Review culture improves businesses for the benefit of customers

Posted on 06/22/201607/05/2016 by Ben Debski

The internet, in all its glory, has given the individual a world stage. Any person, no matter who or where they are, can have their voice heard from Tivat to Timbuktu with the simple press of a button. Naturally, the revolution in information sharing has led to another within consumer culture: the now-indispensable online review. This particular consequence of the digital age has added a whole new dimension to the dynamic between customers and businesses.

For the first time in history, companies are at the mercy of immortalised feedback that is available for the whole world to see. Many organisations have embraced this evolution with gusto; some use it as an all-important key in their shared economy offerings, while others have even created entire businesses off the back of it. Of course, there are those that miss the whole point of reviews altogether and a small minority that resort to falsification or penalisation – being in its early stages, review culture is a phenomenon not without its flaws.

The customer is always right
Almost all business leaders subscribe to the philosophy of customer-centricity. For centuries, word of mouth played the dominant role in this paradigm, but the internet has set an entirely different stage for it. “The review culture, fronted by the likes of TripAdvisor and integrated into most of the big e-commerce sites, such as Amazon and eBay, continues to give consumers a louder voice”, observed Patricia Hyde, Field Marketing Manager at Zendesk. “Review culture allows the consumer a safety net and reassurance that the product they’re buying is of good quality. If consumers are dissatisfied, they have the fall-back of complaining about the brand and, at the very least, denting the image the brand has with other potential consumers, if they’re unable to obtain a refund or replacement.”

It has become commonplace for an array of customer reviews to appear instantaneously for almost anything – from the calzone made by a local Italian restaurant to the latest iPhone by Apple, or even the manners of a shop assistant at Walmart. “Reviews are increasingly becoming an integral part of the customer journey. The latest figures from the BrightLocal Consumer Report state that 92 percent of buyers are making decisions based on the reviews they read online”, said Andrew Mabbutt, CEO of global ratings and reviews provider Feefo. “It all comes down to trust.”

As such, when seeking holiday accommodation, individuals can now base their choices on the commentary provided by those who have been there and done that. Reviews can help a consumer to finalise their decision on a kitchen appliance based not on the product’s merits as claimed by the manufacturer, but on those given by their peers. This multinational and incessant dialogue has taken so much out of the guesswork previously required in making a purchase that consumers now feel more confident than ever before.

It has become commonplace for an array of customer reviews to appear instantaneously for almost anything – from the calzone made by a local Italian restaurant to the latest iPhone by Apple

Social media further facilitates the ongoing communication between consumers and businesses. “Social media is an accelerator as well as a platform in its own right. Indeed, many consumers are using social media as a first port of call to engage with customer service teams”, observed Hyde. While platforms such as Twitter and Facebook have helped to prompt this transformation, Hyde argued that more is at play: “It’s really just part of a zeitgeist – a wider cultural shift to empower consumers to give feedback and opinion on brands and their products.”

All publicity is good publicity
Within seconds, a bad review can pass through the hands of thousands, even millions of potential customers, damning the company that offered a lousy product or service. Likewise, an excellent review can help to elevate a company to incredible heights, which, predictably, has inspired some to falsify feedback in order to get ahead.

“A positive online rating can be key to boosting traffic to a business, with one caveat: the rating must be verified as genuine”, Mabbutt explained. “Google uses purchase-verified reviews, supplied by trusted review platforms, to generate their seller ratings. These display as stars in organic search listings and AdWords campaigns. Their studies suggest that this can increase the click-through rate to websites by as much as 17 percent, and lower the cost of pay-per-click campaigns. Online ratings are the digital word of mouth: BrightLocal’s most recent survey found that 88 percent of consumers trust online ratings as much as personal recommendations, with 72 percent saying that a good online rating would make them trust a business more.”

Somewhat surprisingly, negative reviews have a positive role to play as well. According to the National Association of Retail Marketing (NARM), foul play is suspected by around 30 percent of online consumers if there are only positive reviews available. Moreover, consumers are likely to spend more time on a website if there are criticisms to read. NARM also found that 95 percent of customers will return to a website if an issue has been resolved quickly.

“Customer feedback is a wealth of information that can be turned into actionable insights. Businesses should look to utilise a review platform with analytic and reporting facilities, allowing them to be alerted to any feedback, respond immediately and publicly, and map trends in what their customers are saying”, explained Mabbutt.

Tight gap
Amid this trend, review platforms have an increasingly important role to play by bridging the gap between customers and businesses in an objective space. Sites such as TripAdvisor catalogue, categorise and organise reviews, making it far easier and quicker for consumers to scour through the opinions of those both near and far in order to make a well-informed choice. And, perhaps even more importantly, they enhance reliability considerably because their own reputation and business is on the line.

Consequently, review platforms have become an integral part of consumerism, but they also provide invaluable information for companies. “Most platforms, including Feefo, give businesses the opportunity to respond to their customers’ feedback and use the platform as a brand reputation tool”, Mabbutt said. “Review platforms provide the opportunity for businesses to hear the voice of the customer: valuable data that can be converted into increased traffic, sales and business insights.”

At present, there are some companies that take advantage of this relatively novel cultural phenomenon, either through the falsification of reviews or the chastisement of those that dare speak ill of a product or service. While they threaten the system and the foundation of trust it rests upon, it is only a matter of time before such creases are ironed out through intelligent algorithms and non-disparagement legislation. When that happens, review culture will become practically infallible, allowing advice, support and protection for the consumer, while necessitating superior practices from corporations as well.

Modular devices will revolutionise the electronics industry

Posted on 06/22/201607/05/2016 by Ben Debski

Very rarely do companies offer up a truly unique device. Your new fitness band might seem new, but the parts inside it are probably the same as those already in your bike computer, tablet computer and the old pedometer you forgot you had. You already have all the parts to make your own activity monitor, but lack the means. With modular technology close to becoming practical, however, repurposing old gadgets might soon be a feasible alternative to buying something new.

“At Nascent we really like to think about things through data, and one of the things we did when we first started the company [was] we purchased close to 600 products”, said Baback Elmieh, founder and CEO of Nascent Objects.

Assuming a modular system is well designed, refreshed only occasionally, and well supported by its makers, its existence only benefits consumers

Elmieh has a background in consumer electronics and design. He previously worked at Google, and Nascent is his fourth start-up. The company has developed a modular system, which was recently funded on Indiegogo. Instead of selling a range of gadgets, Nascent sells individual packaged components that plug into 3D-printed designs.

Elmieh said that, after tearing apart almost 600 gadgets, his team came to a conclusion both surprising and obvious. “When we looked at these products, we found that 15 components will build 80 percent of what we tore down. And that kind of intuitively makes sense. A GoPro and a security camera are almost identical products in terms of what goes into making them function – the difference is really the chassis, the thing that holds it in place.”

Shape is king
When it comes to consumer electronics, Elmieh said “shape is king”. Very few electronics companies produce unique devices, instead repackaging relatively standard parts into different designs. On your kitchen bench at home you probably have a kettle sitting next to a toaster. Both technically do the same thing (convert electrical current into heat) but their designs apply the heat in different ways. They’re not interchangeable, but if the same company made both they probably share a large number of parts.

“When we found this, we were kind of a little bit taken aback”, said Elmieh. “We came at this multiple times; no matter what we did we found that it’s really true: all these products are built from the same components. There isn’t a platform that can build all of these things; they’re all built independently. But, if there was a platform, they really would be the same product, but different permutations on the same product.”

Following this, Elmieh developed the building blocks of Nascent’s system: the packaged individual components that make up the electronics of the company’s products. The first wave of modules includes a speaker, a camera and a microphone, but more are planned for the future, including screens, a GPS and a motor.

The real benefit of Nascent’s system doesn’t come from the elements you use, but those you don’t. Rather than buy an expensive device capable of a single job, products can be repurposed. Elmieh said he was amazed at the number of different devices that capture 1080p video.

“After I did this, I was always like: ‘Oh wait, when was the last time I took my GoPro out of my closet?’ I take it out during my vacations. I went skiing two years ago and that was the last time I think I used it. That’s the thing: it’s just sitting there and it’s got the equivalent of a smartphone’s processing power inside of it. These are not little products. You could take the processor out of the GoPro and stick it in a drone, and it could pilot a drone. But you can’t do that, right? It’s almost nonsensical, but that’s what we build.”

In fact, Nascent is currently working on a drone that will use the parts from its other devices. The first complete products you can buy are a Wi-Fi speaker, a security camera and a water usage monitor called Droppler. Changing modules looks no more complicated than swapping out a battery. All use the same main unit (a microcomputer acting as the device’s brain), but lever the modules to do different tasks. While the Wi-Fi speaker and security camera are pretty standard fare, Elmieh said Droppler is a device that probably couldn’t exist without modular design.

Niche markets
California is currently experiencing one of its most severe droughts on record. A state of emergency has been declared and water conservation rules are in effect. Droppler is designed to help by listening to running water in your house, calculating the amount used, and displaying a slowly decreasing bar of light as you use your daily ration. The idea is, if you have this information constantly to hand, you are more likely to alter your habits to save water. If you think it sounds like something with a small target market and limited lifespan, Elmieh agrees.

“When we took that product idea out and we were showing hardware companies, they were like: ‘Well, it’s a really niche product, it’s really about California and we don’t think about products that way. You really need an addressable market of tens of millions of people across the world for this thing to actually make sense, and you’re talking about maybe a couple of hundred thousand users in California in your first year, or a little bit more than that? We would never build that product.’”

Elmieh understands that, when California recovers from drought, Droppler will become another piece of e-waste. But, because it’s modular, its parts can be easily repurposed for something else.

“I can totally understand why a regular hardware company wouldn’t do that, because once you tool that thing up and you put this whole supply chain up in China and the rest of the world, what are you going to do with it if it doesn’t sell tens of millions of units? You’re stuck with that whole system. With our system, I don’t care. I think I’m very happy that I can do something for California, I do think that I’m going to sell a significant number of units, it’s just not significant enough for regular hardware.”

In order to produce a gadget at a cost consumers are happy to pay, it currently needs to be made at a certain volume. Elmieh hopes modular systems will allow more niche products with smaller user bases to become viable. Because you already own the guts of a device, you only need to buy the relatively cheap plastic housing. Nascent asked $119 for Droppler on Indiegogo, which is steep considering its limited function, but becomes far more reasonable when you consider the package came with the parts for a speaker and security camera as well.

“Imagine that every movie you ever saw would have to be a Marvel Comics blockbuster. It would be terrible, right? I would hate that world, but [in terms of consumer electronics] that’s what we live in”, said Elmieh.

Nascent’s design software is perhaps even cleverer than its products: 3D designs can be dropped in and modules can be added. The program finds the most efficient wiring layout, drafts an app, and the finished device is then 3D-printed. Elmieh said this gives people who design consumer electronics the same flexibility that software designers enjoy.

“With software you can build whatever you want, right? No one is getting in the way of you and your dream and your ideas, and trying to tell you ‘oh, it can’t be built that way’. A lot of the designers we work with tell us: ‘Oh, one of the things I really like about this is that there isn’t as much between me and my inspiration as I’m usually asked to have for building a hardware product.’ It’s a democratisation as well as ease of use.” Without having to worry about the individual parts of an object, designing a gadget seems to be in reach of almost anyone.

Beyond gadgets
The race is well and truly on to get modular products into consumer’s hands. The Blocks smartwatch, successfully funded on Kickstarter, features different modules in the individual links of its band. Danish headphone maker AIAIAI lets users build their own headphones from modular parts, allowing a personalised sound profile and components to be easily replaced. Personal computers are already good examples of modular systems, but the Acer Revo Build is designed to make it even easier: components stack like coasters on top of one another, and can be added and removed on the fly.

Smartphones have always been different, though. With their slim design necessitating custom-built parts, swapping components is not easy. Still, the race is on to popularise the modular smartphone.

First off the block is Fairphone, a handset manufacturer based in Amsterdam that has launched the world’s first modular phone. Fairphone’s products are designed to have a long lifespan and are made from ethically sourced parts. Individual components can be swapped in and out as they become obsolete or broken.

Daria Koreniushkina is in charge of public engagement at Fairphone and said the design of the new Fairphone 2 focuses on reparability, but its modular design allows for interesting upgrade opportunities. “We’re going to publish documentation for this expansion port, so basically anyone who has the skills could experiment and make their own back covers to connect to the expansion port. We’re looking into releasing modules with additional functionality ourselves, but also others could contribute.”

Fairphone is facing stiff competition as the biggest players in the mobile phone industry test the modularity waters. Google has been flirting with a modular smartphone for years now: prototypes of the elegant-looking Project Ara smartphone show a single metal slab with detachable components. It was initially pegged for a trial release in 2015, but has been postponed. LG’s recently announced G5 handset includes modules that can be plugged into the base of the phone, including a camera grip and a mini amplifier, but the door is open for third-party manufacturers to design their own modules too.

Disrupting the supply line
Elmieh said he could see two reasons modular technology hasn’t taken off sooner: the first is 3D printing technology has only recently become capable of producing the parts needed, the second is Silicon Valley is just too dependant on people replacing their devices every couple of years.

“Sometimes, when you’ve been doing something for 60 to 80 years in a row, you get these meta-stable systems across the entire industries: supply chain, retail, distribution, marketing, engineering. They’ve all co-evolved and it’s ridiculously stable. It’s extremely disruptive to go in there and say: ‘Guess what? What we should do is let people decide what they want their products to be whenever they want them to become something else.’”

A common criticism Elmieh received was that consumers wouldn’t want to bother with the complexity of a modular system. It’s true they have come to expect products that will work right out of the box, but the amount of assembly required for Nascent’s gadgets is minimal. IKEA furniture often shares parts between products and having to assemble your own couch has never dented its popularity.

Modularity is also in line with the current trend towards more personalised products and experiences. It’s already happened online, with digital storefronts and streaming services adapting themselves to the user’s preferences and tastes. It seems inevitable consumer electronics will go in this direction, and the prospect of being able to redesign your products as you need them is the most compelling argument yet for investing in a 3D printer at home.

It might be sooner than you think, with GoPro’s current predicament being a prime example. The maker of rugged little cameras has announced layoffs and a stripped back product lineup after slumping sales. In spite of the high quality of the video output, it seems consumers have decided that durability alone is not enough to justify the premium over other, cheaper cameras with similar video quality.

Elmieh said he sees modular technology gradually becoming more commonplace. “I feel like it’s going to be a small niche at the beginning, and it’s going to slowly grow out and we’re going to see the benefits of modularity, and I kind of feel like 10 years down the road you might actually open up your kitchen drawer, and you’ll see, just like you have batteries, a bunch of different modules in there.

“If you can bring the barrier down low enough so people are willing to do it, it’ll take off. I think it’s going to be better for us all around the world. I think we’re going to get better stuff, and we’re going to feel less guilty about having all that stuff in our lives.”

Assuming a modular system is well designed, refreshed only occasionally, and well supported by its makers, its existence only benefits consumers. As more consumers are burnt by expensive devices they only use a couple of times, modular systems will only seem more appealing. If electronics can be designed with even half the flexibility software designers have, the result will be products we didn’t even know we wanted. Our cupboards might not be filled with GoPros, but they may soon be filled with empty shells awaiting our next skiing adventure.

Discovery of quantum spin liquid puts physics in a spin

Posted on 06/21/201607/05/2016 by Ben Debski

April was an exciting month for physics, and for quantum physics in particular. Along with the three states of matter that we all know and interact with constantly – liquid, gas and solid – we now have another to explore: quantum spin liquid (QSL). The breakthrough, which was first revealed in the journal Nature Materials, signifies a very important step in the field, one that could potentially hold the key to a new world in the not-too-distant future.

The discovery of QSL has been years in the making; it was first proposed by physicist Philip Anderson over 40 years ago and was then developed further by theoretical physicist Alexei Kitaev in 2006, when he found an ingenious way of making the theory work in practice. In the subsequent decade, an impressive array of talents and skills were required to make the next steps. “Overcoming the challenges in this experiment involved putting together a team of people with complementary skills: chemistry, experimental physics, and theoretical physics”, said Dr Arnab Banerjee, a physicist at the US Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Spinning around
In order to understand what quantum spin liquid is, it is necessary to have an understanding of materials and, specifically, magnetic materials. All materials are comprised of atoms, and their movement determines the material’s state. In liquids, atoms are free to move around, but do so together in patterns. In gases, they move around without correlation. In solids, atoms may shake but do not move around, and have greater correlation. The factor that determines the state of matter is, of course, temperature. However, there is also another factor – the quantum concept of ‘zero-point motion’, which refers to the incessant motion of atoms, regardless of temperature.

The atoms of magnetic materials differ in that they act like tiny magnets, a phenomenon that occurs as a result of their ‘spins’. “Magnetic materials can be described theoretically by a lattice of electron spins. These spins can be thought of as elementary bar magnets”, said Dr Johannes Knolle, one of the QSL paper’s co-authors at Cambridge University’s Cavendish Laboratory. When temperatures are lowered, motion comes to a stop and spins are arranged in regular patterns. Interestingly, “in quantum spin liquids, spins remain disordered down to very low temperatures”, Knolle said. “In these states, exotic properties are expected to emerge: although the spins do not form a pattern, there is a quantum entanglement between spins.”

The discovery of QSL has been years in the making; it was first proposed by physicist Philip Anderson over 40 years ago

Banerjee elaborated further: “Under special circumstances in a material, the tiny spins interact with each other pretty strongly but, paradoxically, even at absolute zero temperature they cannot decide how to align. This indecisiveness is called ‘quantum frustration’. The disorder is further enhanced in small spins by their zero-point motion. We call this state a ‘quantum spin liquid’. Here, the spins are random, but they still interact strongly enough to move together to create waves and excitations.”

Critical breakthrough
“First we had to identify a material where there was a good reason to believe that a QSL might be present, and then we had the difficult job of purifying this material and getting a correct sample”, Banerjee said. Once alpha-ruthenium trichloride was chosen as the magnetic material to investigate, ensuring the sample’s integrity became the next big challenge, with the stoichiometry alone taking over a year to complete.

When the sample was ready, the team used neutrons to impart a small amount of energy into the spins that, when hit, were excited. “The neutrons, on the other hand, lose the energy and momentum which they have given to the spins. We can detect these exiting neutrons and figure out how much energy and momentum they have lost, and this is how we can tell what the spins are actually doing”, said Banerjee.

This method of ‘neutron scattering’ enables scientists to measure a signal for the aforementioned excitations, which they call a ‘response function’. The response function measured during the experiment did not correspond to what is found in ordinary materials, which are either ferromagnetic, meaning the spin orientation is in one direction only, or antiferromagnetic, where the spin is disordered. Instead, the response function was similar to what was calculated for the state predicted more than 10 years ago by Kitaev – the Kitaev QSL.

Implication station
“What is remarkable is that the energy band we saw is very unique – arising from fractionalised quasiparticles called Majorana fermions. Fractionalisation is the tendency of quantum systems to behave differently to the sum of their parts. It is the queer property that makes fundamental particles like electrons, which are naively indivisible, seem to break up into smaller fractions of themselves – i.e. quasiparticles. In our case, the Majorana fermion is such a quasiparticle”, Banerjee explained. “Our experiment also proves that fractionalisation can be directly measured and physically understood in a real solid-state material if the right approach is used. This may be significant from an application standpoint, since it gives access to properties of matter not accessible otherwise.”

First presented by Kitaev, it is the special properties of Majorana fermion excitations that can finally create a thermally stable quantum analogue of the binary digit – the qubit. “If these quasiparticles can be harnessed and controlled, they can pave the way for qubits, which will have the special property that they are topologically protected from decoherence, most notably temperature and thermal fluctuations.” This step would make quantum computation practically viable by solving the biggest current challenge – quantum decoherence and the resultant loss of information.

While a very important step has been made, Banerjee is wary and notes that it is still not quite Kitaev QSL. “It is a new state of matter, because magnetism in these materials has topological properties, which normal matter does not have”, he said. “What we found is an energy band, which resembles the expectation from a material that is in very close proximity to the QSL. We still have to do research to get to the true QSL. But knowing that we are close is a big achievement.”

“Our work is only a first small step in this direction”, Knolle said. “For example, one has to understand the properties of these spin liquids in more detail. We are yet to learn how to manipulate Majorana fermions in these materials in a controlled fashion.”

Unsurprisingly, the physicists’ interpretation of this discovery is practical, logical and measured. That does not, however, make its implications any less exciting. The paper published in Nature Materials is indeed a small step towards Kitaev QSL, but it is a step nevertheless, and one that heralds a world of possibilities: quantum computing, calculations that are still impossible at present, AI, and, ultimately, a cosmos of technology and potential that can usher in a new era for humankind.

Why you should hire robot workers

Posted on 06/21/201607/27/2016 by Ben Debski

The concept of robot workers has been hanging over the world of employment for years. It was inevitable that big corporations would be the first to take the plunge.

Foxconn, Walmart and the US Department of Defense are among those in the process of replacing their workers with robots. Other companies, including McDonald’s, the UK National Health Service, Indian Railways and China’s National Petroleum Cooperation, have also suggested they will follow suit.

The list of advantages is long and, according to technology experts in the US, robots will have taken over most jobs within the next 30 years, leaving humanity facing a rise in unemployment.

The use of robots in the workplace means production will always be quick and efficient. Robots, unlike human employees, do not need to take breaks, sleep, go on holiday or take sick leave. This efficiency means greater output and, effectively, higher profits.

Does not compute
Although efficiency will definitely rise, it is also worth noting the risks involved: robots do not guarantee results, and evidence of their long-term effects on the workplace is yet to materialise. If robotic equipment was to malfunction, it could end up costing a company more than the amount saved in the first place.

It’s cheaper to buy a $35,000 robotic arm than it is to hire an employee who’s inefficient

In terms of health and safety, however, the presence of robots in the workplace also means a safer environment for humans, and less risk for an employer. Robots can carry out the more hazardous, dangerous jobs, which means insurance restrictions wouldn’t have to be so strict.

It is also less costly to employ a robot in the long term. During an interview with Fox, former McDonald’s US CEO Ed Rensi said: “If you look at the robotic devices that are coming into the restaurant industry, it’s cheaper to buy a $35,000 robotic arm than it is to hire an employee who’s inefficient, making $15 an hour bagging French fries.”

However, this profit only benefits businesses that can afford the initial expense of robotic equipment, i.e. large corporations with a strong financial budget.

Programmed to serve
The societal benefits and industrial impact of robotic systems are vast: for example, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe forecast that the worldwide market for robotic systems will exceed $51bn by 2025.

Dr Alexander Bolotov of the University of Westminster said he believes the prospect of robots taking over employment is dependent on many factors, which all need to be considered: “What types of jobs do we consider? How much social interaction will this involve? What types of robotic systems are we considering here – would these anyhow interfere with human activities? I believe it is likely that there is no straightforward answer, as it is extremely difficult to draw a line where the impact on our lives could become evident”, he said. “One could say that all types of robotic systems will evolve with the different emphases and responsibilities of their developers and, not surprisingly, the regulators.”

In order to fully comprehend a world where robots are employees, it is important to distinguish the different types of robots already in use. Robots are categorised depending on their level of autonomy: some are pre-programmed, some are designed to behave autonomously.

The nature of these two types of robotic systems is significantly different, and they will have different impacts on industrial applications within society. The first category of self-functioning robots offer sophisticated capacities such as visual ability or natural language understanding, and can be used to interact with customers and patients. That is, as long as the employer understands that malfunction could lead to catastrophic consequences in, for example, healthcare systems, air traffic control systems, or nuclear control systems.

The worldwide market for robotic systems will exceed $51bn by 2025

Autonomous robots, designed to make their own decisions and act appropriately, are even more sophisticated. These robots already exist, and are deployed in more complex scenarios where complex and independent behaviour is required.

Dr Bolotov said: “One other very important aspect involves social factors – the benefits which the deployment of a robotic system can bring to the company. I do not think that a simple equation – the ratio between an investment into the deployment of a robotic system and potential profit – would work without a thorough consideration of relevant constraints here. Surely robots are, by their nature, beneficial to industries – they bring a shorter time of task completion, reduce losses related to the nature of human employees, and increase precision where it is needed.”

Ultimately, it seems businesses are ready to invest in robotic employees, providing they have the initial funds. However, society stills needs to come to terms with this possibility and adapt to a world of working alongside robots.

Top 5 crowdfunding sites

Posted on 06/21/201603/26/2018 by Ben Debski

Projects launched on websites such as Kickstarter have raised more than $20,000 solely through online funding, and some start-ups have gone on to become multi-million dollar corporations.

However, each sites caters to different projects, so it’s worth doing some research before deciding which best suits your business idea.

Kickstarter
Kickstarter is a huge global online community built around creative projects, including art, design, fashion, journalism, music, photography and technology. Over 10 million people, from every continent, have backed a Kickstarter project. Every project developer has the opportunity to share their work with backers, who then choose the amount they would like to fund the project, depending on whether they think it will be a success. The pros are that payments are quick and easy, with funds raised going straight into the project developer’s PayPal or bank account. Although funding is international, the site only allows projects based in the UK or US.

Indiegogo
Indiegogo focuses on the launch of innovative campaigns from across the world. Popular campaigns include technology, smart home gadgets, drones, phone accessories and products for pets. The site is easy to use, with no complicated application process. Indiegogo encourages users to use the all-or-nothing plan, where four percent of the funds of successful projects go to the website. On the flexible funding plan, Indiegogo charges four percent if you reach your goal and nine percent if you do not reach your goal. Transaction fees are an additional three percent. Financially, the website is a risk if you are not confident your campaign will be successful and backed by enough supporters.

RocketHub
RocketHub works with governments, educators and communities to assist the expansion of start-up projects. The international site has so far helped thousands of artists, scientists, entrepreneurs and social leaders raise millions of dollars. A limitation of the site is that it doesn’t have as much traffic, and thus not as many backers, as sites such as Kickstarter and Indiegogo. However, it does provide a ‘Success School’, which offers tools for building better projects and businesses. Four percent of the costs of a completed campaign go to RocketHub, eight percent for partially completed campaigns, and transaction fees are four percent.

FundRazr
FundRazr is a Canadian crowdfunding site and Facebook app. It is dedicated to raising money for personal causes for non-profits and entrepreneurial projects. Collectively, the site has raised £45m and has assisted thousands of projects. FundRazr is different to other crowdfunding sites in that it has a built-in live chat where project developers receive support and coaching. It also has built-in sharing features to “lift campaigns above all the noise on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Linkedin and email” – according to its website. Every campaign is free to create, but once users reach more people and begin funding, a small free is deducted from each contribution.

GoGetFunding
GoGetFunding is a London-based fundraising site that can be used to raise money for any personal cause. Although it isn’t specifically designed for start-up projects and businesses, many use the site to fundraise their campaigns. Sections include medical and healing, volunteer and travel, animals and pets, charity and non-profit, and personal causes. The platform is easy to use, and is appealing to both public and private enterprise projects. It is available internationally and offers funding in every major currency. A cost of three percent goes towards the site, which provides a keep-what-you-raised model, plus a 2.9 percent transaction fee.

The circular economy could end waste and save the environment

Posted on 06/21/201607/05/2016 by Ben Debski

The circular economy is arguably the most radical response to the ‘take, make, dispose’ model of economics we’ve all come to know – and not like – so well. The linear system of consumption is fast approaching the physical upper limit of what the planet can permit, and if governments are serious about realising cost and energy efficiencies, alternatives can’t be ignored.

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation – the leading voice on the circular economy – has called into question the logic of utilising a finite resource base to sustain spiralling demand. Appetite for commodities has increased in recent years and will continue to do so as another three billion middle-class consumers are expected to be demanding oil and coffee by 2030.

The circular economy is an ideal solution in that it offers a means of uncoupling growth from resource constraints. “It opens up ways to reconcile the outlook for growth and economic participation with that of environmental prudence and equity”, said MacArthur.

According to Richard Girling’s disconcerting book Rubbish!: Dirt on Our Hands and Crisis Ahead, around 90 percent of the raw materials we use in manufacturing are turned to waste before they even leave the factory, while roughly 80 percent of products are thrown away within the first six months of use. A more restorative approach to production would, at the very least, keep a lid on spiralling resource exploration and extraction costs, and go some way to offsetting often-volatile swings in commodities prices and the accompanying environmental damage.

In a circular economy, materials are designed to be kept at their highest possible value at all times

First you need the building blocks
For these reasons and others, advocates recommend governments make the transition to a circular economy a priority. The European Commission presented a revised EU package to do just that. In it, Ida Auken admitted the model was an attractive one “as it offers the potential to set a strong perspective on renewed competitiveness, positive economic development, and job creation”. Business models centred on “use, rather than consumption”, he said, could benefit both the economy and society as a whole.

A circular economy fully fledged by the year 2030 would also generate a primary resource benefit of €0.6trn per year, and €1.2trn in non-resource and externality benefits. However, the real challenge – aside from the considerable expense attached to such an upheaval – lies in the initial stages of production, and the material innovation required to make the transition possible.

“In a circular economy, materials are designed to be kept at their highest possible value at all times”, said Ian Banks and Joe Iles of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation. “This means the components and products that have been made out of them are designed to be used as long as possible, reused, refurbished and remanufactured.”

The companies and organisations embracing the circular economy, according to John Warner, President and Chief Technology Officer of the Warner Babcock Institute for Green Chemistry, are for the most part designers looking to create new products that fit within it. “If the chemicals and material building blocks are not sustainable”, he said, “there is no way, in my opinion, that you can design a sustainable product.”

Material innovation
Dustin Benton, Head of Energy and Resources at Green Alliance, stressed that the importance of materials depends very much on the sector. Many composite materials are effectively designed to become waste, which stymies recycling and, for sectors such as packaging, is the most common route to circular recovery.

The use of new polymers – and the gathering complexity of materials more generally – again makes any attempt to scale up the circular economy more complicated. For many, the promise of material efficiency gains and financial savings is too distant, and separating or scaling materials is a hugely expensive task.

“Contamination and composite materials are the most important problem for recycling”, said Benton. “For direct material reuse, like reusing old steel girders in new buildings, the biggest obstacle is ensuring that the materials will still perform as new.” Without the work of materials scientists and investment in comparable alternatives, producers are unlikely to change their ways.

Alternatives (such as biomimicry) exist, “but again, the design of products relies on existing materials”, said Warner. “What is far more rare and underrepresented at this moment are chemistry inventors, sitting with designers, helping to develop fundamental new building blocks to in fact truly enable the circular economy.”

Plastic not so fantastic
Plastic is only one of the challenges in persuading manufacturers to embrace a more cyclical approach, though it remains – by a fair margin – the most demanding. A recent report authored jointly by the World Economic Forum and Ellen MacArthur Foundation argued that, by applying cradle-to-cradle principles to global plastic packaging flows, the plastics industry could do away almost entirely with the issue of waste.

According to the report, 95 percent of plastic packaging material, or $80bn-120bn per year, is lost to the economy, and as much as 32 percent escapes collection systems. Projected growth in consumption could also lead to the oceans containing more plastic than fish by 2050, by which time plastics will consume 20 percent of total oil production and 15 percent of the annual carbon budget.

“Plastics are the workhorse material of the modern economy – with unbeaten properties. However, they are also the ultimate single-use material”, wrote Martin Tuchtey from the McKinsey Center for Business and Environment. “Growing volumes of end-of-use plastics are generating costs and destroying value to the industry. After-use plastics could – with circular economy thinking – be turned into valuable feedstock. Our research confirms that applying those circular principles could spark a major wave of innovation with benefits for the entire supply chain.”

Moving in circles
With this in mind, a number of major companies have filed patents for new material innovations and the likelihood is that more will follow as the benefits of circular manufacturing become more widely recognised. The Reep system erases ink and toner, and makes paper suitable for reuse up to 10 times. Splosh has taken the same approach with cleaning products, offering a business model that encourages the refill and reuse of durable packaging that would traditionally be recycled.

“Lack of information on components and materials is often a barrier to high-quality reuse”, said Banks and Iles, “something that Maersk has tried to address with a cradle-to-cradle passport that documents every nut and bolt of their 165,000-tonne ships.” Others are looking at technical materials and questioning whether there is a biological replacement. Ecovative’s mycelium packaging, for example, acts as a direct replacement for polystyrene.

The ambition is to shake off the unwanted externalities that accompany non-biodegradable, toxic or otherwise unaccommodating materials and build the circular economy from the ground up. “I suspect the desire is definitely there”, said Warner. “But, unfortunately, most companies are not working in the field of the basic materials, and are thus wholly dependent on suppliers.”

The sad fact remains that the process of making new goods is highly optimised and the price of environmental degradation is seldom considered. For as long these costs escape company balance sheets, the incentives to make do with a linear model will remain. But, should support for circular economy principles continue to grow, companies can ill afford to ignore them for much longer.

The secret history of cryptography

Posted on 06/20/201607/05/2016 by Ben Debski

In 1976, Whitfield Diffie and Professor Martin Hellman published New Directions in Cryptography, a seminal work that laid the grounds for modern security systems, online privacy and e-commerce as we know it. Considering that the pioneering pair envisaged a world that was so far advanced from anything possible at the time, the scale of their vision’s accuracy over four decades later is nothing short of incredible.

For their irrefutable contributions to security, intelligence, the world of business and modern internet culture, on March 1 the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) awarded Diffie and Hellman the 2015 ACM Turing Award. Often referred to as the ‘Nobel Prize of computing’, the prestigious accolade is the highest honour for those in the field.

“Most members of our community do remarkable things during their careers. Some do truly groundbreaking and impactful things, and those special individuals are recognised through the ACM Turing Award”, explained Alexander Wolf, President of the ACM and Professor of Computing at Imperial College London. The pair’s new approach to cryptography was so significant that a whole new academic discipline was founded off the back of it, together with thousands of careers in the subsequent decades.

By the time of the Second World War, cryptographic machines were widely used, which led to significant (mostly secret) developments in mathematical and practical cryptography

The $1m prize, which is partially funded by Google, will be shared between the two, who both intend to continue their respective work. Hellman has spoken about continuing his study of nuclear security, as well as co-authoring a new book about peace and sustainability with his wife, while Diffie plans to fill a current gap in the discipline and compile a detailed history of cryptography.

Lessons of the past
By the time of the Second World War, cryptographic machines were widely used, which led to significant (mostly secret) developments in mathematical and practical cryptography. Thanks to the lapse of time required for declassification, far more is now known about this period than ever before. This includes the work of Polish scientists Marian Rejewski, Jerzy Róžycki and Henryk Zygalski during the 1930s in decoding ‘Enigma’, the electromechanical rotor cipher system used by the Nazis to encrypt secret communications. Their work was then carried on by Alan Turing, the namesake of the ACM’s prominent prize, which led to various other breakthroughs in variants of the Enigma system.

A major advance then took place as a result of Claude Shannon’s 1949 paper Communication Theory of Secrecy Systems and his subsequent book Mathematical Theory of Communication. However, although these works effectively established a theoretical foundation for cryptography and cryptoanalysis, the discipline soon disappeared back into the realm of secret intelligence, and nothing new appeared (at least publicly) until the 1970s.

“The notion of encrypting information with a ‘key’ had been around for centuries by the time [Diffie and Hellman] began their work”, said Wolf. Prior to Diffie and Hellman’s discovery, the symmetric key cryptosystem that was critical to national security agencies involved the same algorithm being used by both sender and recipient. This system required that all relevant parties had access to it, as well as a specific key, which made exchange highly problematic. With the addition of further parties, the challenges were magnified.

“Think of it as a special language or set of codewords that communicating parties agreed upon to support secure communication”, said Ryan Rubin, an MD at Protiviti. “The challenge was how to get these parties to agree on the secret key prior to their secure communication.” As has been so often portrayed in films, couriers with a briefcase handcuffed to their wrists, carrier pigeons or clandestine meetings in dark doorways often made the process unmanageable and unreliable.

Lock and key
The Diffie-Hellman (DH) Key Exchange offered a new approach that was controllable by means of an asymmetric system and thus more secure than previous methods that relied on pre-shared symmetric keys. Using a pair of keys that were different from one another yet mathematically related, it became possible to have a public key for encryption and a private key for decryption. Importantly, the public key could not be used to decipher the private key, even through computer-generated calculations and despite the two being interrelated.

“DH thus enabled two parties to communicate securely with each other without them prearranging a secret key, thereby enabling the parties to share a common secret over an insecure communication channel, which is critical for all secure communication, for example on the public internet”, Rubin said. Moreover, only one pair of keys is needed for communication per participant, despite the number of recipients that may be involved, making widespread distribution of highly secure cryptosystems possible for any individual or organisation.

Digital signatures are another key feature of today’s secure communication channels that were introduced by Diffie and Hellman. By reversing the process sequence order, the pair showed digital signatures could be used to detect if a message remained unchanged by the legitimate sender. Unlike written signatures, which stay intact even if the contents of a letter or cheque are altered, maintaining the integrity of the message and detecting whether it has been tampered with becomes easier to achieve when using digital counterparts. This offers more reliability in transmitting uncompromised information, as well as increased accountability for the person that has transmitted it.

“In the case of digital signatures, the owner digitally signs a message using their private key and then allows anyone who reads their signature to decode it with their public key”, said Rubin. “This is in contrast to the case of encryption use, where the sender encrypts a message with the receiver’s public key and then enables the receiver to decode it with their private key.”

This development was crucial in modern computer security, trusted computing, and personal data protection; for example, digital signatures used to validate digital certificates enable a web browser to verify that a financial institution is legitimate when banking online. Similarly, software can be digitally signed or sealed by authorised and approved software developers, enabling software companies and their consumers to verify the authenticity of a code and, for example, ensure that only Apple-approved software is downloaded and run on an iPhone.

Key debate
Unsurprisingly, the 1979 revolution in cryptography, given the implications for both business and personal privacy, was met with a huge backlash from the US National Security Agency. Prior to Diffie and Hellman’s public discovery, the discipline was very much confined to the realm of secret agencies, and was used as another form of weaponry between nations. Placing such a precious tool in the hands of everyday people repositioned a great deal of power against security agencies and their respective governments. In fact, the use of cryptography was so controversial that various states tightly restricted its export. Most notably, the export of cryptography keys longer than 40 bits was prohibited in the US right up until 1996.

Despite the leaps and bounds achieved in technology, the controversy surrounding cryptography has not ebbed since Diffie and Hellman published their instrumental paper – it has actually become even more complex. Tech companies, legal professors and NGOs are making a stand for privacy and against the invasion of it by governmental organisations – regardless of their reasons for doing so. Essentially, the use of cryptography is an issue that greatly affects every individual and user of technology, which makes Diffie and Hellman’s paper all the more astonishing. “When they published New Directions in Cryptography in 1976, they imagined a future world where people would regularly communicate through electronic networks; this was by no means obvious at the time, although ubiquitous now”, said Wolf.

“Public key cryptography, as with other disruptive technologies, has been of great use to mankind in pushing us forward and advancing our ability to communicate, transact and carry out business in the digital world”, Rubin added. “Public key cryptography is also the foundation behind the first cryptocurrency, the Bitcoin, and also its supporting distributed ledger, the blockchain, which is set to become an extremely disruptive technology in the future. Our smartphones, credit cards and even home wireless networks all use some form of public key cryptography to encrypt data, digitally sign transactions and/or uniquely identify us to all those we communicate with.”

With so many uses and possibilities, cryptography is an almost sacred tool in the continued advancement of technology and, in essence, the human race. It is vital in our everyday lives and in protecting everything that is critical to our individual and universal success. Undoubtedly, there are parties who use this sophisticated level of encryption to carry out heinous crimes and bring danger to the innocent. And yet, unfortunately, such actions would not cease if privacy was deniable – arguably, they could worsen. Ultimately, attaining the greater good demands the protection of this inalienable right, no matter the associated risks.

Intelligent translators can’t grasp metaphor

Posted on 06/19/201607/05/2016 by Ben Debski

With the rise of China in the past few decades, many have speculated Mandarin will someday supplant English as the language of global business. For this reason, schools around the world are increasingly offering Mandarin lessons. However, mastering the language of China, in the hope of getting ahead in a world in which China is increasingly important, may be in vain – the language barrier itself may soon be broken down, owing to the rapid advance of computer translation technology.

Monolingual commitment
Alec Ross, author of The Industries of the Future and a former senior advisor for innovation to the US Secretary of State, has argued that, within 10 years, the global language barrier will be torn down. “A decade from now”, he wrote in The Wall Street Journal, “I would predict, everyone…will be able to converse in dozens of foreign languages, eliminating the very concept of a language barrier.” He continued: “A small earpiece will whisper what is being said to you in your native language nearly simultaneously as a foreign language is being spoken. The lag time will be the speed of sound.”

This would obviously provide untold benefits for businesses operating across national and linguistic borders. Awkward conversations in a convoluted version of the language in question would no longer take place, while finding a third-party translator to mediate conversations would cease to be an issue. A US businessperson could communicate clearly and instantly with a factory owner in Guangdong. Likewise, a meeting between the German, Brazilian and Japanese divisions of a global corporation could be carried out seamlessly, despite none of the participants speaking a common language.

Metaphorically speaking
However, this might be jumping the gun a little – such technology does not yet exist. Writing in The New Republic, David Arbesu, Assistant Professor of Spanish at the University of South Florida, pointed out that the nature of human language itself makes replacing human translators with machines particularly hard. Translation carried out by humans is not just “replacing a word with its equivalent in the target language”, he noted.

Language is largely metaphorical and figurative, and so the way “we speak often has nothing to do with the reality that surrounds us; machines are – and will continue to be – puzzled by the metaphorical nature of human communications”. One such example would be the common English-language phrase ‘seeing red’. That this alludes to anger – due to a cultural association between the emotion and the colour in some parts of the world – is not apparent in any literal sense. The phrase itself “has little to do with colours”, Arbesu pointed out, and therefore would not be clear to a computer. Likewise, merely replacing the English word for red with hóng – the Mandarin word – would not convey the intended meaning to a Mandarin listener.

In the groundbreaking book Metaphors We Live By, authors George Lakoff and Mark Johnson underlined the importance of metaphors with the example of comparing buildings to ideas: “Is that the foundation for your theory? The theory needs more support.” These phrases are metaphors, but we don’t often acknowledge them as such. An image of house foundations is not conjured up by reference to the foundations of a theory, yet its common use is precisely because we think and speak in metaphors where it is not obviously clear, even to ourselves.

Speaking in metaphorical ways is fundamental to how humans think and express themselves to other humans – but is not intelligible to machines. Until machines are made capable of interpreting both cultural context and abstract metaphors, cross-border collaboration in business will still need to rely on either human translators or people speaking a common language.

The dark side of the mobile supply chain is being exposed – you won’t like what you see

Posted on 06/19/201607/05/2016 by Ben Debski

The complex and global nature of the electronics supply chain means it takes hundreds – if not thousands – of people and more than 40 minerals to produce a bog-standard smartphone. “And that’s really just the bottom”, said Daria Koreniushkina, Public Engagement Officer at Fairphone. “Those minerals are mined all over the globe, having already gone through quite a few steps, again in different parts of the world. Before that the parts are smelted, refined, sent to the component manufacturer – maybe a second component manufacturer – and then to their final assembly location – primarily in Asia – before being shipped to customers.” Impressive though it is, the journey from mine to market is not without consequences.

Increasingly, consumers are paying heed to some of the more contentious issues dogging the process. Though social and environmental goals are, more often than not, kept to one side, the influence of companies such as Fairphone is beginning to tell. Conflict minerals and inadequate working conditions are the most controversial issues, and, as with any other global supply chain cost saving, efficiencies have been shown to exert a heavy toll.

A 2014 investigation by the BBC’s Panorama programme exposed dismal working conditions in Chinese factories tasked with churning out Apple products. The film showed exhausted workers falling asleep on the production line, with one undercover reporter forced to work 18 consecutive days in spite of repeated requests for time off.

In the UK, there are as many as 125 million unused phones – meaning that, for every mobile in use, up to four sit idle

“Every time I got back to the dormitories, I wouldn’t want to move”, said a worker whose longest shift was 16 hours. “Even if I was hungry, I wouldn’t want to get up to eat. I just wanted to lie down and rest. I was unable to sleep at night because of the stress.”

Sadly, Apple is not the exception; such conditions are common in an industry hell-bent on efficiency savings.

A broken model
Combining the patchwork pattern of suppliers, manufacturers and miners is admittedly no easy task, but this impenetrable web has allowed hardware manufacturers to skirt their responsibilities to their workers. Though sustainability isn’t completely neglected by corporations, it is, according to Koreniushkina, often “disconnected from the core of the business”.

The energy it takes to extract and refine the 40 or so precious metals that go into a smartphone – not to mention the added costs of a gadget industry built on planned obsolescence – are startling. Worse still, some of these issues are perpetuated by consumers.

Almost $2bn worth of Apple devices were sold on eBay in the US in 2013, and NextWorth estimated the value of the American trade-in market to be more than $3bn. What’s more, figures from the Green Alliance show the market for used devices is growing, with sales expected to reach 257 million in 2018, up from 53 million in 2013. Despite this, only 12 percent of smartphone upgrades involved the sale or trade of an old device. In the UK, there are as many as 125 million unused phones – meaning that, for every mobile in use, up to four sit idle.

“The current business model of mobile contracts encourages consumers to upgrade frequently, regardless of whether their current phone is fit for purpose”, said James Suckling, a researcher from the University of Surrey. “This isn’t a trend that can continue if we are to have the mobile lifestyle we want, while still ensuring a sustainable future.”

Were consumers more aware of the environmental and human costs of getting a smartphone to market, mobile companies would likely face greater pressure to change their ways. Granted, accountability for these issues runs from top to bottom, but without a sudden shift in demand, abuses on the supply side will continue to escape punishment.

This is where Fairphone comes in. The Amsterdam-based company is a social enterprise focused on building a movement for fairer electronics. The company line is that, by building a phone of its own, it can open up the supply chain and foster new relationships between people and products.

“That’s basically how we see our role in the industry”, said Koreniushkina. “We can influence demand. And for as long as there are people who want more ethical, more long-lasting products, this can motivate the entire industry to act more responsibly. On the other hand, we are influencing the supply chain by experimenting and running innovative projects to source materials more responsibly, improve working conditions at the factories, innovate in design and extend the lifecycle of the product.” By making a positive impact across the value chain in mining, design, manufacturing and life cycle, reason has it Fairphone will expand the market for products that put ethical values first.

Fairphone started out as a campaign for fairer electronics, and this commitment shows in the company’s methods. It began with trips to copper and cobalt mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and this year the company established the first pilot supply chain for Fairtrade-certified gold in the electronics industry. In terms of product, the Fairphone 2 design is focused on reparability, and the modular design is such that customers can easily replace parts, further extending the lifecycle of the product.

Supply chain
By mapping the supply chain, tracing the materials, and identifying opportunities for making social and environmental improvements, Fairphone is exerting pressure on the industry to follow suit and make information about its global footprint public. Ultimately, the aim is to, if not boost visible demand, at least raise awareness on the consumer side about some of the question marks hanging over the supply chain. As one of the largest and fastest growing industries in the world, electronics companies have a joint responsibility to resolve the environmental and social ills plaguing the production process.

Most of the steps in the production process are far removed from the end user, and consumers hungry for the ‘next new thing’ are as much to blame for an industry built on planned obsolescence as corporations. Greater transparency about the pains inflicted on people and the environment in the name of efficiency is a good place to start if the industry is to shake its less-than-stellar reputation.

“The supply chain can easily include hundreds, sometimes thousands of actors all over the globe, and identifying more responsible sources is a major challenge”, said Koreniushkina. “Beyond that, if you look at the issues at production facilities such as low wages or overtime, these are all systemic issues. These are not things that can be changed overnight or by just one company, no matter how big the company. So, it should all be a joint effort.”

Firearms fans think smart guns are a bad idea

Posted on 06/18/201607/05/2016 by Ben Debski

When US President Barack Obama announced his executive order aimed at reducing the US’ rate of gun violence in 2016, he spoke of attempting to get gunmakers to “update firearms technology”. Alongside expressing a desire for guns to come equipped with the sort of tracking devices now featured in most smartphones – in order to more easily find and secure lost or stolen guns – one of the new technologies the president spoke of was the introduction of guns with biometric locks, or ‘smart guns’.

The basic idea behind a smart gun is that it would be fireable only by designated users. This is chiefly to be made possible through the use of the gun having a record of the intended operator’s fingerprints, with the firearm only becoming operable when gripped by said intended user. The idea is, in many ways, the same as the now-ubiquitous feature on high-end smartphones and tablets, whereby the owner is able to unlock the device through fingerprint recognition. Other, older efforts include firearms that can only be fired when in proximity to a ring or watch worn by the intended shooter.

Uzi lover
The benefits of smart guns are clear. Above all, gun owners can be certain that their own weapon does not fall into the wrong hands. There exist numerous high-profile cases of children getting access to unsecure handguns in private homes, often to tragic ends. At the same time, firearms taken from legal gun owners in burglaries regularly end up being sold on the black market for use by other criminals – after having their serial numbers removed. And, of course, the ultimate fear of any legal gun owner or armed law enforcement officer is having their own weapon – intended to fight off an attack – taken and used against them.

The basic idea behind a smart gun is that it would be fireable only by designated users

All of these problems could, in theory, be tackled by replacing conventional firearms with smart guns: the young children of gun owners will presumably not be recorded on the enabling biometrics of their firearms, nor will random burglars or the criminals who buy stolen weapons – rendering the gun inoperable. Any weapon removed from a police officer or gun-owner in a confrontation would also be rendered useless.

Not so trigger happy
With such apparent value to both owners of guns and those who campaign against gun violence in the US, it may seem only a short matter of time until smart guns are rolled out across the country and the wider world. However, the idea is actually already a few decades old. As a 2013 National Institute of Justice Research report noted: “Since the mid-1990s, numerous teams have developed firearms with advanced gun safety technology – often called ‘smart guns’ or ‘personalised firearms’ – to varying degrees of technological maturity.”

Jonathan Mossberg – who is part of the family that owns the gun manufacturer OF Mossberg & Sons – claims to be ready to develop a smart handgun that, according to US magazine Mother Jones, he would be able to bring to market with “about $1m for research and development”. Traditional arms manufacturers have, so far, been wary of adopting smart gun technology, with the National Rifle Association having threatened a boycott against gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson in the 2000s for pledging to equip its weapons with high-tech safety features.

It might be expected that established gunmakers will be wary of new digital and high-tech developments in firearms, but even the epicentre of innovation and market disruption is not keen. Indeed, Silicon Valley has been surprisingly cool about the prospects of a smart gun. In the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting in 2012, Silicon Valley investor Ron Conway announced he would fund start-ups that aimed to improve gun safety – leading Mossberg himself to receive a $100,000 grant – but as of yet, little seems to have come of the initiative.

In spite of this industry reticence, there does seem to be some sort of market for smart guns, with recent research from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health finding that “nearly 60 percent of Americans, if they buy a new handgun, are willing to purchase a smart or childproof gun”. Yet while this research suggests Americans are open to smart guns, it is by no means sure proof of a big, eager market. While many Americans would perhaps like a smart gun, were one to come to market, certain downsides may perhaps become more obvious, resulting in conventional firearms being favoured.

Sticky fingers
The primary problem is that any added level of technology invariably makes a gun’s use and operation more complicated. And with added complexity comes added potential for something to go wrong. Firstly, adding biometric authorisation to a gun will add the need for some sort of electrical charge – presumably through the use of batteries. This creates the need to maintain sufficient battery levels for operation, and raises the potential for the gun to remain locked should power run out. The prospect of either having a gun reliant on a battery, or even just the added headache of maintaining a battery charge, is likely to put off many gun owners.

Furthermore, biometric scanners require both the detector and the user’s hands to remain clean. Anyone who has had to punch in their smartphone PIN (rather than using the fingerprint ID lock) due to having sticky food residue on their hands can attest to this. The difference is that with a smart gun there is no PIN with which the intended user can bypass the biometric verification. Yet even if there were, the prospect of punching in a four-digit code to unlock a weapon is hardly an appealing prospect when faced with an intruder or attacker.

None of this would matter to recreational shooters, however. For those who enjoy shooting as a sport, guns are intended for use only at certain planned times – certainly this is the case for most gun users in Europe, where private gun ownership is much more limited. But for many gun users in the US, ownership goes beyond that. Owning a gun implies independence from the state, and an ability to ward off intruders or attackers. It is, in some interpretations, a constitutional right and fits with the frontier sprit of self-reliance that defines the national identity for many Americans.

With this purpose of gun ownership in mind – even if the actual likelihood of needing to use a weapon is fairly low – anything that renders a gun potentially useless or more complicated to activate is seen as a reduction in the ability to defend one’s property and loved ones.

As Tom Hartsfield of RealClearScience noted: “The whole point of owning a gun is that you only need to use it in the most extreme situations. You don’t plug your gun into a USB port before going to bed, knowing that tonight is the night that you’ll need it.” A gun that is “hamstrung by special technological conditions to fire is a liability to an owner who keeps it for protection”. Such an attitude to gun ownership may seem alien and even objectionable, but, like it or loathe it, it is an attitude and worldview that any new entrant to the US gun market must take into account if they wish to have any hope of commercial success.

African oil firms desperately seek new buyers

Posted on 06/17/201607/05/2016 by Ben Debski

US oil volumes have surged in regent years. This has been the outcome of a boom in shale and tight oil production. As a result, the US has increasingly begun to consume more domestically produced oil, reducing dependence on foreign imports. As the US Energy Information Administration noted: “In 2014, about 27 percent of the petroleum consumed by the US was imported from foreign countries, the lowest level since 1985.”

Nigeria in particular has suffered from the decline in US demand. The most populous country in Africa was the fifth-largest oil supplier to the US in 2005

US imports of foreign crude peaked in July 2005, at 10.8 million barrels a day. By July 2014, this figure had fallen by roughly a third, declining to 7.6 million barrels a day. Until the shale boom, in a bid to diversify its hydrocarbon sources, the US looked towards African oil, ramping up its imports from the region. However, the US’ shift to domestic production is now having a profound impact on Africa’s oil-producing nations. African exports of oil to the US have collapsed, declining by 87.7 percent by 2014. Whereas in 2007, producers on the continent were sending 2.4 million barrels a day to the US, by 2014 this had fallen to a mere 0.29 million barrels.

Delta danger
Nigeria in particular has suffered from the decline in US demand. The most populous country in Africa was the fifth-largest oil supplier to the US in 2005. At its peak in 2006, Nigeria was sending 1.3 million barrels of oil a day to the US. Nigeria had proven an attractive supplier for US oil importers, due to the similarity of the sweet crude produced in Nigeria to that of the US. By 2010, 40 percent of Nigeria’s oil exports were sent to the US. Even in 2012, when US import demand was already in decline, Nigeria still ranked alongside Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico and Venezuela as one of the key exporters of oil to the US.

However, by 2014 the country was only exporting 58,000 barrels a day to the US, falling again to 57,000 barrels per day in 2015. This represented a major decline from 900,000 barrels per day in 2010. In that year, the US was the largest importer of Nigerian oil – by 2014 it was the 10th largest, with Nigeria accounting for only one percent of US oil imports. Combined with the current low price of oil, the drying up of US demand is putting increasing strain on the economy of Nigeria. According to the Journal of International Affairs, this decline in demand, alongside other factors such as oil theft and leakages, has resulted in “revenue losses totalling an estimated $1.7bn per month, which represents 7.7 percent of Nigeria’s GDP”.

Out of Africa
Other west African nations have also faced the brunt of declining demand from the US. Angola, after decades of civil war, has become an increasingly important oil producer. The state saw its oil production grow by an annual rate of 15 percent on average between 2002 and 2008. In 2005, Angola was the seventh-largest supplier of oil to the US. Much of the country’s increased production went to US buyers, with over half a million barrels per day heading for US shores by 2006.

This remained steady until 2008, when the amount exported to the US began to decline. In 2009, the US was the destination for 31 percent of Angola’s crude oil – by 2014, this had tailed off to a meagre eight percent. Indeed, by 2015, Angola’s total oil exports to the US had reached a paltry 124,000 barrels a day.

Less significant west African oil producers have also felt the cold shoulder of US demand. Equatorial Guinea is only a marginal producer on the world stage, but its meagre production is vital for its own economy. Oil accounts for 90 percent of state revenue and the vast majority of its export revenue. In 2009, exports from the country heading to the US totalled 89,000 barrels per day. By 2015, this had plummeted to just 5,000. Likewise, Gabon was sending half of its oil to the US in 2010 – as of 2014, it was only sending 15 percent.

Go east
Nigeria has been looking increasingly towards the rapidly growing economies of Asia to find a new export market. The Financial Times reported in 2014 that “Nigerian oil sales to Asia’s four largest oil importers – China, Japan, India and South Korea – have risen more than 40 percent so far…over the 2013 level”. Nigeria has also become the biggest source of imported oil in India, overtaking Saudi Arabia.

However, while importers in the east have picked up some of the slack left behind by diminished demand from the US, a solid new consumer base for Nigerian crude is yet to be found. The many new and high-tech refineries in Asia mean that cheaper grades of crude can be refined much more easily, making Nigeria’s less heavy and more expensive crude not so attractive to buyers from this region.

When it comes to Angola, it has also looked east for new buyers. Nearly half of Angola’s oil exports now head to China, and the country is now the second-largest supplier of oil imports in China. The world’s second-largest economy has been steadily building relations with Angola over the past decade, with a particular emphasis on hydrocarbons.

China, despite concerns over its economy slowing, still achieved 6.7 percent GDP growth in Q1 of 2016, according to the country’s National Bureau of Statistics – meaning its demand for oil is unlikely to dry up any time soon. Whether or not it, and other economies such as India, can plug the gap of softened US demand is yet to be seen, however.

Regional stability
Plugging the gap left by reduced US demand is important, but perhaps the biggest threat this decline poses to west Africa is US disengagement from the region. West Africa increasingly faces a security crisis, from the insurgent group Boko Haram now extending its reach across northern Nigeria and its neighbours such as Cameroon, to Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb asserting its power in the Sahara Desert.

For many countries, the US has played a vital part in maintaining security in the region. However, as the US has less of an interest in west Africa – as it relies less and less upon the region’s oil – there is the possibility it may relinquish its role as guarantor of stability. Whether or not the US will disengage is uncertain. However, with each state in the region now boasting fewer financial resources to spend on security, as a result of declining exports and soft prices, any degree of US disengagement at all simply could not come at a worse time.

Why Microsoft’s $26bn purchase of LinkedIn makes perfect sense

Posted on 06/17/201607/05/2016 by Ben Debski

Although hugely expensive, Microsoft’s deal to buy LinkedIn could prove a shrewd move, due to LinkedIn’s growing network. The two companies share a closely aligned motive – to connect professionals and improve business processes – making them a natural fit.

LinkedIn is the world’s largest and most valuable professional network, constantly growing and adapting to its users. Over the past year, the company has launched a new version of its app, enhanced the LinkedIn newsfeed to deliver better business insights, acquired a leading online learning platform, and rolled out a new version of its recruiter product to enterprise customers.

Microsoft wants to turn LinkedIn profiles into a central identity, and the newsfeed into an intelligent stream of data that will connect professionals through meetings, notes, and email activity.

Evidently, the company has decided to buy LinkedIn at its height, and while it does not have the best history with acquisitions, this deal differs for many reasons. Firstly, LinkedIn users are essentially Microsoft’s core demographic; they have access to data and business relations that could benefit Microsoft’s networking. They are also ideal customers for Microsoft due to the nature of their work; the majority use Microsoft software, including Office and Windows, on a regular basis, and therefore will be familiar with the company’s identity.

Additionally, the multinational technology company has a diverse range of technologies, including its Cortana artificial intelligence service, which can add new capabilities to LinkedIn. It also own platforms such as Outlook, and partially owns Skype; both of which interrelate with the world of business networking.

Mutual benefit
LinkedIn could also boost Microsoft’s customer relationship management (CRM) software, used to identify and track sales leads. LinkedIn already has its own CRM-type product – LinkedIn Sales Navigator – which has a data network and reach that would appeal to any CRM company.

Microsoft CEO, Satya Nadella, believes the deal brings together the world’s leading professional cloud with the worlds leading professional network. “Along with the new growth in our Office 365 Commercial and Dynamics businesses, this deal is key to our bold ambition to reinvent productivity and business processes”, he said in a memo to staff.

“Think about it: how people find jobs, build skills, sell, market, get work done and ultimately find success requires a connected professional world. It requires a vibrant network that brings together a professional’s information in LinkedIn’s public network with the information in Office 365 and Dynamics.”

The staggering sum of $26bn in cash makes this the priciest deal yet for the software giant, equating to $60 per LinkedIn user. Microsoft will pay $196 a share – a premium of almost 50% on the recent closing share price.

However, the expense doesn’t seem as shocking when compared to similar M&A deals in the past, such as Time Warner and AOL, which was priced at $165bn, and Mannesmann and Vodafone at $180bn.

Purchase specifics
In terms of meeting customer demands, the integration of LinkedIn’s profile data into Office 365 would allow users to keep up to date with information in their email and other communication apps – as it would be more visible to friends and colleagues. The integration would also make the data more accessible to anyone who wants to know more about a professional’s background or experience.

The amalgamation of Microsoft and LinkedIn means the company stands a better chance against competitors, such as Facebook and Google, who have also shown interest recently in building a professional network.

Under the terms of the acquisition, LinkedIn will retain its “distinct brand, culture and independence”. Jeff Wiener will remain CEO of the company – reporting to Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft. Reid Hoffman, Chairman, co-founder and controlling shareholder of LinkedIn, and Wiener both fully support the transaction, according to Microsoft’s PR release. The deal is expected to be completed this calendar year.

It makes perfect sense for the professional networking world to be incorporated with a multinational technology and productivity software company. Provided sales and revenue are maintained for both, there are very few disadvantages to the acquisition and the opportunities for users of both companies are endless.