Blog 4: Large Companies and Innovation

Christensen writes that managers are faced with the dilemma of balancing short-term decisions while focusing on innovation and many don't do this well. Here are some of my reflections on his findings:

• Finding new market for disruptive technology instead of developing new technology to meet current market needs. This theme ties into managers' dilemma of balancing short-term needs (meeting demands of current market) and innovation. This is much easier for larger companies to deal with because they have enough resources to allocate to handle current business needs and researching costs for innovative ideas. One company that does this well is Amazon. It is able to retain current customers through its Prime services (through B2C services) and it is able to invest in new technologies to attract different markets, through B2B services such as its AWS services and the potentially selling its Amazon Go technology to other retailers. This approach makes sense because if Amazon only focuses on Prime services, it risks cannabolization because consumers' spending power is often limited and a new group of consumers means more points of sales. 
• Innovation is driven by allocation of resources. This is an underlying theme to many of his findings. It seems that many big companies are better suited to this than startups and smaller organizations. Although large companies may not be as agile as startups, they can outspend any upcoming contenders. Take Facebook as an example. It has a history of buying smaller companies that competed against it. It purchased Instagram, WhatsApp, and the latest acquisition, Giphy because they were all competing against its platform. It not only gained innovation, but new markets and users. Large companies may be slower to develop new products, but it really doesn't matter because they can purchase their competitors. 

Blog 5: Disruption in the 20th century

Nokia

 

Nokia was the world’s biggest mobile manufacturer until the late 2000s. The surge of Android and iOS devices nearly wiped Nokia in a matter of fewer than 5 years. Nokia had a booming business, they made mobile handsets that were of high quality and were of much superior quality when compared to their competitors. Nokia invested in new technologies and kept on releasing phones with the latest features. They made products for all kinds of customers, they have low-end phones for people in developing countries, medium-end, and high-end phones. Until 2007, it seemed that Nokia had no signs of defeat anywhere near it.

However, it ignored one critical piece of disruptive technology, i.e. smartphones. Apple and Google heavily invested money in developing smart operating systems that could do much more than normal phones could do. Apple and Google provided frameworks for application developers to develop applications for the devices and provided them a share of the advertising revenue.

Nokia, however, did not believe smartphone technologies are disruptive and just saw it is a fad. Consumers loved that they could replace their camera, clock, music player, pager, calendar with a single device. They did not see the need for a traditional phone anywhere. Even though Nokia had good management, they failed to anticipate a single disruptive technology that ultimately led to their device.

 

Kodak

 

Kodak had a similar story to Nokia. Kodak was a leading camera and film manufacturer throughout its history. Even though Kodak was one of the pioneers that invented the concept of the digital camera, they did not anticipate that it would be a disruptive technology that would lead to its demise. Kodak made a majority of its revenue by the sale of traditional cameras and film. However, the R&D department in Kodak built one of the world's earliest prototype digital cameras. The management did not see it as a disruptive technology and believed it to be a fad, that would die eventually. While Kodak was doing extremely well in the film business, failing to anticipate this cost them their business, and they eventually filed for bankruptcy in 2012.

 

Kodak’s story teaches us that, it is important to anticipate disruptive technologies, it is also important to pivot and adapt them.

 

 

Walmart

 

Sears was one of the dominant retailers at the starting of the 20^th century, their catalogs were reachable to the entire country.  They listened to their customers, and their stores were filled with the best products, and their business was booming. However, Walmart and Costco’s disruptive business methods ruined Sears's business model. The concept of discount retailing, which was relatively unknown, was popularized by Walmart in the 1960s. Walmart’s business involved having a selected number of stores and buying the products in bulk to beat down the prices, and selling it at a very thin margin to attract a lot of customers to the store.

Walmart became the biggest retailer in the world and reduced Sears market share in the US to less than 1%. Sears did everything well, they had a wide customer base, gave the customers all the products that they wanted, however failing disruptive business tactics cost them their business.

Blog #4: How much should you listen to customers to detect disruption?

An interesting contradiction presented itself in this week's readings: how much should companies listen to their customers in order to detect disruption? According to Christensen, in The Innovator's Dilemma [1], investing too much in what your customer wants is a recipe for missing out on disruptive technologies. In contrast, according to Chambers, the CEO of Cisco, you must listen to customers in order to identify disrupting technologies [2]. The truth is that it's not whether you listen to your customers that matters, it's that you must listen selectively.

Christensen argues that customers value sustaining technologies, or those technologies that will help them improve an existing product. By definition, a disruptive technology is something that few customers will recognize the value of at its inception. Therefore, if a company listens to its customers and invests in what the customer wants, the company will be investing in sustaining technologies. This approach can lead to the core busines being undermined by advancing disruptive technologies, without enough opportunity to capitalize on that technology.

Chambers has a very different perspective. He credits Cisco's success to listening to its customers. According to Chambers, customers are aware of disruptive technologies and will clue you in to their arrival. You can use this customer insight in market shifts to invest in the next big thing.

Both authors reference Digital Equipment as an example of a company that lost out big to a disruptive technology. This example is personal. My father was laid off from Digital during its collapse, and his layoff marked a year of unemployment and future career struggles that had a lasting impact on my entire family. It made me wonder - did Digital listen too much or too little to their customers? What would have been needed in order to keep the business thriving and my father employed? I found the answer to my question in Edgar Shien's book, DEC is Dead, Long Live DEC [3]. Digital listened too much to some customers and not enough to others.

Digital’s fall is credited to its over investment in the minicomputer at a time when PCs, run by microprocessors, were the future of computing. DCU had the opportunity to see this market shift, yet didn't react quickly enough. According to Shien, "Sophisticated...customers were organized into a users’ group, and this group continued to love DEC products." Digital managers focused intently on the wants of this group and neglected customers who complained of product problems. Shien concludes that, "a successful company has to pay more attention to its critics and to the customers it loses. It is dangerous to listen only to the customers who love you." If Digital had listened to and strategically planned around customers outside of those in the users' group, Digital could have been where IBM is today.



[1]http://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.cmu.edu/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook/bmxlYmtfXzE5MTc2NDdfX0FO0?sid=5c17f30a-dc3e-45bb-9079-5fa8b2d319fe@sdc-v-sessmgr01&vid=0&format=EK&lpid=nav7&rid=0
[2]https://hbr.org/2015/05/ciscos-ceo-on-staying-ahead-of-technology-shifts
[3] https://learning.oreilly.com/library/view/dec-is-dead/9781605094083/xhtml/ch14.html

Blog 4: Space Launch Vehicles - A New Disruptor

Out of all the business classes I have taken, Disruptive Innovation continuously piques my curiosity. It feels as if someone has created some magical product out of thin air that completely changes the game. Even though the label of Disruptive Innovation is characteristically retrospective, I will make a brief case as to why I believe advances in outer space launch vehicles will be considered a Disruptive Innovation.

According to Christensen, disruptive innovation is formed in a niche market where other businesses do not perceive it as a threat but can redefine an industry or market as a whole. Within the outer space market, we have seen a chain reaction since policy has shifted from centralized public control to decentralized private control. This, in turn, has created an opportunity for early adopters of new space tech to threaten traditional launch contractors (i.e., Lockheed Martin & Boeing) through the development of low cost, highly efficient, and reusable launch vehicles. At this point, it sounds like the new launch vehicles are a sustaining innovation; however, in both a literal and figurative sense, launch vehicles have acted as a launch vehicle to potential new markets.

Take, for example, internet access. According to UNESCO, 54.8% of the world’s population has access to the internet. Multiple projects such as Amazon’s Project Kuiper and SpaceX’s Starlink will enable internet access to the entire world by the mid-’20s, threatening ICTs. Even further, due to the low gravity, Optical Fibers produced in space are of significantly higher quality, potentially ending the need for repeaters, as shown by Made In Space.

Another example is in health care. 3D printing organs is easier in space due to the low gravity. Crystal structures within pharmaceuticals grow outwards instead of upwards due to the gravity. Without low-cost launch vehicles, Techshot’s 3D BioFabrication Facility would have never been launched to the ISS.

The mining, health, internet, construction, communications, travel, energy, and many more industries all bare some risk from the continuous development of launch vehicle capabilities. As more capabilities come online, they will all still depend on the reusable launch vehicle. Thus, even though launch vehicle innovation does not replace anything, it will be critical to new market penetration, disrupting many industries at once.

Blog #4: Flexing Through Disruption - Amazon as a Proof of Concept

Chapter seven “Discovering New and Emerging Markets” of the book The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail (Christiensen, 2006), discusses critical lessons for surviving technological disruption in your industry, whether from within or without your company.

1. Assume you’re wrong about how the technology will be applied 
2. Retain strategic reserves to adapt to how the market actually evolves for the new technology 
3. Be willing (managerial) and able (technology / manufacturing) to change directions

The author also concedes that while many may wish to simply wait the market out until it’s fully defined, this costs companies the strong position of “first mover advantage”. Does this mean it’s that simple to adapt to and generate disruptive technologies by investing large budgets in research and development?

According to Statista.com (Duffin, 2020), the five companies with the greatest research & development spending were: 

1. Amazon $44.6B USD 
2. Alphabet $16.2B USD 
3. Volkswagen $15.8B USD  
4. Samsung $15.3B USD 
5. Intel Co $13.1B USD

Evaluating Amazon, it is clear they are a leading disruptor of many industries from the original book selling, to personal tablet devices, to organic groceries. But does Amazon adhere to the principles outlined by Christiensen?

Since its launch in 2016, there are now 26 stores open and planned for this year. While the stores were initially seen as just another Amazon disruptive innovation to yet another industry (the corner / convenience store), no one could have expected how touchless shopping would become a near-critical necessity in the face of a global pandemic (Rubin, 2020). Criteria #1, assume the technology will evolve in a way you didn’t expect? Check.

Criteria number two to be a successful disruptor / innovator is to keep financial reserves to allow you to adapt for the changes in the market in how the technology is adopted in the wild. Considering Amazon reported $38.51B in free cash flow in 2019, over double the $11.92B reported in 2015 (MarketWatch, 2020), it is safe to say that Amazon has the capital to make changes to the Amazon Go concept and underlying disruptive technologies for touchless shopping that it needs to as things like customer adoption and market trends in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic may demand. Criteria #2, retain enough financial reserves to respond to the actual market for your disruptive technologies? Check.

Based on annual shareholder letters from Jeff Bezos, we can conclude that Amazon responds to customers’ experience with products rather than tailoring products based on pitches to executives (Ladd, 2018). This meets the third criteria of changing directions on a product to better serve the way it has taken off rather than sticking to anything simply because it is the plan.

Amazon clearly adheres to the three principles of The Innovator’s Dilemma. It would be interesting further analysis to rank the Fortune 500 companies by number of disruptive contributions to the world and compare how closely they meet the criteria laid out here.

References

Christiensen, C. M. (2006). Discovering New and Emerging Markets. In C. M. Christiensen, The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.

Duffin, E. (2020, April 28). Ranking of the 20 companies with the highest spending on research and development in 2018. Retrieved from Statista.com: https://www.statista.com/statistics/265645/ranking-of-the-20-companies-with-the-highest-spending-on-research-and-development/

Ladd, B. (2018, August 27). These Tools Are Why Amazon Is Successful. Retrieved from Forbes.com: https://www.forbes.com/sites/brittainladd/2018/08/27/these-two-things-are-what-make-amazon-amazon/#750338145fd5

MarketWatch. (2020). Amazon.com Inc. Retrieved from Marketwatch.com: https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/amzn/financials/cash-flow

Rubin, B. F. (2020, April 15). Coronavirus is making touch free shipping a necessity. Retrieved from cnet.com: https://www.cnet.com/personal-finance/coronavirus-is-making-touch-free-shopping-a-necessity/

Blog #4: The Internet of Things - A Disruptive Tech Enabler

            After reading this modules lectures on disruptive technologies and strategy surrounding how to embrace and innovate with these market disruptors, I began to consider the emerging technologies that will pose this dilemma in the near future. One disruptive technology that was the most interesting to me was the Internet of Things. In short, the Internet of Things (IoT) is a system of interconnected and communicating devices connected to the internet. This network of “things” creates a community of data sharing that is autonomously managed and does not need to be facilitated by people.

The concept of IoT is considered to be the forefront of disruptive technology in today’s world. Artificial intelligence, robotics, smart devices, mobile services, virtual and augmented reality – each of these things is rapidly changing and shaping how we live at home and how we conduct our day-to-day work. And the one thing essential for all of these separate industries to interlink and reach their full potential: the Internet of Things. The application and capability of multiple devices and services communicating and sharing information between one another is only limited to what will be able to connect to the internet, bridging the gap in the physical and digital environments. This year alone, over 20 billion devices are expected to be online.[i] While the notion of connecting devices to the internet is not new, more and more devices are being used by individuals and groups to increase efficiency and make lives easier.

            The Internet of Things is not a disruptive technology itself; however, it is the concept and capability that will enable and enhance other emerging and developing technologies to cause significant disruptions across countless industries and ultimately the entire global economy. Companies and industries unable to adjust to incorporating and integrating this concept will be left in the dust by those that do. As IoT continues to reach more and more homes, molding user behavior, industries such as retail and healthcare are strategizing to adopt this interconnected mindset in future operations. IoT’s reach will be vast, with a projected global value in 2025 of $6.2 trillion[ii]. It will be interesting to see what industries are able to flex as the Internet of Things becomes more integral to operations. Healthcare could see drastic changes and enhancements to how it diagnoses patients and monitors health[iii].

---

[i] Robotics Business Review. An Introduction to the Internet of Things. 02 April 2018.

 

[ii] Intel. Guide to IoT Infographic. https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/images/iot/guide-to-iot-infographic.png

 

[iii] Matthews, Kayla. 6 Exciting IoT Use Cases in Healthcare. 16 Jan 2020. https://www.iotforall.com/exciting-iot-use-cases-in-healthcare/

 

Blog 4: Reflections on the Simulation, my future employer and Uber

The discussion of disruptive innovation from this week’s lecture and articles makes me wonder what type of company could be successful investing in a disruptive innovation. The article on "Discussing New and Emergent Markets" focuses on case studies in which disruptive innovation was pursued successfully within a business but does not feature a standalone company pursuing disruptive technologies. In the articles, large companies like HP and Honda were featured. 

 

An important caveat that was not emphasized enough in the articles is that disruptive innovation seems to only be something that is successful if it is part of a larger company that has other revenue streams.The disruptive innovation that was being pursued was in one area of the business but did not represent the business in its entirety. The simulation reinforced this idea as well. I found that when I focused on the disruptive technology and made significant price changes to the core product, cumulative profit plummeted and did not recover. Only when I maintained the sustainable technology and increased price only when R+D investments were made in the product was I able to grow the disruptive technology segment.  In the cases mentioned, the disruptive innovations being pursued were likely cost centers initially and possibly indefinitely if the technology didn’t show profits eventually due to poor strategic management. Essentially, I left feeling like not all companies can participate in disruptive technologies because financially they can not take on the risk.

 

This fact makes me think of two scenarios: how my future employer is positioned and how Uber is positioned. My future employer has a stable investment in their core business but is focused on growing a new product line. The new product line has some synergies with the existing product offerings but is much more regulated than the current product offerings. The approach being taken is to grow that business by 50% over the next few years yet there has been no discussion our how the existing, sustainable product is being altered. The company has been doing extremely well financially due to a successful acquisition but I also feel my impression of the company has not changed. They remained focused on their core product while expanding offerings. I believe that is key to adding disruptive technologies to one's portfolio while maintaining the core business to support it.

 

Uber was discussed in class lectures but when I think about the business, though it is unclear whether it is a disruptive technology, it has spent a lot of time investing in disruptive technologies with its autonomous vehicle business. Based on the articles read, it doesn’t seem like Uber is well positioned to invest in disruptive technologies as its net income has been negative or close to $0 for at least the last three years (Source: 2019 Uber 10-K). It will be interesting to see when the company can turn a profit and sustain it but for now, it looks like Uber is not positioned to come out financially solvent if the principles of disruptive technologies hold.

Blog #4 Google Glass A Discovery and Learning Story of Disruptive Innovation - Eduardo Fuentes (efuentes)

“Markets that do not exist cannot be analyzed. The strategies and plans for confronting disruptive technological change should be plans for learning and discovery rather than plans for execution.” (Christensen, 1997), reads principle #3 of disruptive innovation. Has Google listened to this principle in the Google Glass innovation journey?

Google Glass was launched in 2014 as their first effort to enter the wearables market, in the pervasive computing market; the idea that computing is made to be used everywhere and anytime. The first iteration provided functionality such as: voice-controlled video recording, picture capturing, live video sharing, email and text messaging management, web searching and Google maps, all within your field of vision.

The product was first launched without a clear explanation of what it was meant to be used for, the marketing seemed to suggest it was all about bringing technology to your lifestyle; a 24x7 connection of the human being with data.  Did Google have an idea on what use the product would ever have? How about the consumers that would buy it? I doubt it, and still they launched the product but with a twist: they created an Explorer Program that allowed early adopters to get a prototype version which seemed more like a social experiment for many experts, to me, after learning about innovation this week, it looks this was Google’s learning and discovery phase of their attempt to bring disruptive innovation. In the words of Jeff Bercovici, the executive in charge of marketing for Glass: “I see it (the product rollout strategy) as quite a necessary symptom of a company trying to be disruptive”.  In January 2015, just a year after, Google Glass left the shelves for the public and was moved into a product division with a focus toward business uses that brought it back to the market early 2020 in the form of the Google Glass AR headset.

This story of disruptive innovation, yet to be decided whether successful or not, shows the power of learning and discovery in the disruptive innovation journey. Google realized, through Google Glass, that the general public wasn’t quite ready for this product, and their rollout strategy allowed them to repurpose the product to be used into a now growing market, Augment Reality, without financial failure. Today this product is already seeing some adoption, for example, DHL just expanded the use of this product to have enhanced warehouse logistics.

References

Chicowski, E (2019). DHL Expanding Use of Google Glass for Augmented Reality-Enhanced Warehouse Logistics. Retrieved from https://digirupt.io/dhl-expanding-use-of-google-glass-for-augmented-reality-enhanced-warehouse-logistics/

Gale, A (2014). Google Glass: Changing How We See the World. Website Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.websitemagazine.com/blog/google-glass-changing-how-we-see-the-world

Statt, N. (2020). Google opens its latest Google Glass AR headset for direct purchase. The Verge. Retrieved from https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/4/21121472/google-glass-2-enterprise-edition-for-sale-directly-online

Wadhwa, T. (2014). Google's Glass Explorer Program Was A Social Experiment That Backfired. https://www.forbes.com/sites/tarunwadhwa/2014/04/24/the-google-glass-explorer-program-was-a-social-experiment-that-backfired/#d956ed15d959

Blog #4: How to make strategy to prepare for an inexistent market

Key Takeaways:

1. When there is a market that does not exist but has a large market size, companies can utilize an adaptive strategy to prepare for it.
2. An innovation laboratory fits for the adaptive strategy in the technology industry.
3. Strategic objective: Improve the return on investment of the enterprise’s investment portfolio by identifying and investing in the areas with the most opportunities or breakthroughs.

If there is a market that does not exist but has a large market size, how could we prepare for it even though we cannot analyze it?[1] In the field of technology, there will always be a lot of huge industry opportunities, but we may not be able to predict these opportunities in advance. Christensen mentioned in his book “The Dilemma of Innovators” that Intel had become an industry leader through the development of microprocessors, while HP lost money because it manufactures a large number of disk manufacturers that exceed demand. How can a company formulate a strategy when it is not possible to analyze an inexistent market? BCG’s Your Strategy needs a Strategy[2] gives us a great answer.

 

In the BCG’s book, the author proposes that when the market environment is unpredictable and unchangeable, companies should adopt the adaptive strategy. Companies can win the competition through continuous adjustment, adapting to new opportunities and conditions, and promoting growth and maintain advantages. Innovative products need to face an external environment that is difficult to predict and change, and their product forms and customer types are very different from the previous ones. At this time, it is suitable for adaptive strategies, utilizing innovative laboratory methods to achieve breakthrough innovation. The core of the Innovation Lab is to build a strategic experiment portfolio. Not every new product development can succeed, but the success rate must be improved.

Amazon Lab126 is an example of an innovation laboratory. The birth of Lab126 is to solve the problem that the original business boundaries are gradually fixed 10 years after Amazon was established and to enhance Amazon's internal innovation capabilities. It independently developed new products, which are different from the main business but have synergies, and become the source of Amazon’s innovative products. Lab126 has great autonomy in resources, organization, and culture. Amazon provides Lab126 with separately accounted for R&D personnel and funds. The organization is led by an external company VP, recruits people in Silicon Valley instead of Seattle headquarters, and has a cultural philosophy that focuses on innovation, research, and development. It is different from Amazon’s customer-oriented center. Product R&D needs to find a balance between speed and single product economic benefits to improve the overall rate of return. Finally, this lab creates several amazing products such as Kindle, Echo, and so on.

 

In conclusion, when a company tries to prepare for the inexistent market, it should:

Suitable for environments where it is difficult to predict the future of the market and it is difficult to maintain a single long-term competitive advantage

Use the “change-choose-promote” ring model of an adaptive strategy

Create an Innovation Laboratory, which tolerates single failure and pursues overall return.

---

[1] Christensen, C. M. (2000). Chapter 7. In The innovator's dilemma. Boston, MA: Harper Business.

[2] Reeves, M., Haanaes, K., & Sinha, J. K. (2015). Your strategy needs a strategy: How to choose and execute the right approach. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Blog#3 : Innovate or Decimate - Survival of the fittest

“Sometimes your best investments are the ones you don’t make” resonates perfectly with this week’s article “ Seven ways to fail big”. After reading the article some of the famous mergers and acquisitions failures I could think of are :

Kmart – Sears

The establishment of Sears Holding Corporation, a result of merging two struggling retailers Kmart and Sears was supposed to improve their retail market share and the integration of their product lines was supposed to serve as a moat against big box competitors. ESL Investments invested in their merger with the intent of maximizing their economies of scale.

Synergy Mirage: Although both were retail giants, their modus operandi and market segment varied significantly. Sears was known for home appliances and outdoor products whereas Kmart encompassed apparel , grocery etc. ESL assumed that their combined customer base would drastically broaden their retail market share. Following the merger, that wasn’t the case thereby forcing them to work independently  paving a way to a disaster.

Faulty Financial Engineering: Incompetent strategy stripped the company of its assets over time. The Capex value of both companies together before the merger  plunged drastically after the merger. Sears had the lowest rate of capital investment to sales and prioritized share buy backs leading to value destruction.

Stubbornly staying the course: With the merger, the corporation did not try to reinvent its existing store format or dabble in ecommerce to gain increased market in order to compete with Walmart and Target. Lack of innovation and customer focus  was another reason for this downfall.

Pseudo- Adjacencies: Before the merger, Sears tried to diversify by purchasing a lot of Kmart retail outlets. After the merger they planned to achieve cost savings by combining supply chain and administrative overheads without realizing it was not a great move considering their product and market segment were different.

In my opinion, All the above factors decimated Sears holding corporation and it was forced to file for bankruptcy in 2018. Thus, leading to the biggest downfall in the history of retail.

eBay & Skype

Online auction giant eBay acquired VoIP business Skype in 2005 for $2.6 billion assuming that by integrating Skype to their platform would help buyers and sellers better connect with each other and can call using skype. The reason for the failure of this merger turns out to be :

Bets on the wrong technology

eBay’s assumption that skype would facilitate in connecting the buyers, sellers and shippers using VoIP backfired. They had their bets on a wrong technology and didn’t invest their time to do a customer analysis and align it with their organization’s framework. People preferred maintaining anonymity as vendors, or shippers and preferred email conversations than talking on call. With this investment on wrong technology eBay incurred lot of losses and had to eventually sell Skype to private investors at $1.9 billion.

In my opinion eBay should have tried to understand its customer segment and their needs before making a decision on this investment. It was a good initiative in theory but didn’t integrate with their overall company mission thereby leading to this fiasco.

To conclude, companies that don’t innovate or do a strategic market analysis(customer & products) tend to make rash decisions in acquiring companies. In this cut throat market, to survive one must keep reinventing and make judicious merger/acquisition decisions to be successful .

 

References

1.      https://www.babson.edu/academics/executive-education/babson-insight/strategy-and-innovation/sears-and-kmart-a-sad-sad-story/#

2.      https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180925005670/en/Downfall-Giant---Suffering-Fundamental-Problems-Sears

3.      https://www.pcworld.com/article/171267/skype_ebay_divorce_what_went_wrong.html