Tablet Fever

Sorry Steve Jobs, but the iPad just isn't "revolutionary". At all.

I mean, come on. It's an iTouch for old people who have trouble reading small text. That's it. Nothing new. Nothing special. Yet, the tech marketplace is flooded with tablets from companies including Apple, Dell, Samsung, Blackberry, and ACER. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but this is exactly what I was talking about in my last post about corporations divying out a monopoly. Apple is arguably the McDonalds of the technology sector, as they lead the pack with new innovations. They subsequently get the business of the largest market share for said product. The iPad was first, then came the Blackberry Playbook, and then the Galaxy Tab, etc. The whole tablet idea is -- at least to me -- a stupid one. But sure enough, people buy 'em. And if consumers are consuming, then the companies will inevitably milk this temporary market trend for profit.

Let's think about it from Samsung's perspective. OK -- so Apple has a firm grip on the tablet market, and it doesn't look like they're going to budge. Samsung has a couple of options: 1) Try and compete with and out-sell Apple in the tablet market (and risk having to actually out-innovate Apple with subsequent product releases), or 2) Feign competition between Samsung and Apple and accept the #2 or #3 spot in the tablet market by merely "following" Apple's design and adding no real new alterations, thus augmenting the inevitable obselescence of the product, and thus giving all corporations involved more time to "milk" the market for $$$ by slowing the innovative process. Tablets are a dumb innovation and Samsung knows it, but they can make their own model and advertise it in an attempt to curb at least SOME of the profit from the superfluous consumer tablet industry.

It's capitalism, I suppose...but it sure ain't competition…

What's YOUR take on tablets?

A Monopoly Divided

We can all thank Theodore Roosevelt for the anti-trust laws that protect the American consumer against monopolistic and anti-competitive business practices. But do corporations ever form duopolies or triopolies and simply accept their staggered profit margins? Perhaps...

As I observe the apathy and lack of willingness of other fast food restaurants to try and compete with McDonalds, I can't help but wonder whether if large-scale corporations ever "call a huddle" and sit down to decide industy-leader positions. I mean, do the high-ups of McDonalds invite the executives of Burger King, Taco Bell, and Wendys to get together on some sort of corporate conference call and just say, "Hey, look guys...let's let McDonalds be number one. In return, they'll deal with media and Hollywood barrages on the Fast Food industry, smiling and waving with their overpaid lawyers." After a billionaire-baronesque puff from the cigar, the McDonalds executive representative would continue, "and as for Burger King and Wendys...you two can dish it out for second. Taco Bell, since the burger market is occupied by 3 of us, we can't risk letting you compete with us, so no breakfast menu. Ok?".

What do YOU think? Are corporations this sneaky? Would you put it past them?

The Burden of Responsibility

According to AdvertisingAge, the leading advertising based online syndicate, the Obama administration is attempting to clamp down on advertisements for unhealthy foods aimed at teenaged demographics. This delicate issue is one all to often revisited. But, who is to blame?

Free speech allows the corporations to express themselves (and their products) and furthermore to attempt to persuade susceptible children. Parents and guardians, as often contended, should bear the responsibility for keeping their kids healthy from sugary, fatty foods. And lastly, the actual kids. They're the innocent ones, right? Although they are the target of the advertisers, are they really responsible for looking out for their own wellbeing? They can't vote, they can't drink, and they are still legal minors. So then, who's looking out for who?

It's a free country, says the junk-food advertisers. Freedom is, after all, based on the principles of self-determination in all aspects of civilization. If one wishes to become fat (or obese), then eat to one's heart's content! The advertisers don't force kids to eat their unhealthy foods, they merely try to persuade and convey information. But, in the end, the advertisers working for the Big Sugar corporations are the ones with the lobbyists. When it comes down to it, big business gets what big business wants.

What do YOU think -- whose responsibility is it to protect children from unhealthy-food advertising?

The Fast Food Hierarchy

Is it just me, or is McDonalds the king of the fast food industry? The restaurant originally created in the 1950's is now the industry leader in fast-food sales, both domestic and abroad. Why is this? What makes McDonalds the best of the worst (food, that is)?

As an executive said on a special investigative report on McDonalds on CNBC, "Nothing turns off a customer more than a dirty bathroom". It's true. And their pledge to cleanliness is true. Every McDonalds I've ever been too -- and mind you, I've visited the Golden Arches in Belgium and London, among other places -- has remarkably clean, tidy restrooms. They also have a new machine that counts change, thus minimizing the time spent by clerks and cashiers counting change. Their cleanliness and efficiency is obviously leading the industry, but what else do they have in the capitalist repertoire?

Well, they add new items to their menu every-so-often, keeping customers' minds and appetites piqued. The Snack-Wraps were introduced last year and have since become a smash-hit for McD's value-based consumers like myself. The McRib has been on-and-off the menu as some sort of a visiting menu item like that of a visiting university professor! And lastly, their advertising is phenomenal. I may not be the biggest fan of the golden arch's actual food, but I am an idol of their ads. Their marketing techniques are nearly flawless. Take, for example, their summer campaign for their new "Real Fruit Smoothies". Their ads are all over Hulu, bound to catch the eyes and tongues of teenage viewers who might opt to visit McD's for a refreshing new beverage. And honestly, who goes to a fast-food joint just for a drink? Most of those who buy into McD's new summer drink campaigns will end up buying a burger or two -- probably with some friends. So what was originally a $2 smoothie is now $15 in revenue from food, fries, and drink for the McDonalds corporation. It is psychology behind advertising like that of McDonalds that renews and strengthens my vigor and resolve to join the advertising industry after college.

Tell me what YOU think about McDonalds restaurants in general compared to those of their fast-food counterparts (BK, Taco Bell, Wendys, etc.)