How does WeChat make profit

WeChat is the biggest communication app in China. WeChat isn't just a communication app, but also a social media app and a digital payment method. It also has features that let you find new friends nearby, as well as a GPS function. The user of WeChat is creating from 250 million users during 2011 to more than one billion users now in the world.

The game market is a large in China. WeChat is made by the biggest game producing and communication company in China called Tencent. WeChat has over 2000 mini-game inside it and there are over 100 million active players each day. These mini-games can be a healthy source of revenue for developers. Ad revenue is shared 50:50 for games with 1,000 users, and 70:30 in the developer’s favor for those with over 100,000. In-game purchases – available for those using Android operating systems – are another revenue stream, with revenue split 60:40 in favor of the developer. WeChat offers to waive its 40% cut for games with transactions worth under 500,000 RMB ($74,000) for selected partners. Tencent Billiards brings in 10 million RMB ($1.5 billion) per day.

WeChat at Work, and in the workplace
WeChat offers Slack equivalent (albeit more focused on mobile users) WeChat at Work. As of late 2017, it had been taken up by 1.5 million registered enterprises, with a total of 30 million active users. Inside the office, this is more useful than email.


WeChat Pay
Most of the places in China including the countryside use WeChat pay. By the end of 2017, 47% of China’s rural community used digital payment services. In all, mobile payments transactions over 2017 were worth $16 trillion (109 trillion RMB).

As the trend of cashless in China, those payment apps such as Alipay and WeChat are making more revenue. Because WeChat is the most used communication app, they have the most penetration rate in China.

Smartphone App Stores: Free market?

In a free market, entry and exit costs are extremely low. Producers are free to develop the products they want and sell them on equal terms with other producers. Online sales are often pointed to as a good representation of the free market system since they often fit these characteristics very closely. Two companies in the current online ecosystem that fulfill this role are the IOS App Store and its direct competitor, the Google Play Store. So which of these stores better fits the free market system? Let's take a look at the distinguishing characteristics of each of these markets.

As mentioned before, one of the markers of a free market system is the entry costs. Both the App and Play stores have an entry fee to the market. For IOS, this cost is an annual 99$ Developer's license. This is significantly higher than the 25$ one-time fee for entry into the Play Store.

Ranking systems for app searches on each store are also very different. While both systems use popularity systems to determine which apps get shown first on the search listings, Google takes it a step further. They keep track of the number of "backlinks," or the number of hyperlinks on the rest of the internet leading to the app's download page. This means that the popularity and mentions of an app outside of the store help determine which apps are presented to the users more strongly.

Additionally, release times on the App Store are significantly longer. Apple takes a significantly longer amount of time reviewing and checking apps, while Google Play puts apps up on the store much faster. This makes publishing apps on Play cheaper and more similar to a free market economy.

So we've established that the Google Play store is a more free market. But is that what the consumer wants? For all its freedoms, the Play store has some inherent problems. It is considered significantly less safe of a market, as a direct result of the lessened precautions. There is also a much larger proportion of poor quality, low budget apps. In exchange for gained freedoms for developers, users lose some amount of quality. In the end, it's up to the consumer to decide, and the market setup of the stores might be one thing you want to take into account when deciding which smartphone to buy.

Sources:
https://www.apptweak.com/aso-blog/apple-app-store-vs-google-play-store-3-major-aso-differences
https://citrusbits.com/difference-app-store-vs-google-play-store/

The Cost behind College

Through the process of filling out the Common App, Coalition App, UC app, and CSU app, I’ve come to realize how expensive college really is. For most private schools, the net price of attending is between 70k and 85k without scholarships or financial aid. 4-year public schools range from the net price of 15k to 25k a year but that is only if you’re an in-state student (whereas out of state students have a net price of around 40k). This also doesn’t factor in plane tickets if you move out of state, study abroad and other aspects of college that could be beneficial to one’s career. Along with the fee to apply to each college and send SAT/ACT scores, the price increases fairly quickly. 

In other countries, such as Finland, Sweden, and Germany, college tuition is either free or extremely inexpensive. One reason why it’s remarkably cheap compared to the United States is that services such as housing, meals, and transportation are not as common in Europe. Without needing to supply these, the amount of money the university spends per student is much lower. Colleges in the US have to compete against each other to attract students with new facilities, sports teams, research opportunities, etc. 

The most significant reason is that college is a service in high demand, and professors’ salaries have risen in the past decades. The cost of college has risen to adjust to the fluctuations in these professors’ salaries. As the price of college goes up, the value of the degree also goes up. The more school you go to, the more income you have later in life (supposably). Regardless of the increased price, students still attend college every year (inelastic demand). There is also no price ceiling on how much college can cost, which leads colleges to extract as much money as they would like to. In the United Kingdom, there is a price cap set by the government. Compared to the cost of college in 1971, the cost now is almost six percent above the rate of inflation, yet college enrollment has doubled. However, the price of college in the US is only worth it if you finish it, and get a job that is able to pay off student loans. 

Sources:

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/09/why-is-college-so-expensive-in-america/569884/

https://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/16/why-college-costs-are-so-high-and-rising.html

https://public.tableau.com/views/COLLEGECASHFLOWS/collegecashflow?:embed=y&:loadOrderID=1&:display_count=yes&:showTabs=y&:origin=viz_share_link 

https://public.tableau.com/shared/838CTW8GM?:display_count=yes&:origin=viz_share_link 

https://public.tableau.com/views/outlook-costs-PI-debt/Costs-Income-Debt?:embed=y&:loadOrderID=5&:display_count=yes&:showTabs=y&:origin=viz_share_link

Monopolies in America

In the United States today, competitive industries are becoming more and more monopolistic. Mobile telecoms, credit cards, U.S. airline flights, corn seed sales, and soy bean seeds are all examples of products controlled mostly by a small number of large private companies. Companies such as YouTube, Netflix, Google, and Amazon all exhibit monopolistic qualities, although they do not yet have full monopolistic control.

So why does this matter? In the long run, companies that control most of their market are able to set or at least greatly control prices, because of the lack of better substitutes. Some monopolies are also able to have a decline in product quality, because if people have no alternatives, they are subject to the terms of the monopolist. Monopolies may also cause a decrease in a company's willingness to innovate, because they have no great competition and therefore no driving motivation to increase product quality.

These are all examples of the problems with monopolies, although some, like natural monopolies, aren't harmful and can even be beneficial. Electricity and water utilities are often monopolized in a certain location, because the cost of having multiple companies selling one of those products in one location exceeds the benefits. Additionally, taxi drivers in a location benefit from monopolies, because the greater the concentration of taxi drivers in an area, the less every driver in the area earns.

The issue is that monopolies similar to Amazon and Google (although neither are true monopolies) is that the bigger they become, the more dangerous they are, although nothing could be done until they are officially labeled as monopolies. So far, none of the aforementioned companies seem to be violating any laws or causing issues with quality, they do stifle diversity and innovation by making it extremely difficult for other similar companies to enter the market and be successful.

Although these companies are not exactly pure monopolies, the fact that they hold so much control over their respective markets and the monopolistic qualities they exhibit could possibly cause problems in the future as they can set prices at will and change the market themselves. What will happen when companies like Amazon finally control enough of their markets to be labeled as a monopoly? Will something be done, or will they continue to grow? Should something be done, or should the government let these companies be?

Sources:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2019/04/11/america-has-a-monopoly-problem/#38e886872972
https://news.law.fordham.edu/jcfl/2019/03/10/are-there-monopolies-in-2019/
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/032615/are-monopolies-always-bad.asp

Economic Effects of Autonomous Vehicles

Over the past century, the self-driving industry has grown exponentially. For many global car industries, their role in the self-driving industry is not a matter of selling more cars, but a matter of their company's survival. As a result, they have unrelentingly competed to be at the forefront of driverless car development. Autonomous vehicles are the future. However, the introduction of autonomous vehicles into our modern society will present many changes to our current economy.

First, the introduction of autonomous vehicles will result in significant cost savings in the health and insurance sectors. According to the NHTSA, the injuries in vehicle accidents result in $57.6 billion of lost workplace productivity, and $594 billion due to loss of life and decreased quality of life due to injuries. Reducing these accidents would prove to be a massive boost to the economy. Furthermore, the introduction of a self-driving taxi service will allow people to save $5000-10,000 a year on transportation fees. Not to mention the fact that it will drop the cost of taxis and ride-sharing in half. More efficient travel will also result in fuel savings. Furthermore, the technology would allow traffic to flow more smoothly and result in less traffic congestion. Shortened journey and commute times will have a positive effect on our economy.


However, the introduction of a self-driving taxi service will result in the massive displacement of drivers in the transportation sector. This could potentially have a negative effect on unemployment rates and thus, the economy. In addition, the influx of autonomous vehicles may require changes in smart infrastructure - which comes at a significant public cost.

It is expected that most cars in the United States will be driverless within the next half-century. At this point, it is inevitable that autonomous vehicles will eventually dominate not just American society, but become a global industry.

The Effects of an Unstable Economy

The other day I was talking to a friend who was describing the piece of land that his relatives own in Crete. I assumed that many people would be drawn to the area, so I asked how expensive it was to live there. Interestingly, he responded by saying that it's not actually an ideal place for people to live due to Greece's economic instability. I had never really thought about that so I decided to research the effects that a failing/unstable economy has on a country.

A failing economy has numerous negative effects on the overall welfare of nations. It creates an environment in which economic assets lose value and investments are hindered. This leads to unemployment, economic recession, and even societal collapse.

An unstable economy can result in the following:
1. Poverty
2. Irregular and uncertain employment
3. Erratic work schedules
4. Fluctuating public benefits
5. Shifting household composition
6. Frequent house moving
7. Undermine the health and well-being of its citizens
8. Inflation

Economic instability has the highest consequences for low-income families. It not only causes hardships but also disrupts family routines and affects parenting.

The Growth of Aldi: "The biggest shift for U.S. grocers since Walmart"

Aldi is a German discount grocery store, much like Safeway or Walmart. But Aldi is quickly gaining market share in the United States while growth at traditional supermarkets are stagnant or experiencing low growth rates. While many of us may not be familiar with Aldi as there are no stores near us, Aldi has about 1900 stores across the United States with another 100 in planning or under construction.

What makes Aldi so successful? Aldi is categorized as a "limited assortment" store, stores that offer fewer products at lower prices, a category which includes Trader Joes. Offering fewer products allows for faster turnover, and smaller stores decrease rent and energy costs. Aldi has been able to cut costs by delegating work to the shoppers as was the grocery model of the past. For example, customers are expected to bag their own groceries, cutting the need for workers. Because Aldi has been so successful at cutting costs, they are able to keep their prices very low, thereby attracting more customers while also achieving higher profit margins. By marketing the quality of their products, Aldi has also appealed to the middle and upper class as well, allowing it to attract a wide range of people from different socioeconomic backgrounds.

In response to Aldi's invasion, other supermarkets have cut prices on staple foods like bread. Aldi has learned to cater to American's preferences, increasing the supply of baked goods and produce. If Aldi is able to gain the hearts of Americans through its lower prices, then Aldi will be a big disruption in the traditional supermarket market.

Sources: https://www.wsj.com/articles/aldi-lidl-cut-into-u-s-grocers-turf-11571140800
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-grocery-giant-aldi-plans-to-conquer-america-limit-choice-1506004169