How the EU’s recent USB-C standardisation regulation impacts Apple

13

October

2022

5/5 (2)

On October 4, 2022, The European Parliament voted in an overwhelming majority in favour of forcing USB-C as the universal charging port across a broad range of consumer electronics, including Apple’s iPhone which still uses its own Lightning connector technology apart from other smartphones. According to the European Union, the legislation is part of the wider European Union’s efforts to make products within the EU more environmentally friendly, to reduce electronics waste, and to simplify consumers lives (Guarascio, 2022).

By 2024, all devices covered by the legislation and sold in the 27 European countries will be required to use the universal USB-C port to enable charging over a cable. Under the new rules, manufacturers will be forced to include USB-C ports in all smartphones, laptops, tablets, headphones, and other electronics. The charging speeds are also being harmonised for devices with faster charging capabilities, which would enable users to charge their devices with the same speeds using any compatible charger (Guarascio, 2022).

Apple and USB-C

Currently, only the newer generation Apple MacBooks (2015 or newer), iMacs (2016 or newer), and iPad Pros and Airs (2018 or newer) have USB-C ports. Other Apple products, such as the AirPods, Apple Watch, and Mac accessories like the Magic Mouse and Magic Keyboard do not have a USB-C port and still rely on the Lightning connector. The new EU regulation will require newer generations of these products to be changed as well.

Prediction

While the EU’s new laws would apply only in European countries, the latest changes would only force Apple to move towards USB-C worldwide, as it would be illogical for Apple to solely sell iPhones with a USB-C connector in Europe. However, many analysts think that Apple will temporarily switch to USB-C in its iPhone line-up for one year before going all wireless, and thus, ditch the wired charging connector at all (Gurman, 2022). This would be a risky and crucial decision, since quite some electronic devices still require a wired connection to phones to transfer data, such as many basic car infotainment systems which only support a wired version of Apple CarPlay and/or Android Auto.

References

Guarascio, F., 2022. Apple forced to change charger in Europe as EU approves overhaul. [online] Reuters. Available at: <https://www.reuters.com/technology/eu-parliament-adopts-rules-common-charger-electronic-devices-2022-10-04/> [Accessed 12 October 2022].

Gurman, M., 2022. Apple’s Move to USB-C Is Just a Stopgap Before Its Wireless Future. [online] Bloomberg. Available at: <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-10-09/will-the-iphone-15-get-usb-c-port-will-apple-aapl-release-a-wireless-iphone-l91edtxt>

Please rate this

Is Neumann’s WeWork Just A House Of Cards?

29

September

2019

No ratings yet. WeWork had been noted, until recently, as one of the most valuable startups amongst the high value unicorns, whose business models do not earn any money as yet. After its recent huge IPO failure, a closer look into the WeWork business model and the pattern of business behavior of the founder Adam Neumann is appropriate.

WeWork has branded itself as a tech type of shared working space that offers something else than conventional real estate companies. Herewith WeWork tries to appeal to technology startups and entrepreneurs by designing its spaces as urban jungles, using glass walls and distributing plants everywhere. Its business model, however, has shown to be especially risky. WeWork is locked into long-term leases of building/properties all around the world. In addition, WeWork offers short-term individual customer leases. Consequently, if WeWork loses its short-term individual customer base, it faces enormous rents to be paid by the company itself (CBinsights, 2019).

After taking a close look at its finances, it has become clear that there is no path to profitability. More specifically, the coworking space company has reported a loss of $1.7bln in 2018 and $1.4billion in the first half of 2019 (CBinsights, 2019). As matter of fact, despite being valued at $47bln a few weeks ago, the valuation of WeWork just dropped to $15bln (New York Times, 2019). Consequently, the company has announced to postpone its initial public offering.

On top of these doubts concerning WeWork’s business model and financial perspective, there have emerged huge questions about the way the chief executive officer has been conducting business. Has Neumann’s own strategy been aligned as much with the growth of WeWork?

Firstly, when looking into Adam Neumann’s professional behavior, it becomes clear that he has full control over the company. Herewith, being the largest shareholder, his vote is larger than the votes of other shareholders (Wall Street Journal, 2019). Secondly, by selling stock and borrowing against his WeWork shares, Neumann has been cashing out of WeWork as the company has been growing and becoming more valuable. In addition, Neumann has been leasing his own personal properties back to WeWork. Using this technique, WeWork actually paid rent to Adam Neumann. Finally, Neumann charged WeWork for the use of the word ‘We’ at a value of almost $6lmn, as he privately owned the trademark rights (New York Times, 2019).

The 9-year-old company, which is losing $2bln dollar a year, is just another example of Wallstreet not buying what Silicon Valley is selling. Herewith WeWork is, amongst Uber and Lyft, just another example of the significant overvaluation of Silicon Valley unicorns. From my perspective, WeWork’s overvaluation poses huge risks with regard to future investor appetite for tech companies that want to make a stock market debut. What is your view on WeWork’s failing IPO and Neumann’s practices – is this yet to be another unicorn disillusion?

CBinsights (2019). How Does WeWork Make Money?. Retrieved at: https://www.cbinsights.com/research/report/how-wework-makes-money/

New York Times (2019). WeWork C.E.O. Adam Neumann Steps Down Under Pressure.Retrieved at: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/business/dealbook/wework-ceo-adam-neumann.html

Wall Street Journal (2019). WeWork’s Adam Neumann Steps Down as CEO. Retrieved at: https://www.wsj.com/articles/neumann-expected-to-step-down-as-we-ceo-11569343912

Please rate this

Apparel Industry: A Candidate for Digital Disruption in the Foreseeable Future?

14

September

2018

The Apparel Industry as a candidate for digital disruption.

5/5 (7) In the 2000’s, e-commerce and e-books would completely shift the paradigm in the books industry. Although it took some time to gain traction and several technological iterations were needed, the almost unlimited inventory of books offered by stores like Amazon and its low prices, allied with the convenience of home delivery and free shipping were able to shift consumer patterns and boost this type of media consumption. In short, in over 15 years, digitalization in the sector transformed the competitive landscape. In 2017 and in the U.S. alone, e-books accounted for 55% of all online book purchases in volume, of which 83.3% can be attributed to Amazon(1), and when printed book purchases (39%) are concerned, Amazon accounted for 45.5% of them(2).

Big strives for this technological up rise partly came from the costly inventory which had to be vast and consistent across brick-and-mortar stores, higher prices, low searchability and portability of books, between many other inefficiencies/factors which are inherent to a physical business model of such nature. This got me thinking of other industries that may be in a similar position and, in my view, the apparel industry presents itself as a strong candidate to follow suit in the foreseeable future.

What technologies may disrupt the Apparel industry?

Buying apparel either online or in physical stores is a chore for some. In the first case, the inherent inefficiency of the channel comes from the uncertainty of the purchase, either from the inconsistent model sizes across brands and regions or from image manipulation that may occur in webstores to make their products more appealing. In a few years, however, it may be possible to bridge the online with the traditional experience and see and try the items you desire while having the store service you may need, all from the comfort of your home using Virtual Reality(3).

In the case of physical stores, some people simply do not appreciate the stress-inducing experience of going to commercial centres to buy a product they desire or simply cannot afford to spend time on such tasks. With the continuous cost reduction and technology improvement of 3D printers, the online purchasing experience may only consist in downloading the “blueprints” of your new product and watch it as it is manufactured in front of your own eyes and is ready to be worn in a couple of hours(4).

Both these technologies have the potential to massively reduce costs. No longer will companies need to set up massive production lines to deliver the goods or to develop a complex network of product distribution. Additionally, at some point, to provide service and assistance, physical stores may stop being the first-choice for many with the use of VR, allowing companies to reduce their investment in physical retail. This way, companies could redirect their investment to design departments to both differentiate themselves as well as to increase their product offering, now that the production capacity constraint would be surpassed.

However, digitalization in apparel can also follow a different route and result from the emergence of IoT. The continued push for wearable tech will allow companies to create ecosystems of products that can act as “life companions”, continuously gathering data from the user, from biometric data, to providing nutritional and physiological recommendations, physical monitoring, and many other features, changing the fundamental nature of clothing, its lifecycle and its switching costs. In short, it has the potential to revolutionize not only clothing but medicine as well.

Despite the promise of these technologies, they may be a long way from becoming a reality in our daily lives. They still have a relatively high cost to appeal to the mainstream audience and some still need some iterative improvements, as 3D Printing, for example, that cannot replicate the current quality of clothing materials and techniques. However, this has not stopped brands such as Nike (also Adidas and Reebok) from experimenting and producing whole lines of sneakers with 3D printed components, like the Nike Flyprint(5). Also, others like IoT and wearable tech still may have to face ethical and privacy barriers when it comes to the protection and use of the data collected.

What do you think? How do you think the industry will evolve? Let us know in the comments.

Sources:

(1) https://publishdrive.com/amazon-ebook-market-share/

(2) http://authorearnings.com/report/january-2018-report-us-online-book-sales-q2-q4-2017/

(3) https://www.forbes.com/sites/currentaccounts/2016/01/28/virtual-reality-coming-soon-to-a-clothing-store-near-you/

(4) https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/soon-you-may-be-able-3d-print-clothing-your-own-ncna848646

(5) https://news.nike.com/news/nike-flyprint-3d-printed-textile

Please rate this

Don’t mind the start-ups

22

September

2017

No ratings yet. During these university years we have seen a lot of models, a lot! Think of Porter’s five forces or a more recent one: the theory of newly-vulnerable markets (TONM).

Both these models talk about the threat of new entrants or what TONM calls, newly easy to enter. This threat entails that incumbents have to watch out for new market entrants as they might take their profit. These new entrants have learned from the mistakes that the incumbents made. In addition, if the incumbents are serving customers that are less profitable, the new entrants can solely focus on customers that have high profit margins. New entrants can also be seen as start-ups, and it seems a valid point that they pose a threat.

However, the “Financieel Dagblad” just published an article saying, don’t mind the start-ups, be scared of tech-giants. Where I was convinced that start-ups do pose a real threat, in the technology market the tech giants are the ones to watch, apparently. The three main tech giants are Amazon, Facebook and Google, of course.

Annet Aris, teacher of digital strategy at INSEAD, actually advises companies to look at these giants instead. They are posing threats rather than the start-ups. According to the article, this can be explained by the data, the algorithms the giants hold, and their money. If they enter your market, you should definitely be worried.

Partick van der Pijl states that there has been a shift of focus. Four years ago, companies were afraid for the start-ups and what they were doing. However, nowadays the focus is on the development of technologies and how companies should prepare for these upcoming changes.

What do you guys think? I think the article makes a valid point. Although some start-ups have made an impact (Uber & AirBnB), a lot of them have not. In the end, these tech incumbents still seem to rule the market.

Please rate this

Anonymous, hackers or hacktivists?

9

October

2016

5/5 (1) With the digitalization of our society, the number of internet users has increased as well. In the year 2000, 414,794,957 (6.8%) users had access to the internet. Now, 16 years later 3,424,971,237 (46.1% of total population)users have access. (Internetlivestats, 2016). Of course, how more users on the internet, how more interesting it is for hackers to abuse their knowledge of the technical aspect of the internet.

Today I want to talk about one of the most well-known hackers organization Anonymous. Anonymous was founded in 2003, on the imageboard 4chan. Their members, so-called ‘Anons’ consider their selves as hacktivists, but what is the difference between a hacker and a hacktivist? A hacker is a person who gains unauthorized access to computer system. This can be either for good or bad reasons, but usually it is to deal damage to the system or in order to retrieve valuable information. (Merrian-webster.com, 2016) A hacktivist on the other side, is a person who gains unauthorized access to a computer system and carry out various disruptive actions as a means of achieving political and social goals. (dictonairy.com, 2016)

We can also differ white-hat hackers, which have good intention and black-hat hackers, which have bad intentions. White-hat hackers are usually computer system testers or security experts. Black-hat hackers are the hackers where you think about when people are talking about hacking, breaking into systems and dealing damage to those systems.

So before we place Anonymous into these categories, what have they done in the past 13 years? Let’s list up some, to my opinion, good actions of Anonymous:

  • Operation Deatheaters. (thousands of pedophile networks were shut down and names of visitors were published).
  • Shutting down hundreds of accounts, forums, websites of IS supporters
  • Leaking Bank of America corrupt and unfair mortgage practices.

On the other side, they did certain things which aren’t justifiable:

  • Hacking Sony’s systems in 2011. Caused a 10% stock value loss and published tens of thousands of private emails.
  • Putting personal information of HBGary Federal lawyers after Aaron Barr (CEO) said he had ‘cracked’ Anonymous. (Bright, 2012)

These are just a few examples of the hundred things Anonymous has claimed to do. Most good things they do have to do with publishing information and shutting down ‘bad’ websites. The bad things Anonymous is doing is mostly reacting to certain, in their eyes, bad deeds. Also, they respond to threats, like the HBGary Federal case.

So whether Anonymous is a good or a bad organization is a matter of perspective. I wouldn’t say they are white-hat or black-hat hackers/hacktivists. In 1996  at the DEF Con Hacking Conference they made up a new kind of hackers/hacktivists: grey-hat hackers/hacktivists. These are hackers/hacktivists which may sometimes violate the law, but not have malicious intentions like the black-hat hackers. I would say they are grey-hat hacktivists, what do you think?

Thank you for reading!

Feel free share your knowledge and opinions about this topic!

(Also, if you’re interested in Anonymous, check out the movie ‘We Are Legion'(2012)).

 

 

 

References

Bright, P. (2012, October 03). With arrests, HBGary hack saga finally ends. Retrieved from http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/03/the-hbgary-saga-nears-its-end/

Hacker. (2016, October 09). Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hacker

Hacktivist [Def. 1], (2016, October 9) Retrieved from http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hacktivist

Internet users. (2016, October 09). Retrieved from http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/

La Monica, P. A. U. L. (2014, December 15). Sony hack sends stock down 10% in past week. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/15/investing/sony-stock-hack/

Please rate this

How tech is helping refugees

25

September

2016

5/5 (3) Ever since one of the largest humanitarian wars started in 2011, 11 million people have fled their homes (Syrian Refugees EU, 2016). Since then, they faced distress and difficulty to reach safer places. But what is new is that the refugees are tech lovers, they know everything about the latest and greatest technology. Thus, they travel most of the time not only with cash but also with their phone. However, while most of them are very well accustomed with the language of tech, real language barriers still obstruct them.

Imagine that you would arrive after a long, frustrating and dangerous journey. You might have medical problems afterwards but how can you communicate with the doctors if they do not speak the same language? Imagine that you are queued up with a lot of people to do a medical check, but what after the long wait there if there is no translator who is able to speak your language?

The refugee crisis is not only very challenging for the refugees themselves, it also creates major challenges for governments of the countries in which the people arrive. Take Germany for example, how can they organize good medical treatment for over 60,000 refugees?

That is where tech companies can make the difference. Cisco, a tech company well known for connecting everything, collaborated together with the City of Hamburg, private sector partners and the university hospital Hamburg to build the first of its kind “Refugee First Response Center”. The Refugee First Reponse Center was build out of a shipping container. After which it was equipped with Wi-Fi and real-time translation service. The real-time translation service works as follows; it consists of video translators who are able to speak 50 languages only at the push of a button. Thus, this of course provided the assistance, which was needed during the medical consultations. Refugees were now able to connect with the doctor, which helped both to provide and receive the best aid possible.

This story shows just one example of how tech is helping for the greater good. However, the story does not end here. Everyday people, companies and technologies together create extraordinary things.

 

Interested? Watch more about it in the section below.

 

 

Sources:

Syrian Refugees EU (2016): http://syrianrefugees.eu

Refugee First Response Center (2016): http://refugeefirstresponsecenter.com

NOS (2015): http://nos.nl/op3/artikel/2085743-techfugees-hoe-de-techwereld-vluchtelingen-helpt.html

Computer Weekly (2015): http://www.computerweekly.com/feature/How-technology-is-helping-deliver-aid-to-Syrian-refugees-in-the-Middle-East

Please rate this