhaps it was a good thing these two blog posts are combined. There is pitifully little to say about TiVO. I remember back to the Charles Schwab case when you said that some cases are for analyzing a company's strategy, problems, and future direction, and some cases are kind of just to appreciate or get to know the company. When I was going through TiVO, it really seemed to me that this was one of the second types. Granted, TiVO was not and is not successful, so there is nothing to appreciate,persay, but I thought it was just one of those things to read and go "That's nice"...
I'm still in debate over their technology issue. True, it is a mistake to let their brand become a verb, instead of a brand, but perhaps it was also just one of the things that was bound to go that way? Could kleenex have really, with good company planning, cornered the market on tissues and made people not confuse kleenex with tissue? Could the same be said of google(in its search engine sense, at least). I'm at least somewhat of the opinion that certain things were inevitable. The world was going to want convenience and comfort in disposable tissues sooner or later-there was that much demand. The same with online searching, as the internet grew and web service sped up. Perhaps the same could be said with advanced controls for television viewing, as the population grew more affluent.
Otherwise, all I can is that I'm rather disappointed in TiVO. I completely agree with what was said in class about a genius product not being able to sell itself. Without the right marketing, all that compromise humanity's basic desires is: food, shelter, and sex. All created products are outside of that. Nobody is going to come after an invention without being made aware of its benefits, cost effectiveness, or other good points. TiVO was deficient in this area-truly a bunch of engineers playing around and being happy with creating fancy new technologies because they could.
I don't personally know how much having more partnerships would save TiVO in the long run. I feel like it is almost a terminally ill patient waiting to take its last breath, unless it does indeed come out with the TiVO 2.0 that is again just as disruptive, but keeps this technology well protected. Because the DVR technology is so widespread now, it would take an act of God for TiVO to rise to the top and differentiate, even with all of the help of various partners.
But maybe I'm just a cynic.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Apple in 2008: The Legacy of Steve Jobs
Were I to have blogged about this class and case a day earlier, I would still be talking about the genius of Steve Jobs and anticipating things he could contribute to the company in the future. I'd long since known that Steve Jobs was terminally ill, and somewhat had in mind that he was going to die one of these days, and definitely before his time, but the fact that it actually happened, just like that, yesterday afternoon was kind of an abrupt shock. It was like that news broke of Michael Jackson's death. I'm not particularly a devout fan of either MJ or "Master Jobs"(don't own any apple products except an ipod that I essentially never use), but something like this shows that the Gods of today's society are still very much human.
I took Professor Sudek's MGMT 437 course last semester, and the story of Apple was something that was covered in detail. We even watched the film about Jobs and Gates "Pirate of Silicon Valley". The case we covered in capstone on Tuesday, however, filled in the gaps for me after the movie and lectures in my previous class left off. That class dealt more with the creation of Apple, and went into detail about how they developed the Apple I, Apple II, and Jobs as a stringent boss who demanded perfection.
New things that I learned about Apple: the fact that it focused on the education marketplace. There was not much focus in the previous class on Apple's marketing strategy as an entire company, just that it developed innovative products but had a hard time dealing with the competition. Also new too was the fact that Apple, despite what seems to be its wild success(at least on the Chapman campus-why does it seem as though every student has some manifestation of the macbook or macbook pro?), really only had about an 8% share of the PC marketplace. Although, in retrospect, it does make sense in the context of the entire PC market, because of the image Apple has developed. Because Apple exudes a young, sleek, yet rebellious image, there is a certain appeal to college aged and early to mid 20's people. I know the main reason I want to try a macbook sometime in my lineup of computers IS because of the image appeal. However, business professionals, for example, are turned off because it has a reputation of being for youth, and artists. Also, many programs are not mac compatible.
I can only hope that the new CEO of Apple is competent in his own right. No one will ever be Steve Jobs, but someone has to carry on the legacy he created.
On a different and somewhat humorous note, Apple's trend of i-something names can inspire some really clever things. I heard on the radio that twitter is trending iSad in tribute to Steve Jobs. And, as for a convoluted phrase from my own mind, I think Apple in the future should make some kind of multi-function machine and dedicate its name as the iJobs. Because it will be able to do all Jobs. Ok, cheesiness time is past...
I took Professor Sudek's MGMT 437 course last semester, and the story of Apple was something that was covered in detail. We even watched the film about Jobs and Gates "Pirate of Silicon Valley". The case we covered in capstone on Tuesday, however, filled in the gaps for me after the movie and lectures in my previous class left off. That class dealt more with the creation of Apple, and went into detail about how they developed the Apple I, Apple II, and Jobs as a stringent boss who demanded perfection.
New things that I learned about Apple: the fact that it focused on the education marketplace. There was not much focus in the previous class on Apple's marketing strategy as an entire company, just that it developed innovative products but had a hard time dealing with the competition. Also new too was the fact that Apple, despite what seems to be its wild success(at least on the Chapman campus-why does it seem as though every student has some manifestation of the macbook or macbook pro?), really only had about an 8% share of the PC marketplace. Although, in retrospect, it does make sense in the context of the entire PC market, because of the image Apple has developed. Because Apple exudes a young, sleek, yet rebellious image, there is a certain appeal to college aged and early to mid 20's people. I know the main reason I want to try a macbook sometime in my lineup of computers IS because of the image appeal. However, business professionals, for example, are turned off because it has a reputation of being for youth, and artists. Also, many programs are not mac compatible.
I can only hope that the new CEO of Apple is competent in his own right. No one will ever be Steve Jobs, but someone has to carry on the legacy he created.
On a different and somewhat humorous note, Apple's trend of i-something names can inspire some really clever things. I heard on the radio that twitter is trending iSad in tribute to Steve Jobs. And, as for a convoluted phrase from my own mind, I think Apple in the future should make some kind of multi-function machine and dedicate its name as the iJobs. Because it will be able to do all Jobs. Ok, cheesiness time is past...
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Class 9 9/27/2011: Belated, LSAT IS DONE!
The reason this blog is super late is because of a silly test called the LSAT. A silly test which completely took over my life for the past week. Its kind of shameful to say, but I will now honestly admit that I did NOT read the case last week. Sorry Dr. Tuggle! I don't really remember doing anything the last week except eat, sleep, cram LSAT, and, after burning out doing so, doing absolutely nothing.
Having said that, I found that I did not connect to this case as much as the previous ones. Perhaps it is because I do not(yet?) invest, and so I only had a basic understanding of what the investing world entails. Then again, the last time I went to Las Vegas I cared nothing for gambling, but buffets appeal to all, dont they? All I know about investing, I hear from my dad who casually invests online...somewhere. He's bought a couple hundred stocks here, a couple hundred there. I'm not really sure he knows that much more than me, except reading more news than me, actually!
Schwab's smartest move in creating staying power for the company is probably the fact that it knew what it wanted to be, and constantly(except for the period of mismanagement), stuck to achieving its goal. It was good of Schwab to not expand too far, and attempt to be everything and excel at everything. The adage that no one is perfect seems like, after these weeks, something very applicable to companies too. For Wynn Resorts, this is not true, because there are few equivalent competitors in the gambling and high end resort world, but for someone like Schwab who is in an industry with many other firms, differentiation is everything. It is best there to know your niche and stick with it. Schwab did this very well.
Aside from its consistency in striving to become the best in its niche, Schwab was also smart in fostering the change towards completely online trading. This company definitely decided its "what and who's needs will be satisfied, and how to satisfy them".
Beyond Schwab, I was surprised to hear in the lecture that Sony is currently a sad case(shows how much I've come out of my LSAT cave this year?...). Our family does not purchase Sony music players or tvs, but we do have a Sony VAIO laptop, and a Sony PS2(sadly no budget for PS3). I find the functions and price on both reasonable, and would purchase another VAIO laptop in the future after this one goes to computer heaven. Maybe I just dont know innovative? Or I'll be jumping on the Macbook bandwagon...
Having said that, I found that I did not connect to this case as much as the previous ones. Perhaps it is because I do not(yet?) invest, and so I only had a basic understanding of what the investing world entails. Then again, the last time I went to Las Vegas I cared nothing for gambling, but buffets appeal to all, dont they? All I know about investing, I hear from my dad who casually invests online...somewhere. He's bought a couple hundred stocks here, a couple hundred there. I'm not really sure he knows that much more than me, except reading more news than me, actually!
Schwab's smartest move in creating staying power for the company is probably the fact that it knew what it wanted to be, and constantly(except for the period of mismanagement), stuck to achieving its goal. It was good of Schwab to not expand too far, and attempt to be everything and excel at everything. The adage that no one is perfect seems like, after these weeks, something very applicable to companies too. For Wynn Resorts, this is not true, because there are few equivalent competitors in the gambling and high end resort world, but for someone like Schwab who is in an industry with many other firms, differentiation is everything. It is best there to know your niche and stick with it. Schwab did this very well.
Aside from its consistency in striving to become the best in its niche, Schwab was also smart in fostering the change towards completely online trading. This company definitely decided its "what and who's needs will be satisfied, and how to satisfy them".
Beyond Schwab, I was surprised to hear in the lecture that Sony is currently a sad case(shows how much I've come out of my LSAT cave this year?...). Our family does not purchase Sony music players or tvs, but we do have a Sony VAIO laptop, and a Sony PS2(sadly no budget for PS3). I find the functions and price on both reasonable, and would purchase another VAIO laptop in the future after this one goes to computer heaven. Maybe I just dont know innovative? Or I'll be jumping on the Macbook bandwagon...
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Class 7 9/20/11: I seem to prefer blogging on cases
There seems to always be nothing to say, not even a paragraph, the day after a lecture class. However, going to classes concerning the classes seems to always make me WANT to blog about it, and reflect. Would this be ok, that my blog posts are substantially longer(even if it's not ok, I seem to have kept it this way anyways...), but for both days of class combined? Since textbook classes thus far seem to still be rehashing material we learned before, it is sufficient to comment on them a little along the way.
Today's case on Harley Davidson was a very long(do they get longer and longer from here on out?) yet very interesting read. I seem to be saying that about all of the cases thus far, but I think I just got lucky. As a fitness enthusiast, Bally's was appealing. Luxury service like Wynn Resorts appeals universally. And then with Harley, it is the kind of interesting that blends itself with respect. Because the case spent so long talking about Harley's history, and building the image of a company tradition and a company brand, it seemed to give the corporation itself life.
I am also enrolled in Professor Martin's Business Ethics course this semester, and we have just gone through material relating to the moral responsibilities of a corporation as its own entity. Central to our discussion was how one could separate the corporation from its owners and executives. At what point does a company stop being just an extension of its owner's thoughts and take on its own identity? I feel like Harley has surpassed that point, with how much this case described Harley's past, present, and future, as one continuous process.
For these longer cases, however, do they not merit additional treatment beyond the about 45 minutes allotted in class today? For Bally's and Wynn Resorts, both shorter cases(although Professor Tuggle, why did you say Bally's is a very complex case?), I feel like class time was enough. It seemed somewhat rushed for the discussion about Harley -Davidson.
Also out of curiosity, will we be tested on the data about various cases on the midterm? There seems to be ample emphasis placed on getting the correct year, the correct names of executives, and so on.
As for the textbook material on chapter 4...sometimes I really wish we just had capstone class based on cases only. Since we have spent our previous semesters in school learning and memorizing all of the various theory, could this class not be simply all application? Just a thought...
Today's case on Harley Davidson was a very long(do they get longer and longer from here on out?) yet very interesting read. I seem to be saying that about all of the cases thus far, but I think I just got lucky. As a fitness enthusiast, Bally's was appealing. Luxury service like Wynn Resorts appeals universally. And then with Harley, it is the kind of interesting that blends itself with respect. Because the case spent so long talking about Harley's history, and building the image of a company tradition and a company brand, it seemed to give the corporation itself life.
I am also enrolled in Professor Martin's Business Ethics course this semester, and we have just gone through material relating to the moral responsibilities of a corporation as its own entity. Central to our discussion was how one could separate the corporation from its owners and executives. At what point does a company stop being just an extension of its owner's thoughts and take on its own identity? I feel like Harley has surpassed that point, with how much this case described Harley's past, present, and future, as one continuous process.
For these longer cases, however, do they not merit additional treatment beyond the about 45 minutes allotted in class today? For Bally's and Wynn Resorts, both shorter cases(although Professor Tuggle, why did you say Bally's is a very complex case?), I feel like class time was enough. It seemed somewhat rushed for the discussion about Harley -Davidson.
Also out of curiosity, will we be tested on the data about various cases on the midterm? There seems to be ample emphasis placed on getting the correct year, the correct names of executives, and so on.
As for the textbook material on chapter 4...sometimes I really wish we just had capstone class based on cases only. Since we have spent our previous semesters in school learning and memorizing all of the various theory, could this class not be simply all application? Just a thought...
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Class 5 9/13/11: Totally gambling illiterate
Quite unlike my situation with last week's case, in which I had been a loyal customer of a gym for years and was really into the material, this week's case on Wynn Resorts left me rather confused.
The first and last time in my life I've been to Las Vegas was when I was about 11 years old. Our family and extended family had decided to take a camping trip to Las Vegas together, and on the drive back, stop by Las Vegas to discover just exactly what the hype was. As one could imagine, Las Vegas was at least just a bit dull for an 11 year old who was much more enamored with cartoons and video games than anything a casino could offer. I vaguely remember a too strong smell of smoke, lots of glitzy slots, and interesting buffet food. I don't believe I ever left the one casino we stayed at for the two or so days, and I do remember being extremely excited to leave the place.
Therefore, upon reading this case, things did not connect with me. It was quite interesting, however, reading about these things I never knew about. Especially of interest was the fact that Macau was the equivalent of a Chinese Las Vegas. Call me ignorant, especially for someone who was born and lived in China for eight years, but I never knew about Macau either. I have no interest in visiting Macau, the same as I have no interest in visiting Las Vegas, but I appreciated learning a little more about the rules that govern China and its territories.
As far as the previous lectures on textbook chapters have been, I just have one question: why does it feel like business classes recycle and rehash the same basic information to its students over and over? Or is it because this class is capstone, and therefore meant to be an indirect summary of everything previous? Probably the latter one, but for these first two chapters I feel like I've heard everything in some format or another before.
The first and last time in my life I've been to Las Vegas was when I was about 11 years old. Our family and extended family had decided to take a camping trip to Las Vegas together, and on the drive back, stop by Las Vegas to discover just exactly what the hype was. As one could imagine, Las Vegas was at least just a bit dull for an 11 year old who was much more enamored with cartoons and video games than anything a casino could offer. I vaguely remember a too strong smell of smoke, lots of glitzy slots, and interesting buffet food. I don't believe I ever left the one casino we stayed at for the two or so days, and I do remember being extremely excited to leave the place.
Therefore, upon reading this case, things did not connect with me. It was quite interesting, however, reading about these things I never knew about. Especially of interest was the fact that Macau was the equivalent of a Chinese Las Vegas. Call me ignorant, especially for someone who was born and lived in China for eight years, but I never knew about Macau either. I have no interest in visiting Macau, the same as I have no interest in visiting Las Vegas, but I appreciated learning a little more about the rules that govern China and its territories.
As far as the previous lectures on textbook chapters have been, I just have one question: why does it feel like business classes recycle and rehash the same basic information to its students over and over? Or is it because this class is capstone, and therefore meant to be an indirect summary of everything previous? Probably the latter one, but for these first two chapters I feel like I've heard everything in some format or another before.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)