UK umbrella in London, Piccadilly Circus (CC) by Moyan Brenn
The prospect of Britain leaving the EU following the in-out referendum proposed to take place by the end of 2017 would have a number of repercussions. However, would one of these be that the UK would be shut out from a European Single Digital Market or could the country still operate as part of it?
Continue reading Should Britain leave the EU? Digital Agenda for Europe perspective
Those who dread business negotiations are used to believing everything that happens at the bargaining table, even some things that are completely untrue. How do we burst some of the most credible things people know about negotiations?
A lot of business individuals don’t negotiate, and it is because they are influenced by all kinds of unfounded allegations regarding negotiations. You can’t believe everything you hear! Check out these 10 myths about negotiations that might keep you from growing.
Continue reading 10 myths about negotiations that keeps you from growing
Business negotiation is an indispensable skill every individual should posses and master. It is impossible to succeed in business or any other organisation without it. Surprisingly, research suggests that business school graduates are not being taught the basic principles of negotiation. Many graduates have no clue as to how these principles affect human behaviour.
Training in business schools usually revolves around how to get the ‘yes’ answer and thereby close a deal. Invariably, most of these tactics do not work in real-world situations, often destroying negotiations.
Continue reading Business negotiation tricks that business school teach but are useless
Silicon Valley has become a synonym for innovation and, with its ecosystem of super-moneyed venture capitalists, it is world renowned as a hub for new products and software. Europe meanwhile has struggled to produce the likes of Facebook, Amazon or PayPal, or to garner the levels of investment for its startups. But could that be about to change?
Silicon Valley investors are beginning to show an increasing appetite to invest across the Atlantic, most recently seen in the US$58m investment that US venture capital group Andreessen Horowitz recently made in the British money transfer platform TransferWise. In fact 2014 saw investments involving US groups estimated to be about US$3.5 billion compared to US$808m in 2010.
Start-ups tend to succeed as part of a community or innovation ecosystem. Our research into these ecosystems found that the critical success factor for innovation and start-up cultures is the importance of a university city region. These are places where there is a concentration of intellectual capital and high levels of funders that are happy to take risks.
The other key ingredients are knowledge and financial capital, a willingness to take risks (and fail), and the drive to succeed. A comparison of the US and European start-up scene on these fronts shows why the US is still out in front when it comes to attracting investment and delivering new innovation.
European universities are coming second to their US counterparts in the creation of intellectual capital. A simple indicator is the international Higher Education league table with only three of the top ten universities located in Europe (and all of these are in the UK).
Not surprisingly, given their proximity to Silicon Valley, the California Institute of Technology, Berkeley and Stanford are at the top of this list. With Silicon Valley on their doorstep all three institutions have successful business founders and entrepreneurs working in university posts, sharing their knowledge, identifying the most talented students and looking for the next big innovations. This culture of giving back is not commonly found in European universities.
By contrast, the European universities in the top ten all fall within the much more widely dispersed “Golden Triangle” of top UK universities, concentrated around Oxford, Cambridge and London. This region sees significant research investment and innovation as a result.
Result: Europe 0 US 1
The close relationship between the US higher education system and its high tech centres provides a direct supply chain of knowledge capital. However, innovation also requires the steady supply of financial capital. Recent figures provide some reassurance that the UK is becoming a nation of angel investors that are younger and female. The internal boundaries of the European Union appear to be no barrier to innovation with investors who are happy to invest across it and travel if and when needed.
These positives are no consolation for the largest startup investment infrastructure being based in the US. Angel List, a web-based platform for managing start-ups, alone was able to raise more than US$100m in one year in 2014. This disparity between the US and Europe in their ability to raise capital is evident at many levels.
Result: Europe 0 US 2
Silicon Valley is built on a gold rush mentality. Make mistakes and then learn and build on them quickly.
In contrast, in European cultures failure is perceived as a negative and a situation that is to be minimised and avoided at all costs. National social security systems, regulations and long procedures when it comes to establishing new business ventures are just some of the legacies of this culture that burden European innovation.
The recent Edelman Trust Barometer Survey of 27,000 respondents adds further insight into the European mindset. It found that expectations of honesty and fair play are expected requirements for building trust between entrepreneurs, start-ups and investors. A lack of trust between those with ideas and those with money hinders innovation and the development of enterprising economies.
Thus the European start-up scene suffers from playing it too safe. The result can be seen in a recent European Commission ranking of innovation, which places the US at the top of the list and outperforming Europe by 17%.
Result: Europe 0 US 3
When it comes to having motivation to create a start-up, not having work or low employment opportunities can sometimes be a good thing. Necessity is the mother of invention and if an individual has no other option and has nothing to lose they are more likely to ignore a lack of knowledge or financial capital and take risks. Europe has now faced the largest economic crisis since World War II, with many pushed into self employment.
Unemployment in the European market means more individuals are looking for work and some of these are considering the option of setting up their own business. To create a start-up culture there is a need for a critical mass of individuals working with one another, bouncing around ideas and prepared to fail – and learn – together.
Result: Europe 1 US 3
Based on these criteria it does seem that an entrepreneur interested in making it big has more chance of success in Silicon Valley. However, there is some hope for European entrepreneurs if they set themselves up near The Silicon Roundabout (or Tech City) in London where investment is growing. Germany too has a budding start-up scene, which is competing with the UK capital to attract international talent – and investment.
Of course, positioning the US and European start-up scenes as competitors is missing the biggest opportunity. The benefits of both locations are best combined through collaboration.
Europe is, and is predicted to remain, in an economic position where there is market receptiveness to innovation. The US meanwhile is better able to bridge the gap from idea to realisation. This is a powerful combination to fuel the next wave of technological innovation and start-ups, including wearables, implantables and EEG controlled devices.
By Aleksej Heinze, University of Salford; Gordon Fletcher, University of Salford, and Marie Griffiths, University of Salford
This article was originally published on The Conversation.
Read the original article.
Google’s announcement that it will not provide security updates for older versions of its Android operating system means that more than a billion users face growing security risks to their phones or tablets.
While Android operating systems on phones and tablets have grown exponentially in popularity, from 4% market share in 2009 to 84% in 2014, by abandoning support for versions prior to Android 4.4 “Kit Kat” Google’s decision affects more than 60% of Android users running older versions that will now be vulnerable.
At the heart of this announcement is a piece of software called WebView, a component of the built-in web browser in earlier versions of Android, but which also turns up in many apps. It is WebView that Google is dropping support for, replaced in version 4.4 with a new component taken from Google’s browser, Chrome.
The reason for this is largely down to the number of security flaws found in the software, at least in part because it incorporates support for Adobe Flash which has simply proven too difficult to secure – ironically, as it was something Google touted as a plus for Android when Apple dropped Flash support for the iPhone.
There was no official announcement. In response to security researchers Rapid7 who had reported another WebView bug that needed fixing, Google responded:
If the affected version [of WebView] is before 4.4, we generally do not develop the patches ourselves, but welcome patches with the report for consideration. Other than notifying OEMs, we will not be able to take action on any report that is affecting versions before 4.4 that are not accompanied with a patch.
So Google is no longer fixing problems in anything but their latest (Android 5.0/Lollipop) or second-latest (Android 4.4/Kit Kat) versions, offloading the responsibility to either those that find the flaw, other interested developers, or phone manufacturers such as Samsung, HTC, or LG.
Android is an open-source operating system developed jointly by Google and other interested developers around the world who are able to update and maintain the codebase, while Google manages and steers the project. By making Android an open-source project, Google increases the community’s ownership of the project, encouraging others to work on it. This approach is contrary to Google’s competitors – Apple’s iOS and Microsoft’s Windows Phone – who develop their operating systems entirely in-house and keep tight control of their code.
So Google’s decision makes more sense with that in mind – the code for Apple and Microsoft’s operating systems is closed, so those firms wouldn’t be able to hand off their responsibility in this way. But Google can at least offer others the chance to tackle the problems.
Our mobile phones are used for sensitive activities – from logging in to websites filled with personal data, to online banking or online shopping. It’s important to keep any software on any device – phone, tablet, or computer – up-to-date with the latest versions that patch those flaws and vulnerabilities that have been discovered. Encouraging more people to use the latest versions has been a key part of Google’s approach, through automatic updates and cloud services.
However, mobile phone manufacturers are keen to sell us their latest phones. Providing ongoing support for older phones is expensive and phone manufacturers, and especially the telecoms companies that sell them to us, are already terrible at updating phones, generally dropping support for older models as soon as they can. Expecting them to provide regular security updates seems far-fetched.
The upshot is that now phones even less than a year old are potentially vulnerable – Android 4.4 may have been “released” in late 2013, but new phones were arriving with 4.3 installed well into 2014. So, what can we do? Buy a new Android phone, or switch to Apple, Microsoft, or Blackberry?
Apple devices are considered by some to be more secure because of the tightly controlled ecosystem, from the operating system code to the vetting of apps in the App Store. But even iOS is not immune. Part of Android’s appeal is the fact that it is open: easy to access and customise, but with a greater risk from rogue apps, viruses, and hacks. It also means that, with the requisite technical skill and patience, Android users can tackle these problems themselves, unlocking, upgrading and customising their own devices as they like – such is the way with open source.
So, are Google setting more than half their users up for a fall? In practice this may not have a huge impact for most. It may encourage phone manufacturers and the telecoms companies that sell them on to us to be more forthcoming with software updates for their devices, reducing the number of devices running out-of-date software.
Zain Javed, Head of Penetration Testing Services from Xyone Cyber Security said
Companies like Google should be encouraging people more to update to the latest versions and this in some way is a forceful tactic but it’s one that is required. Even if Google continued to provide patches it is still not guaranteed how long a user has to wait before the manufacturer and the network operators make the decision to roll them out.
Ultimately, the key message is that we need to start thinking of mobile devices as computers, not just phones, with all the caveats about security software, updates and precautions which that entails. This could be the tough love from Google that pushes people in that direction.
By Aleksej Heinze, Salford Business School and Alex Fenton, Salford Business School
This article was originally published on The Conversation.
Read the original article.