--

image: http://www.themobilepcguys.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/domain-name.jpg

     Gary Millin and his company, World Accelerator, have taken venture capitalism to a new level with their intriguing business model. In addition to offering professional aid to enterprising entrepreneurs, Millin owns millions of dollars worth of domain names, that prospective companies can lease from World Accelerator, and use for themselves.
     Millin got into the business of domain names in the early days of the internet. It all started in the mid-90s, when Millin bought the domain mail.com along with investment banker Gerald Gorman at Harvard Business School. mail.com would reach billion-dollar valuations on the Nasdaq, and Millin found himself buying portfolios of generic domain names, including usa.com, doctor.com, and many others which have sold for upwards of a million dollars.
     Though you can no longer directly purchase domains from Millin, he has stayed true to his roots of venture capitalism, and genuinely seeks to use his resources to help startups success. Millin strongly believes that a domain can boost, and in some cases define a company's public image. Though he could potentially sell some of his domains directly for substantial amounts, Millin claims that he would "rather participate in the whole growth process", explaining that "if we can bet on a company and they get successful, that's more rewarding than saying 'hey, send me a check."
     While there are some who might take issue with the way Millin is seemingly hoarding these domain names, contradicting the ideal of a 'free internet', I admire Millin's opportunism, and the way he uses his stockpile of domain names to benefit small startups and businesses, rather than just profiting off them, or leaving them to rot. Nonetheless, Millin's case certainly brings up interesting questions about the concept of ownership on the internet, and while I personally see nothing wrong with what World Accelerator is doing on the marketplace, it may not be long before more intrusive monopolies come into play, and it will be interesting to see how a not-so-generous opportunist could monetize the industry were they in Millin's position.

Read more here

image: https://diybackpacker.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/macaupostcard.jpg

     Macau's reputation as the center of Chinese gambling is under threat after Chinese President Xi Jinping further increased pressure on anti-corruption and economic diversity. Especially threatened are the city's junket operators, whose rich clients are commonly accused of illicit business and agreements during their visits to Macau.
     In response to the pressure, David Group announced it would be closing 4 out of its 5 gambling rooms in Macau, after claims by Frank Ng that the company plans to move its business to the Philippines, Vietnam and South Korea, countries which have all entered the gambling industry relatively recently.
     However, there might yet be hope for Macau, as Ng describes the current conditions not as an ending, but as a hibernation until things improve.
     While David Group might be moving, reports show that China's gamblers aren't going with them, instead ceasing to gamble at all. Casinos in Manila and Vietnam have suffered disappointing revenues in their opening years, as they fail to attract visitors.
     Regardless, Macau's gambling revenue fell for the first time in a decade, leaving many to wonder whether this is a small bump for the industry that makes up over half of Macau's revenue, or the end of a global gambling empire.

     I personally would be sad to see the casinos go. Sure, some may argue that they've robbed Macau of its cultural identity, and replaced it with a corporate, modern environment, but I know that Macau is still the same place at heart as it was when I was young. I find that the casinos, mostly built on reclaimed land, do not dominate the local culture, instead changing it, adding a new, modernized dimension. I am sure that no local would claim that they do not enjoy the new shopping malls, restaurants, and global recognition that the gambling industry has brought, and the local shops and markets certainly benefit from the huge seasonal population increase that has flooded the area with Chinese money.
     Then again, maybe Macau wasn't made for this kind of huge, bustling industry. The shops and restaurants that I enjoyed as a child may still be there, but should development and construction continue at its current pace, I cannot see how these businesses will survive the competition for space and location.
     As a small economy, Macau could also easily become economically over-reliant on gambling, as some may argue it already has. It will be interesting how the Macanese government itself will respond to Xi Jinping's demand for diversification, and whether it will be possible at all to distance the economy from its gambling reputation.
     My greatest fear is that Macau will become a has-been, once-was city, its once-dazzling and vibrant skyscrapers decorating a deserted city that failed to adapt to the changing times and was left behind. Perhaps the construction of the HK-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge will cause the tourism to relapse, and Macau will return to its economic growth, but the volatility of the industry has already been demonstrated, and whatever happens, I just hope that Macau will remain recognizable as my childhood home.

My Grandmother's restaurant in Taipa Village image: http://i.yp.mo/kiulam/

Read More Here:

Forbes
Business Insider: 1, 2

image: https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/p/1/005/058/38f/0d440c9.jpg

     On January 8, 2015, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released a report confirming that between 2003 and 2014, Honda failed to report 1729 death and injury claims to the NHTSA. In response to this, a fine of $35 million was levied on the company, along with an additional fine of $35 million for Honda's failure to report warranty and customer satisfaction claims over the same period.
     Among the incidents that Honda failed to report were accidents involving airbags made by Takata Corp in Japan. The airbags have been found to deteriorate under humid conditions. Additionally, customer complaints about seatbelts, unintended acceleration, and braking were all uncovered in the investigation.
     Honda is one of several companies which faces fines from the NHTSA this year, bringing light to the widespread secrecy and withholding of information that occurs on a regular basis. General Motors, for example, received a $35 million fine for failing to report a faulty ignition switch in their cars, while Hyundai received a $17.3 million fine for issuing what was deemed to be a late recall. These cases, and others, contribute to the $124 million in fines that the NHTSA has levied in 2014, more than it has ever issued in its existence.
     While this increase in consequences clearly displays a commitment to safety and honest business, it is interesting to see whether these fines will have any effect on the way automobile companies do business in the future. Perhaps the money and time saved by not reporting incidents, or issuing recalls outweighs the fines of the NHTSA, and more stringent punishments will have to be put into effect. It is the hope of the author that the fines will have their intended eff
ects, and that a cooperative relationship can be established between companies and their governing bodies, for the safety of consumers around the world.

More here

  

image: siliconbeat.com

     Uber and Lyft, two companies responsible for the recent boom in the personal transportation sector, have continually fought for supremacy in the United States' growing on-demand taxi market. While Uber does have a $18.2 billion valuation (26 times higher than Lyft), Lyft CEO Logan Green has been doing his best to surpass Uber in new and creative ways. For example, Lyft has recently fitted its cars with pink mustaches (see image), in an effort to bolster its public image.

     However, it does seem as if Lyft has a long way to go if it wants to catch up to Uber. Uber has already expanded to 70 cities outside the United States (including Hong Kong, where I am from), while Lyft has yet to incorporate its services outside the US.

     Finally, the rivalry between these two companies is just another headache for both of them amongst restless protests from taxi drivers. By not implementing a physical 'fare meter', it seems as if Uber and Lyft have bypassed the regulations for taxi companies, sparking outrage in some communities. While Uber was recently declared legal in London, both companies still face legal challenges in the USA.

More on the rivalry (and a nice infographic) here.

Image: General Mills

     Just a couple of weeks ago, General Mills added a small grey banner to the top of their website notifying visitors of an update to their privacy policy and legal terms, also noting that 'all disputes relating to the purchase or use of any General Mills product or service to be resolved for binding arbitration.' In essence, this removes the rights of customers to dispute cases against General Mills in court, (apart from exceptions in small claims court) should the customer(s) agree to the terms and conditions.
     More specifically, customers must attempt to resolve any dispute through informal negotiations with the company for at least thirty days before choosing to go to small claims court or resolving the dispute through arbitration. In agreeing to the terms, customers also waive their right to litigate any dispute in court and before a jury. But what constitutes an agreement? According to General Mills, a customer 'agrees' to their terms by 'using our websites, joining our sites as a member, joining our online community... or otherwise participating in any other General Mills offering' among other things.
     This broadening of definition is a clear attempt by General Mills to reduce its accountability and protect itself from litigation. While this is not the first time a company has introduced a policy of binding arbitration, the attempts by General Mills to slip these terms past their customers with its questionable definition of acceptance is expected to spark legal issues, particularly over the ambiguity of the policy.
   Though these actions are understandable, they raise questions over the freedom of companies to determine policy. While companies should be free to create their own rules, all companies must follow certain broad guidelines in order to participate in a federally governed marketplace. Courts might see this new policy as an overextension by General Mills, and certain experts have already said that customers must be aware of the terms and conditions for them to be applicable. The outcome of this initial controversy has the potential to redefine business as we know it, and other large companies will be watching the General Mills case intently. Personally, while binding arbitration (if a bit suspect) is not unethical, more effort should be put into notifying customers of this drastic change in policy, and I hope that if any cases are claimed against General Mills in the coming weeks, that they won't be dismissed just because the customer has redeemed a 'box top for education', or 'liked' General Mills' Facebook page.

More Here: New York Times