Why does EA's FIFA disappoint some people EVERY YEAR?

It happens every September. A new FIFA game comes out and along with it comes a barrage of hate. "FIFA 15 is the worst FIFA yet. EA just hype up the game to let everyone down.", exclaims user 'oritepal' on the EA forums. Nathan Ditum of The Telegraph claims "FIFA 15 fails to greatly differentiate itself from its previous incarnations"- user 'Bada_bing8' agrees, dubbing 15 "another pointless iteration".

These people are often justified in their criticisms- EA seems to have a habit of hyping up their 'upgrades' to the game that change it little- they even dedicated a whole trailer of such revolutionary features, such as visibly breathing players and, best of all, moving corner flags. Meanwhile they often postpone their often impressive upgrades for later iterations.
And this is before we get to some of the worst aspects of FIFA- including endless in-game microtransactions, and sometimes unbearable online servers.

Despite this, FIFA is the best-selling video game in the UK, and has been so since its release. Hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of gamers worldwide are quickly hooked onto each FIFA iteration as soon as it is released- I myself have been one of them before.
Why? The answer's pretty simple. These gamers aren't stupid- they don't buy games that suck- FIFA evidently has a lot going for it. It's an addictive game, but that's not the only reason why people buy it.
People often buy it because there's nothing better. Football is the world's most popular sport, so evidently a good quality, constantly innovating football video game is what many people want. But FIFA doesn't always offer this- as we've covered earlier.
So, someone who knew nothing about video games would ask the question- why don't they buy another football game? A better one?
The principle is a core of business economics. It's what people believe to be the democratic part of consumerism- that if you don't like a product 'x', you stop buying it, and buy another, product 'y'. If enough people do it, the company making product 'x' will see a fall in profits and therefore to boost them, they will improve product 'x' to be as good as 'y'.

But this can't happen with regards to FIFA. Why? Because there's only 1 alternative to FIFA- and that has been suffering in past years. Pro Evolution Soccer (PES) has always been in FIFA's shadow in the sports game industry- Konami, makers of PES have not even been able to launch PES 15 by the key September month- they expect to release in early November, two months behind FIFA.

The difference between the success of the two titles is staggering- in 2012/13, EA sold 13.5 million copies of its FIFA 13 title- Konami a paltry 1.9 million. PES 15 in priciple is competition to FIFA, but in reality it is nowhere near.

EA has almost total domination of the football games market- they have no effective competition, they have a monopoly. What does this mean?

This means they have little pressure to develop their games, to innovate, to make them better. If FIFA 16 is not that much better than 15, EA will be safe in the knowledge that they're not going to lose all of their customers- simply because PES is not effective enough competition to steal away customers. This makes complacency- the key reason why EA perhaps does not improve FIFA as much as they could every year.

It's also why EA can afford to offer so many microtransactions- they stand nothing to lose from it, because people will not avoid FIFA solely because of them; PES doesn't even have a similar game mode. EA can only profit from those who choose to spend extra money furnishing their Ultimate Team.

So, why couldn't PES improve and catch up? Again, the answer is monopoly. If you've ever played PES, you'll notice that many teams don't have real kits of club badges, or even names. Chelsea FC is creatively called 'London Blues', Arsenal 'North London'.
This is because PES needs licensing to use the real kits and badges of these clubs- but who holds exclusive rights to Premier League licensing? That's right, EA- it's exclusive to the FIFA series.
And this issue has for long been the key weakness of PES. No matter how realistic the match engine is, it's a straight turn off for many if they can't play in the kit, or even use the name of their favourite club.

Windows Vista, the software that gave nightmares
to millions of users.

Monopolies can cause businesses in general to become lazy, complacent and stuck in the past. Significant examples other than FIFA could include Microsoft in the noughties (stuck in the daze of Windows XP's monopoly), and AT&T and Verizon in the USA- cellphone providers who have been the bane of many a phone user's life in America, largely due to poor customer service and inflating contract prices.

And many monopolistic companies will be happy to gobble up any potential competition. In 2011, AT&T made an attempt to acquire T-Mobile, the closest competitor of the two aforementioned providers. Why? Because if T-Mobile then got a larger share of the cellphone market, AT&T would not be threatened- if they owned T-Mobile, they'd in fact make a profit from that. T-Mobile's share of the market would be gobbled up by AT&T- decreasing competition and furthering market monopoly.

There are so many ways a lazy company can block competition and thus increase their monopoly. There are basic stuff we don't always notice- for example patents are a formidable way of blocking competition in a new and emerging market.
On the other hand, companies can open up themselves to competition- like Tesla, who earlier this year opened up all their patents to their competition. Giving up patents, exclusivity rights, whatever monopolistic agreements, will not create an easy ride for any company but it can give them the kick they need to provide genuine improvements to their products.

If EA was not hiding behind their exclusive Premier League licensing, if PES shared the same rights, FIFA would be far more threatened- PES would still have a far way to go but perhaps EA would receive the kick it needs to provide genuine and lasting innovation to its customers.

7 Shocking Facts about Economic Inequality in the USA.

VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4QkvGJgDoc

The GDP growth rate in the United States of America has averaged 3.27% between 1947-2014- such a growth rate is a sign of a healthy, thriving economy. And certainly the USA's economy has thrived, but have its citizens enjoyed their fair share of the pie?

It appears not; wealth inequality has become one of the major problems in the US; numerous presidents have come and go promising reform on the matter, but little effective change has been made. 

Here are some shocking facts about just how bad the problem of economic inequality is in the USA right now.

1. CEO PAY (Business Insider)

Between 1990 and 2005, CEO pay had tripled- meanwhile the minimum wage dropped, and the pay of the average production worker increased just 4%.  
CEOs in 1965 made 24 times more than the average production worker; whereas in 2009 they made 185 times more.

2. THE USA IS THE MOST UNEQUAL ADVANCED ECONOMY... IN THE WORLD (Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook)

The USA's GINI coefficient (the most widely accepted mathematical calculation of economic inequality) is the highest of all developed economies- at 85.1%, this high GINI scores confirms America's place as the most economically unequal developed country in the world. To compare, the UK scored a modest 67.7%, China 69.5% and India 81.1%. 

3. "THE POOR STAY POOR, THE RICH GET RICHER" (Emmanuel Saez., Berkeley)

In 1982, the top 1% families in terms of salary were earning 10.8% of all income in the USA (pre-tax)- the bottom 90% received 64.7%. 
However, in 2012 the top 1% received 22.5% of pre-tax income- while the share of the bottom 90% dropped to just 49.6%.

Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez also estimates that between 2009 and 2012, the time of America's 'economic recovery', the top 1 percent captured 95 percent of total income growth.

4. CLOSE, BUT NO BISCUIT (MOTHER JONES) 

This drop in share of wages experienced by the bottom 90% comes despite the fact that productivity has drastically increased in recent decades- though this is also attributed to developments in work methods, technology- Americans are more productive today than ever- yet overall wages have overall stagnated. 

This graph shows quite clearly who has benefited from the increase in productivity.

Had median household incomes kept up with the growth of the economy since 1970, they would be around $92,000. The current median wage being $50,000 is quite a clear indication that something is out of balance.

5. DEEP IN DEBT (Domhoff, UCSC)

Meanwhile the bottom 90% enjoy responsibility of 72.5% of the US' debt, as opposed to the paltry 5.9% held by the top 1%.

6. HOMELESS AMERICA (Western Regional Advocacy Programme)

An estimated 22,000 children live homeless on the streets of New York City alone; the largest such number since the time of the Great Depression. But these children represent just a part of a nation wide problem, with roughly 1.2 million children being reported homeless in March 2014.

7. THE AMERICAN NIGHTMARE? (Saez., Kopczuk., Song., Columbia University)

Despite the grand vision of the 'American Dream', the 'land of opportunity', since the 1950s probability of socio-economic mobility has been almost constantly decreasing.

The benefits of privatisation.

In the previous article we went through a brief introduction of privatisation; now let's go onto the benefits of it.

The benefits come under various categories, however a theme runs throughout- that is of efficiency, a key component of business management.

A prominent difference between private and state companies is the (usual) difference in motive. Whereas state companies can have an unclear, difficult-to-measure motivation (usually to 'serve the public'), private companies are generally far more strictly profit-driven; they seek to serve shareholders primarily (who want their pockets to be lined handsomely).
Now there is debate over whether profit is such a good motive for companies (that we'll discuss in the next article), but profit motivation usually drives companies to increase their efficiency.

A common criticism of state-owned enterprise is its tendency to over-employ, often in order to score the ruling political power popularity points when it came to annual employment figures. Another crucial factor in this overemployment was the power of unions- public-owned enterprises were often under strong pressure from labour unions to avoid firing staff, which in many cases was not so helpful in terms of keeping staff in line and also efficiency.

Overemployment is crucial as it leads to increased losses in the form of wages, for employees who the company could, essentially, perform healthily without. Private companies tend to avoid inefficient practices such as overemployment- in fact they look at doing the contrary, to shed costs: and cutting down on staff is often the easiest way to do this.

British Airways, under Lord King's leadership developed from
an oversized, outstretched struggler to a world-class airline.

The privatisation of British Airways was notable for its crackdown on 'unnecessary' employees. Before privatisation, BA were employing almost 60,000 staff; a huge number, especially when compared to close competitor Qantas' 15,000.
However, following privatisation and under the rugged leadership of Lord King, the workforce was reduced to 38,000 in a period of just three years- among these over 50 senior executives, the company was rebranded entirely to a more 'American' style- enlisting help of a San Francisco-based design firm to lead rebadging, and cutting costs wherever possible- in inefficient flight routes, in excess staff members and so on.
These almost ruthless cutdowns paid dividends indeed- in 1987 BA posted after-tax profits of around £166 million, among the highest airline profits globally and certainly one of the highest BA had ever experienced.

Introduction of competition is often heralded as a crucial feature of privatisation. Privatisation often comes with an opening of the market to other private companies as well, a good example being the gas market following the privatisation of British Gas. Competition is often a great thing to have in a market, as it forces companies to innovate and provide what consumers want, in order to maintain and expand their market share (and receive more profits, of course). Competition introduces pressure on businesses; often a good influence from a customer's perspective.
This argument has its pitfalls- but in general competition in a market is necessary for development (think how competition between Apple and Samsung has boosted the rate of development in the technology market, or BMW and Mercedes the car market).


Another feature of privatisation is that it is a a way for a government to quickly raise some cash, to reduce deficits in particular. Between 1979 and 1999, the Treasury raised over £70 billion from asset sales such as that of British Airways, British Gas and other companies that were privatised.
However, this is not such a strong proponent of the pro-privatisation argument as we'll explore in the next article (but I'll give you a hint: *cough* Royal Mail *cough*)

So efficiency is the general theme of the pro-privatisation argument. Privatisation can cut down on the poor decisions driven by political motives rather than efficiency, it can introduce competition into a market by smashing state monopolies and it can be a quick boost to a nation's coffers.

Stick around: next time we'll explore the other side of this argument, and have a look at why privatisation may be in fact quite a bad idea.

SOURCES:
http://www.baserler.com/onur/isletme/Privatization%20of%20British%20Airways-Before%20and%20After.htm

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=R1YVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=a-QDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4326,3087813&dq=staff+british+airways

https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/British_Airways.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/shares-and-stock-tips/9989430/Thatchers-legacy-how-has-privatisation-fared.html

The Uber Issue

Uber, a relatively new business seeking to revolutionise the taxi services of cities around the world, has been one of Silicon Valley's hottest new startups. Valued in June 2014 at $18.2 billion, the company has taken the world by storm, with its simple model: you can, via your smartphone, hail a taxi to your GPS destination, and get it to take you to any destination you choose on your device. You don't need cash- money is transferred via online payment, with a credit
card or PayPal, just with a press of a button.

Uber's driver hiring process is relatively simple- you need a car, a driving licence, insurance and need to pass various background checks. Uber takes commission from every ride and pays drivers the rest of their fees weekly.
What's more, passengers can rate and review drivers (and drivers can rate passengers), giving all parties involved the incentive to give good service.
It's a simple, efficient system.

However, Uber has come under increasing attack in recent times- not so much from its customers, or the public in general, but from its competitors (unsurprisingly) but most importantly the governments of various local and national authorities.

Cabbies took to the streets of London to protest against Uber

The main issue seems to be that Uber is undercutting local taxi fares- at most times offering fares lower than their standard counterparts. Also, Uber drivers are not forced to pass the same background checks and inspections as their counterparts- a separate background check is needed. Local cab services claim this is too dangerous and should be outlawed.
London has seen protest from taxi drivers against Uber in the form of 4000 cabbies causing a huge traffic jam in the centre of the city, claiming that Uber illegal due to its lack of a meter on every cab.

There has been anger across the world from drivers part of the same cause- to remove Uber from their streets.
Is this a fair point from the taxi drivers or are they simply trying to eradicate what they may see as a growing threat to their comparatively dated services?

Firstly, it's important to consider that Uber is usually cheaper than the regular taxi services. I took an Uber once from Paddington to a friend's house; normally it cost £24 by cab, but by Uber the same route at roughly the same time was £15.
The cheap fares, quick payment, the lack of a need for cash, these are all advantages that have made Uber so popular- and undoubtedly their nearing obsoletion is frustrating many traditional taxi drivers (though they may not admit it).
As for the question of Uber background checks, perhaps more needs to be done- Uber drivers have received their fair share of bad press, but so have taxi drivers. However, perhaps a unified background check system would ensure all transporters are relatively reliable (background checks don't ensure total safety).

As for meters, it's fair to say that they can prevent exorbitant fares- though perhaps regulation should allow for different systems of fare calculation and regulate those, rather than give them all a blanket ban.

My personal opinion is that the taxi drivers must accommodate innovation in their industry, and, even better, take it up themselves. As a customer of taxi services I want a low fare, I want to be free from the worry of 'do I have cash?', and I want to be able to pay quick and easily. I want a service like Uber, that is innovative and not caught up in 'tradition'- and obviously I am not alone, considering the company's popularity.

So perhaps taxi drivers should embrace change, and innovation. Uber has shown that in this case (though refinement is needed), it will be for the best of the average consumer.

SOURCES (and recommended reads)
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/breaking-news/uber-drivers-will-be-fined-sa-govt/story-fnn9c0hb-1227036403657?nk=c226658d765e4f3742a7ba82aefc4ed4

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f07810f6-293f-11e4-8b81-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3BPEs4lxZ

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-27799938

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/11/why-london-taxi-drivers-protesting-uber-tfl

What Happened To Freddos Being 10p? Deflation; Part Two

So, in the previous article we looked through the negative effects of inflation- how it can spiral, leave people impoverished, and so on- and we also looked at a positive if you like borrowing.
However, let's talk deflation- the reduction of general prices in the economy.

What causes deflation? It's exactly the opposite of inflation. Inflation is caused by an oversupply of money in the economy- deflation is caused by an undersupply of money. Whereas inflation decreases the value of money, deflation increases it, causing things to become cheaper. Sounds good, right?

There are many consequences of deflation however that can be damaging- profit loss for businesses being the root of the major ones. Dropping prices to an extent are beneficial- it can grant more people access to essentials such as heating, which, as discussed in the previous article, can save lives.

However if deflation gets out of control, falling prices will mean profits of businesses will fall- and thus most businesses will cut down on costs, leading to people being made redundant, factories and offices shutting down, work being outsourced, and so on.
Unemployment would increase, and even those fortunate enough to keep their jobs would see their pay decrease.
Unemployment can be devastating- it would lead many to default on any loans or mortgages taken out, it can cause people to lose their homes (though this is more likely in the USA than the UK).

You may be thinking, why have we heard so much more about inflation in the news than deflation? Well deflation can often be more easily controlled by governing authorities. In the USA, the Fed (the central bank) prevents deflation by flooding the market with money, thus increasing prices. The UK follows a similar protocol- we mentioned previously the idea of Quantitative Easing.

So should we be happy that the price of a Freddo has increased over the past two decades? Not really- but perhaps the fact that it didn't drastically fall in price is something we should also be well aware of.

What Happened To Freddos Being 10p? (Part One).

The humble Freddo. Once the posterchild of the consumer chocolate boom, the first word in affordable sugary snacks, one of the only things you could actually buy with a 10p coin. Almost every British child has fond memories of the little sugary frog-shaped friend.
But fewer such memories are being gifted to the youth of today. No, the Freddo has been attacked viciously in recent years.

Since the introduction of the Freddo as we know it in 1994, the price has risen from a humble 10p to a more maverick 15p, to a dangerously inconvenient 17p (who carries around exactly 17p change) to its frankly outrageous current retail price of 20p. That's a 100% increase- a double in price!
There's been an outrage over this price change- a quick glance at the numerous facebook pages on the subject would confirm this.

But why has the price increased? One might say the greed of Cadbury itself- perhaps rightly so, however considering the presumably low profit margins on such a low-priced chocolate, it would be a questionable business decision to increase the price for no reason other than hope for more profits.

The answer in fact is one that you will have heard of- it affects all of us, and not just products like the Freddo- INFLATION.

Charting the scandalous Fredd-flation.

Inflation, simply put, is the increase in price of products or services.
A decade ago, 10p in your pocket could buy you a tasty little Freddo- but today, 10p cannot buy you the Freddo. So, because of inflation, your purchasing power, the possibilities of what your money can do, has decreased. You're worse off- you have to pay more than you did before, but you're not getting a larger, tastier Freddo; it's the same thing.

But inflation is not all that bad, especially if you're of the borrowing type. Let's have a theoretical (simplified) example. Say you buy a house in a period of low inflation. You pay with a fixed interest rate mortgage you've taken out from the bank. If a period of high inflation follows, your house price will rise (theoretically, as inflation=higher money supply=more money to spend, HOWEVER often other minor factors affect house price), and while you have the option available to profit from this increase (you can sell your house and make a profit), the total amount you have to pay the bank is still the pre-inflation price.
So, by the end of the mortgage payments, if inflation is still up, you've paid less than the market value of your home. So inflation has helped you!

But of course, inflation can lead to terrible consequences. Inflation is gas and energy prices has been reported to have fatal consequences on the poorer members of society (according to the Office for National Statistics, unaffordable energy bills contributed to 24,000 deaths in the UK in the winter of 2011), and that an inflationary spiral can occur- due to higher prices in the market, usually profits of companies will increase- meaning they can hire more staff- meaning more people will have income to buy products/services- meaning prices will continue to inflate as demand rises.

Inflation can also be caused by the government. You may have heard of the programme of quantitative easing- essentially money is pumped artificially into the economy to try to stimulate spending. One of the strong arguments against QE is that pumping more money into the economy causes inflation.
To understand this, think of money as a commodity- think gold. The more abundant gold there is, the less its value- and the less abundant it is, the more the value.

Money was easy to come by in Weimar Germany.
Too easy.

Of course a balance must be struck- but QE decreases the value of money, and historically some extreme QE-style programs have led to hyperinflation (think wheelbarrows of money in 1920s Germany), where money became so abundant due to printing of cash that it became worth more in paper than actual purchasing power.

So excess inflation does not sound too appetising- but neither does its opposite, deflation.
But take a nice rest. Have a nap, a little reflection and come back on Tuesday for part two, where we'll expand on deflation and more good stuff. 

SOURCES
24,000 'died because of cold homes' last winter http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240716/24-000-died-cold-homes-winter-Fears-grow-figure-higher-year-spiralling-bills.html

investopedia.com

On digital piracy. (Part Two)

VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjm6Hv4JBYw&feature=youtu.be

In our previous article we discussed the attractive nature of digital piracy, especially with consideration to the difference in our attitude between outright shoplifting and online illegal downloads.

Now to answer the question- does digital piracy really matter?

Glancing at some of the statistics, the effects do certainly seem alarming.  We mentioned them in the previous article- how in 2011 the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry claimed 95% of the music in the world was illegally downloaded, and how 42% of software running in the world was illegal. With digital piracy continuing to spread and diversify, these statistics are likely to be even higher right now.

But let's put the statistics aside for a while, and get a real life case study of digital piracy and its effect on content producers. Who better to choose than creator of the UK's most pirated music album of 2012, Ed Sheeran. In 2012, in the UK his debut album + had sold 1.2 million copies- while there were reportedly 8 million illegal downloads of the same album. This sounds a horrific imbalance, but Sheeran himself has shrug (honestly or not, only he knows) the statistic off- he instead lauds the fact that over 9 million have his music, but more importantly he claims that it does not have too much of a negative impact on the economic aspect of his career- he cites increasing ticket sales as something to balance the money 'lost' to piracy.

And there is valid reason to this- digital piracy is very effective in spreading the talent of new artists to the music scene. Clearly, many people were not prepared to pay full price for Ed Sheeran's debut album, and perhaps rightly so (not many people knew of him at the time)- but the spreading of his album via digital piracy opened it to a huge audience. Once people heard his full songs, those who liked them would then be more willing to pay the price of a concert ticket, or buy future songs (of course, the latter would not be reflective of all fans).

This opinion is part of a view that the music industry is changing- that the function of the music album is changing from an ends itself to more of a means- a means to attract people to pay for concert tickets, to buy merchandise, etc.

One could say that Ed Sheeran is not representative of the music industry as a whole- he is indeed one of the most popular and thus wealthiest artists in the world. Digital piracy may not damage him too badly, but what about the smaller artists trying to make their big break? Won't illegal downloads damage them and make their desire to make music financially unsustainable?

Well, no doubt this has happened to artists- however a simple response to this (as well as the aforementioned potential benefits of piracy) is that few small artists have their content available online to illegally download in the first place. Whereas you can easily find an illegal download of Ed Sheeran's latest album, finding one of a new, independent artist is definitely more of a task.

You wouldn't want to cross the Expendables cast by
illegally downloading their films....

It is possible to say that digital piracy has a positive, promotional effect on the movie or games industry too. Illegal viewings of 'The Expendables 2' may have encouraged many people to shell out for a cinema ticket to watch 'The Expendables 3' if they liked it. However in most cases where there is only mild interest in a film or a game, perhaps an illegal viewing may encourage someone to wait until they can illegally download the sequel.

However the effect of digital piracy on movie industry revenues has been almost invisible. A famous study by the London School of Economics stated “Despite the Motion Picture Association of America’s (MPAA) claim that online piracy is devastating the movie industry, Hollywood achieved record-breaking global box office revenues of $35 billion in 2012, a 6% increase over 2011,”. 

This growth in the face of rising internet piracy can be attributed to numerous reasons- perhaps better (and/or more) films, people recovering economically and spending more on entertainment, growth in more expensively-ticketed 3D films. It also suggests that piracy does not have a profound effect on the industry- not as many sales are 'lost' as believed.

I put 'lost' in quotation marks because it is another question we must consider- is a sale really 'lost' every single time an illegal download occurs? Globally speaking, the answer is no in many cases. A 16 year old boy illegally streaming the latest Fast and Furious film in an internet cafe in Botswana is not a 'lost' sale- it is likely that the film would not be showing in his locale anyway, or he would have more urgent things to spend money on than a ticket even if there was a showing. 

A Chinese university student illegally downloading Command and Conquer Generals wouldn't count either- because even if he wanted to purchase it legally, the game is banned in his country. 

We must be wary that such instances are included in the global statistics that we hear- and the globalised, developing nature of the world means that countries such as China do account for a large amount of the digital piracy we hear about, and in many of these cases legal sales are not possible, and thus not 'lost'. 

So we must consider all sides and dimensions of this debate. Yes, income is sometimes damaged by digital piracy, but then again income can be boosted by the positive promotional effects of pirated content. Piracy makes media widely available to all, and can be a launching pad for a music artist to become the favourite of millions, whereas perhaps if piracy was unavailable they may not have received the widespread reach that gave them their big break. 

The effects on the movie and game industries are arguably similar but of less strength- though statistics often exaggerate the cost of 'lost' sales due to piracy, and these industries are in fact flourishing (due to various reasons).

So, that's an overview of the economic effects of digital piracy- it is a matter that is certainly not as clear as it first seems.

What do you think? Comment below with your opinions and thoughts! 

SOURCES (and recommended reads):
LSE Report http://www.scribd.com/doc/172985274/LSE-MPP-Policy-Brief-9-Copyright-and-Creation
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/digital-piracy-not-harming-entertainment-industries-study-1.1894729
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19599527

On digital piracy. (Part One)

(Photo credit to Schwadron)

In the past, pirates were known as the squashbuckling, one-legged, eyepatch-wearing Captain Jack Sparrow-type of sailors who would brave the seas in search of precious treasures (or 'booty', as it was known). They were the outlaws of the sea, the mavericks who were both celebrated and deplored by many in their time.

However now, the digital age has brought along its own (rather less exciting) type of 'pirate'.
The treasure for today's pirates is no longer a chest of fine precious jewels, but instead perhaps an entire series of 'Game of Thrones', Ed Sheeran's latest album or the Football Manager video game- all of which are accessible easily via 'torrents', files that direct your computer to download larger ones, be it an MP3 album, a film, or anything.

Whereas to purchase Football Manager 14 from a shop, I'd have to locate the item and travel to my nearest game stores (leaving the house, oh!) to lump out 35 of my pounds, via torrenting I can get this for free, completely. All without leaving my house, right on my computer, not a pound lost from my pocket.

That's largely where the appeal of digital piracy lies- you can get something of value that you desire for free. And in the day of almost all media (even books) now being on digital platforms, you can get quite a lot.

To many, this practice raises serious moral issues, and perhaps rightly so. Is there really a difference between torrenting Fast and Furious 6 and simply walking into my nearest HMV, grabbing a copy of it from the shelves and walking out without paying? On the surface, there is little difference- in both cases you have obtained something of value that was not given willingly to you for free by the creator(s).

However, many people fail to take into account such a link, the reason why digital piracy is far more widespread than shoplifting- and it's unsurprising why many of us do not see digital piracy, perhaps irrationally, as a direct equivalent to shop theft.

The internet has hugely affected our behaviour- most notably due to the fact that it provides a proxy between communicators, it provides an environment in which relationships are usually more detached, separated by a screen.
This separation is clear in how confidence is gained by many internet users who, in the real world, have very little- cyberbullies, 'trollsters' and whatnot are largely of this type.

The lack of interpersonal communication during the process of torrenting makes it a much more appealing prospect than outright shop theft; when on the internet alone, you feel there is no one watching you (something in fact untrue), so there's no one that provides a reaction to your torrenting, there's no one to catch or stop you. This is an environment that is far more conducive to theft.

This nature is shown in the statistics- as of 2011, 42% of software running in the world was pirated, 95% of music downloaded online was pirated, and two-thirds of all torrents were illegal. Three years on, illegal downloads have continued to grow in popularity. It's clear- the world is full of digital piracy.

At the end of the day, digital piracy is the same as theft from a store. We have all been guilty of it, but perhaps we need to change our attitudes towards it; we wouldn't steal directly from a shop, so why should we steal online?

But actually, on the other hand, does digital piracy actually matter? Does your downloading of a piece of media really have any negative impact on the multi-millionaire producers of the things we download?

We'll be exploring that in the next article. Stick around.


SOURCE(S):

Online Piracy in Numbers – Facts and Statistics [Infographic] www.go-gulf.com/blog/online-piracy/ (2011)

German Cars: What Makes Them Special?

If you were to ask someone on the street what car they would like to own, without doubt among the most popular brand selections would be BMW, Mercedes or Audi.

These three German manufacturers have taken the global car market by storm in recent decades, and are now the epitome of the well-built, high quality yet mass-marketable luxury car.

VIDEO: http://bit.ly/XHupq2

Of course all their cars are not necessarily of the best quality on the market- the likes of Aston Martin and Ferrari to name just two produce cars closest to perfection- however the crucial aspect to why BMW, Mercedes and Audi are more successful and relevant to this discussion is because they are open to the mass-market. The average middle-class family cannot afford a four-door £150,000 Aston Martin Rapide; though a £23,000 BMW 3-Series is within the reach of many, an achievement highlighted best by how it has consistently maintained a spot in the ten top-selling cars in Britain since 2004. 

The success of the German car industry can especially be noted when compared to that of Britain's. In 2011, Germany produced 5.9 million cars, the highest number in Europe- Britain a paltry 1.3 million- many of these not for British brands but for foreign ones such as Nissan and Honda. 
And the domination of the Germans extends much further- two typical 'British' car makers, Bentley and Mini, are in fact far from British; Bentley is owned by Volkswagen, Mini by BMW. 
There are in fact no longer ANY mass-market 'purely British' brands- Jaguar, Vauxhall, Land Rover, even Aston Martin, are all foreign-owned. 

Germany's success in the car industry must also be put into perspective- consider that less than a century ago the nation was facing huge economic turmoil, the sort that provides textbook examples of hyper-inflation: the wheelbarrows of cash, the 200 million mark loaves of bread, the extremely volatile prices, the lot. 
Post-war reparations had put Germany in a terrible state in the early 20th century- but looking at Germany now, with such economic might that makes it the most influential state in the EU, it is clear that the German system has produced fantastic results.

There are numerous reasons for the Germans' successful car market, but one key reason is the industrial mindset, the 'manufacturing culture' that is fostered by the Bavarians. 

Britain's manufacturing industry has had a rough last 30 years- in this period shrinking by two-thirds. Margaret Thatcher's time as PM during the 1980s to many killed the secondary industry in Britain. I'm sure you've seen the images of striking factory workers, unhappy at Thatcher's crushing of worker unions and the closures of numerous car factories throughout the nation. 

Meanwhile, Germany has only been growing since the Second World War- whereas British car factories became a battleground for a class war between management and labourers, German factories were tight-knit, harmonious and therefore far more efficient. 

The closer relationship between workers and management is part of Germany's attention to what is known as the 'social market economy'- a type of capitalism that does not co-ordinate market activity itself, but at the same time provides support for society- be it in the form of universal healthcare, unemployment insurance and, most relevant in this discussion, trade unions. German workers enjoy among the highest secondary sector wages in the world, and are provided good working conditions. In contrast to the system in the USA for example, where entry-level factory wages were halved from $28 to $14 an hour, the Germans' higher investment in the workers pays off, creating a more co-operative and committed environment, where workers develop loyalty to their company, an idea almost lost in the US labour economy. 
German workers are in fact the most loyal in Europe- the job market is far more stable, meaning companies can afford to invest more in long-term training, and crucially it means workers on the production line are experienced and efficient in their job.

Output is also helped by the power given to the workers on the German production line. Almost all German factories will have members of the regular workforce on the executive committee of the factory- as a result the workers are given a voice in the running of the factory, and have the power to suggest changes that may improve efficiency. 
To those who may believe this system can be abused to benefit the workers at the cost of the company, this is where the German system really makes a difference. Loyal German workers who are decently paid already are more likely to not abuse their power to push such agendas.
This system making workers a part of the running of their factories increases the workers' morale, making them feel more empowered as part of a democratic operation.

The education system is arguably the biggest factor in German industrial success. Whereas in Britain all youths are pushed through the same educational system until the age of 16, after which they are offered either further education or half-heartedly the option of vocational education- such as BTEC, or Apprenticeships.
These being relatively young programs, they are not well-established and are avoided by many students, partly as they are seen as for those intellectually inferior to the further educationers (certainly not always the case).

Meanwhile Germany offers more choice to specialise at an earlier point. After the age of 10 (or 12 in some areas) student can study at the Gymnasium to pursue higher education such as university, or can opt for the Realschule or Hauptschule, schools that will provide education in core subjects such as Maths but have a heavier focus on vocational education and practical work experience.

These extra years provides a head-start for German workers and has created skilled, respected workers, ready-made to enter the world of manufacturing at the age of 18. German factories have had no shortage of skilled workers- and as a result the production lines are efficient and smoother than most others in the world.

Germany have certainly set the benchmark for efficiency in the manufacturing industry. It must be noted that Japan are similarly capable in car production. 
Worker empowerment, the social market economy and an established, effective specialist education system have propelled Germany to the top of the global car industry- and while other countries may not be able to fully translate German practices into their own car industries, it is certain that they can learn lessons from it.

SOURCES (And recommended reads): 

How German cars beat British motors - and kept going bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23406467 (BBC, 2013)

Mercedes Benz, BMW and Audi Seen as Top Three Car Manufacturers in Terms of Overall Brand Quality By Europeans, According to New Harris Interactive Survey prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/mercedes-benz-bmw-and-audi-seen-as-top-three-car-manufacturers-in-terms-of-overall-brand-quality-by-europeans-according-to-new-harris-interactive-survey-155096425.html 

Why doesn't Britain make things any more? www.theguardian.com/business/2011/nov/16/why-britain-doesnt-make-things-manufacturing (The Guardian, 2011)

Manufacturing lessons from Germany

www.tradegood.com/en/insights/viewpoints/market-features/manufacturing-lessons-from-germany.html

German Lessons: DEVELOPING INDUSTRIAL POLICY IN THE UK www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/tucfiles/germanlessonsedit.pdf

US carmakers cut pay as Australia's hourly rates soared www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/us-carmakers-cut-pay-as-australias-hourly-rates-soared/story-fn59niix-1226779288772?nk=7680174eef8fa1a758fb359ff5cd292a (The Australian, 2013)

Consumer confidence drives record year www.smmt.co.uk/2004/01/consumer-confidence-drives-record-year/ (SMMT, 2004)

German workers 'most loyal in Europe' www.thelocal.de/20121014/45553 (The Local, 2012)

German School System www.howtogermany.com/pages/germanschools.html

Why Do We Buy Designer Clothes?

VIDEO: http://bit.ly/XHuw51

I was in a Ralph Lauren store just yesterday- being the unenthusiastic spender that I am I had been attracted by the large sign in the window that boasted of 'Generous Savings'.

A thousand pounds for a jumper, anyone?

I went in, walked straight to the sale rack and I saw these 'Generous Savings'- a white V-neck sweater was the first to catch my eye. Knowing Ralph Lauren is something of a 'prestigious' brand, I expected it to be overpriced- perhaps £100, on sale at half price to £50?

But no. I was wrong. Very wrong indeed.

The fuzzy Christmas-style sweater was £995.
And the 'Generous Saving'?
£300 off- the sweater, on sale, with roughly 30% off, was £695.
SIX HUNDRED AND NINETY FIVE POUNDS.

Or how about this £46 equivalent?

Other than making me leave the shop immediately in fearful haste, this small event made me think about what we know today as 'designer clothes'.
No doubt, this jumper I saw at Ralph Lauren was not the only one of its kind- I returned home to find a very similar jumper for £46 at Debenhams; still an exorbitant price for a jumper in my opinion, but far less than the RL equivalent.
So what is it that we are paying for if we are to buy this £995 jumper?
Ralph Lauren refused to give exact figures of the cost to make it, but we do know it's handmade, by 'Pure Cashmere Yarn'- which, according to my father (who made these when he was young) would cost a maximum of £30 (considering today's £15 per 50g price of the material) plus labour costs.
Now, unless labour and other costs (eg. transport) for each jumper were over a couple of hundred pounds, it's fair to say the profit margins on every jumper sold would be huge for RL. It wouldn't take an economist to determine that.
Yet people still buy designer clothes. Someone must have bought the jumper; the product department at RL aren't misinformed enough to invest in a product no one would buy.

So why? Why would people buy the Ralph Lauren jumper rather than the Debenhams one?
In the interest of not writing a book of reasons, I tried narrowed this down to three; it was difficult, and I haven't included many, but I think I've done it well enough.

REASON 1- SHEEP MENTALITY
You'll know this if you lived during the craze of Superdry Windcheater jackets (I admit to being guilty myself in this case). This mentality was what enabled David Beckham, in a single magazine photoshoot, to help the Cheltenham fashion brand to grow from a single shop to what is now a global icon in pop fashion, making sales of almost £400m last year.
Essentially, once more people begin to wear designer clothes of a sort, people feel pressured (often unwittingly) to wear the same- to 'fit in', to 'look cool'. Social pressure, exacerbated by the celebrity lifestyle forced into our faces via the media, creates this sheep mentality, of obsessively following trends. Remember crocs? They were once considered cool.

REASON 2- QUALITY
It's a thought perhaps the biggest of cynics (cough cough, my uncle) cannot really deal with, but it is often the case. You'll expect a £165 Barbour fleece Jacket to be made of better materials than a £15 Primark equivalent- and thus the Alcantara-lined Barbour Jacket does cost more. Many people care about the quality- and more often than not designer, expensive brands offer better quality, usually through better, more expensive materials and/or better production procedures, that would make them more comfortable/last longer.
However I think it's safe to say there are exceptions- the aforementioned RL jumper an example of this.

REASON 3- SOCIAL STATUS
This is probably the main objective for the fortunate buyer of the RL jumper- it links well to reason 1 as well. The little logo of a horse, or a seagull, or whatever logo for some people is the main reason for their purchase- because it sends a message to people who see it: that the wearer is wealthy enough to buy expensive designer clothing. That they are fashionable, 'trendy'. It would be overly cynical to state this is the objective of all wearers of designer clothes, as it isn't, but it does explain some of the more ridiculous designer purchases- such as the RL jumper, or these nine-grand Louis Vuitton binoculars (pictured right) that perform the same function no better than a regular £20 pair.

One could argue that designer clothes are unnecessarily expensive- and in many cases they'd be right. For £4 north of £995 I could buy a MacBook Air- which would certainly be of better quality and perform everyday tasks quicker than a £30 laptop (if one exists), saving me time- while the £995 RL jumper would not hold such an advantage (in terms of practical value) over a £30 jumper.

While the quality must be taken into account also, it's worrying in my opinion that a growing focus on outward appearance is increasingly taking its toll on the largely cash-strapped wallets of the Western world. The impact of social pressure, this 'sheep mentality' cannot be underestimated.

So think, next time you're at the Armani, Superdry or dare I say even the Ralph Lauren store. Question your motives; and you potentially could save yourself (or your parents) a few bob.

Thanks for reading. This is probably the longest I've ever taken to discuss largely a single jumper.