A couple of days ago, a damning article came out about online retailer Amazon. Some employees and former employees called their Amazon experience soul crushing. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos quickly fought back, claiming he wouldn’t even work for the company the NY Times described.
Reading the New York Times article, you’d think Amazon was running a sweatshop or coal mine in 1915 than a technological retail powerhouse in 2015. One man in marketing says he often saw people cry at their desks. One lady who worked on projects hinted Amazon used mind control to keep employees in line, saying, “I was so addicted to wanting to be successful there. For those of us who went to work there, it was like a drug that we could get self-worth from.” There’s been allegations of cancer patients getting low performance write-ups as soon as they came back from treatment. There was another disturbing allegation claiming a woman recovering from losing a baby to stillbirth was put on ‘low performance warning’. And Amazon is said to have a very high turnover rate.
Bezos didn’t take long to fight back against such allegations. ?He wrote to his employees, virtually condemning these allegations of a soulless, oppressive, unemphatic company. Bezos claims he doesn’t even recognize the Amazon the NY Times portrayed. He addresses the talk of ill employees being treated badly as ‘shocking’ and ‘callous’. Bezos insists Amazon doesn’t tolerate such lack of empathy. The Amazon CEO closes the letter hoping their employees are having fun at Amazon.
Let me be clear. Computer Geeks isn’t taking sides or accusing anybody of anything. This is why both sides of the story are needed. In fact, I don’t know who to believe. This isn’t the first time Jeff Bezos is called out for being a mean, uncaring, or unfeeling boss. Then again, what’s the motive of these former employees who harshly criticized Amazon? Maybe they formed an alliance to publicly bash their former employer for disgruntle reasons. How can we prove what they’re saying is true? What we have here is a case of his word against theirs. Who do you believe?
Comcast is the biggest mass media and cable company in the world. They own NBC/Universal, and tried to get Time Warner. One would think this would be enough for any media conglomerate. ?It’s not enough for Comcast.
Comcast is in the works of launching a video digital streaming service. And they’ve got plenty of allies backing them in this endeavor. They have online media companies Vox and Buzzfeed (already owned by Comcast). They have NBC Sports, comedic entities The Onion and Awesomeness TV, and alternative news sites Mic and Vice. They’re other allies too. The goal is to eventually beat Google’s You Tube at their own game. They know Facebook is producing it’s own streaming service as well, and wants to beat them to the punch. They know Verizon is putting a video streaming service together; they’ll naturally combat. Comcast’s potential video service will be called Watchable. Comcast’s allies agree to upload unlicensed and original to Watchable users for on-demand streaming purposes. Other allies will commit to Comcast’s Watchable cause in the next few years. Comcast wants to get rid of subscriber boxes and replace them with X1 boxes. These X1 boxes could provide the platform Watchable needs for tens of millions of consumers. No wonder why Comcast wants X1 boxes in every consumer home by 2017.
Comcast is one of the most powerful corporations in America today. It’s also one of the most hated companies today. I seriously doubt Watchable will help them score any popularity points with businesses or consumers. What Comcast needs to do is improve what they have and get on the good side of it’s customers. Leave the streaming to You Tube, Netflix and others. Some could argue it’s helping media like The Onion and Mic get exposure. Can’t they get exposure somewhere else and with someone else? Doesn’t the phrase, “When they’re too big to fail, they’re too big to care” hold merit here?
Netflix has changed the way we look at TV shows and movies. Netflix wants to change how we raise and care for our babies.
This week, Netflix introduces perhaps the most radical maternity leave program in United States history. According to a blog written by Netflix Chief Talent Officer Tawni Cranz, new parents can take unlimited maternity leave for the first year after the birth/adoption of their child. That’s right. Whether that be two weeks, or the entire year, that’s the parents’ call. During that year, the new mom and/or dad can come and go as they please, either full or part time. And they’ll get this time off with pay. Cranz believes this will contribute to Netflix’s culture of ‘freedom and responsibility’. That’s the freedom to make your own decision, especially when it comes to personal issues, keeping in mind the responsibilities you still have to the company. ?Netflix also believes this generous maternity leave program will help keep their best employees around and away from competitors. They may be onto something. Yahoo has a very generous maternity leave. So do Facebook and Google. Keep in mind back in the 2000s, Netflix offered free lunch and XBox to keep employees around and working.
Tech companies are leading the way in spoiling their workers rotten. And it’s a beautiful thing. Yes, this maternity leave program can be abused. I’ll give the critics that much. But denying parents the right to be parents is even more abusive. I‘ve heard too many heartbreaking stories of teen and adult children resenting parents because they spent too much time working. I’m glad Netflix and other tech companies are breaking this sad trend. This is a good business move as well as a personal one. In 2015, if a new parent feels they’re being denied family time, there’s nothing stopping them from leaving the company. Is Netflix’s maternity leave program a good thing?
Samsung Electronics Inc. is an international smartphone maker and tech giant. That being said, no tech company is without problems. Samsung is shelling out enormous cash for such an enormous problem among it’s employees.
At their Seoul, South Korea headquarters, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. spokespersons announced a fund for Samsung employees diagnosed with cancer. This fund is worth 100 billion won, or about $86 million dollars. Proceeds of this fund will be given to employees, and their families, who got sick while working in Samusng plants making chips and other hardware products. Other proceeds will go to fund research and preventative methods, keeping this from ever happening again. According to South Korean activist group Sharps, around 200 people were stricken with cancer while working at a local plant. Of those approximately 200 employees, about 70 have died to their illnesses, leaving their next of kin to relieve their share. While Sharps is aware of this fund, they didn’t comment about it. This fund is now a reality because of negotiations between Samsung, stricken workers, family members of the deceased, and lawyers/experts in corporate responsibility. It’s widely believed radiation and dangerous chemicals in this plant caused sky high lymphoma and leukemia rates among plant employees. This tragedy didn’t start yesterday. This dispute has been going on for about a decade. It wasn’t until Samsung’s public apology last year that?sides started being civil toward one another.
Why did it have to take that long and that much mudslinging to come to an agreement? From a business perspective, I understand you’re afraid of putting your company in a bad light. But lives are on the line! People are dying! Sometimes you have to put business aside and do what’s best for your fellow human beings…the human beings you hired. I’m glad Samsung is finally doing that. I’m glad this issue is finally resolved. But is $86 million enough for these victims and their families?
Since it’s rise, Uber has made plenty of foes, from cab companies to local governments. But they’ve made friends along the way. They’ve made very rich and powerful friends.
I’m talking about friends like Microsoft. Microsoft is said to invest $100 million in Uber Technologies Inc. A spokesperson confirmed it on Friday. This helps bring the value of Uber Inc to $50 billion. It was just $40 billion earlier this year. Microsoft is just one of the investors who view Uber as the future of car transportation. Back in June 2015, Microsoft sold a piece of Bing’s mapping services to Uber. This deal opened up 100 jobs for Microsoft employees in data analysis for Bing’s mapping. Bing is Microsoft’s search engine. That’s not all. Uber and Microsoft combined Microsoft Cortana’s voice-controlled assistant (sort of like Siri) so it can hail Uber rides according to rider’s schedules. This upcoming investment is proof that the two companies have been working together for years. And they don’t plan on breaking up the relationship now. But Microsoft is being hush-hush. When Microsoft spokesperson Tony Imperati was asked about this alliance, he refused to comment.
This will only add fuel to Uber’s blazing inferno of success. The ride sharing app was founded in 2009. It didn’t make international waves until two or three years ago. And that was often because of the wrong reasons. Uber has been banned from California to Brazil, despite being in 300 cities and 57 countries. From New York to London, cabbies and limo drivers have taken to the streets in protests. Taxi and limo services around the globe have been disrupted. Now with an alliance with one of the most powerful tech companies in the world, Uber has arrived…even more so. I‘ve always believed competition is good for any free economy, and it helps everybody steps up their game. My only concern is that Uber is so loosely regulated they may feel they can get away with too much. Will Microsoft help them get a ‘too big to fail, too big to care’ attitude?
FuelBand was supposed to track exercise and health activity. FuelBand was supposed to work ?with an Apple iPhone, iPad or Droid. But for many, that wasn’t the case.
Contrary to the promotional hype, FuelBand woefully failed to live up to expectations. Those who bought it between January 2012 and June 2015 claimed it couldn’t count burned calories or track overall health activity. They took their complaints to court against Apple and Nike in a class action lawsuit. Lawyers representing the jilted customers said Apple and Nike deliberately deceived customers in their FuelBand advertisements. These lawyers also argued the companies knew about the deficiencies and did nothing to improve them and kept selling FuelBand anyway. In June 2015, a settlement was reached. Nike will pay a total of 2.4 million dollars to customers taking part in the lawsuit. Friday, members of the plaintiff were instructed through email about this settlement. Plaintiffs would either get a $15 check or $25 Nike gift card, or they could exclude themselves from the settlement altogether. However, Apple got off totally free. Apple has no liability when it comes to paying disgruntle customers or attorney fees. In November 2015, a hearing will discuss attorney fees and other fees.
Believe it or not, I see how Apple got out of this one. The failed health wristband was Nike’s. While Apple was a part of the promotion process, Nike put it’s name on FuelBand. So they should be held responsible for the damages. Nike is a multi-billion dollar entity. Two and a half million dollars isn’t going to hurt them. I‘m just glad this deal was settled out of court. This could of dragged on for a very long time and that would have done nobody any good. But is $25 per customer a good payout for this suit? Where will FuelBand rank in the biggest flops in tech history?
