Has mobile gaming lost its moral antenna?

For argument - Elizabeth

We live in a world in which every moment can be filled: sitting idly while waiting for an appointment, a train or a friend is now only a choice. The other option is to whip out our mobile phones and enjoy any game of our choosing, without the need to even visit a shop. And when we grow tired of that game, we can download another at the press of a button; within seconds, we can get lost again in a world of bright colours, fantastical creatures and heroic missions. Through mobile gaming, we can be transported to another place, from anywhere we happen to be.

The total value of mobile games is estimated to reach $25bn this year

Mobile games may have an addictive element, but anything enjoyable has a level of compulsion, from sports to television programming to retail therapy; it is up to the individual to choose to participate in the activity. The demand for fun, easy-to-play mobile games exists, so it is logical that businesses have stepped in to fill the void. According to a recent report by games market research firm Newzoo, the total value of mobile games is estimated to reach $25bn this year, a growth of 42 percent from 2013.

Some mobile games have amassed a worldwide following and can afford to advertise with television commercials. According to figures from Superdata Research, Clash of Clans has taken the lead, becoming the highest earning mobile game of 2014 with a gross profit of $1.8bn. Candy Crush Saga continues to be a consumer favourite, with over 350m monthly unique users, while Angry Birds, one of the first games in the industry to gain multinational fame, has spun-off a huge line of merchandise, ranging from clothing to stationery and numerous toys and attractions in between.

There are those who argue mobile gaming exploits the psychological vulnerabilities of consumers in order to keep them hooked. But that is the goal for all businesses; repeat custom is the mainstay of any industry. Understanding consumer behaviour and preferences in order to offer products they not only like but love is the only way to stay ahead in fierce markets. It is not reasonable to expect this to be different in the world of mobile gaming.

Arguably, mobile games need to tap into the consumer psyche even more than other products due to the nature of the market: there are thousands of games available on both Android and Apple operating systems. Appealing to the masses, providing that sense of satisfaction upon reaching a new level and keeping players wanting more is the only way industry players can hope to make headway in such a highly competitive market and make a profit. In such a hard sector to crack, those that become successful – and incredibly successful at that – should be commended, not berated.

Given the current lack of financial confidence, it’s been difficult to encourage spending. But despite that pressure, a whole new industry has managed to surface: one that continues to grow and spill revenue over into various markets, from retail to television. The argument that mobile games are addictive can be easily squashed: they are optional, no one is forced to play games on their phone. And if someone wants to enjoy themselves without spending a single penny, they can – a rarity in the entertainment world. Mobile games, unlike other online services, do not always require personal data; those that do can simply be deleted if the player so wishes.

Mobile gaming offers a form of escapism that is both highly convenient and enjoyable, while being for the most part free. Game on.

Freemium comes at a premium

Mobile gaming is big business. As a whole, the industry is projected to generate more than $12.6bn in 2016. One of the most successful titles in the industry is Candy Crush Saga, which, though briefly overtaken by Fallout Shelter as the top-grossing iOS app earlier this year, quickly regained the top spot a few weeks later, according to data gathered by App Annie.

Candy Crush Saga has managed to attract more than 93m daily users

Despite its slight slip, Candy Crush Saga has managed to attract more than 93m daily users to its confectionary-themed puzzler. It is an impressive figure, especially for a game that is free to download, with developers making their money by players spending on in-app purchases and add-ons.

While King Digital Entertainment, the developers behind the game, can boast they created one of the most popular mobile games on the market, they must also applaud how they have been outplayed by the Covet Fashion app when it comes to monetisation. Developed by Crowdstar, the game allows players to dress up digital models from a collection of clothing and accessories in order to complete various style challenges. But here is the clever bit: once the look is completed, players have the option to purchase any of the items they chose.

But no matter how ingenious the methods of monetisation various developers choose to use, the people most susceptible to their techniques, and who provide profit for the companies behind these mobile games, are victims of addiction.

A recent report by Swrve found 0.15 percent of mobile gamers bring in 50 percent of all revenue generated from in-app purchases in free-to-play games. A small clutch of addicts play these ‘freemium’ mobile games and become so addicted, and are spending so much cash on in-app purchases, that they end up contributing half the industry’s total revenue.

The developers of these games use a number of techniques to get these addicts to part with their money: forcing players to wait for long periods of time before being allowed to progress further, unless they pay; providing positive reinforcement through various stimuli; making the games complicated enough to hold the players attention, but simplistic enough to not require all of it; and ensuring the game never has a conclusion, so players keep coming back for more. If these tactics sound familiar, it’s because they are the same ones employed by the makers of fixed odds betting terminals.

While playing these games isn’t exactly gambling, the symptoms of addiction and the behaviour these gamers exhibit is the same as any other addict. It has been shown playing video games, and particularly freemium titles, causes the brain to act in a similar fashion to that of a heroin addict.

And here’s the real issue with this type of mobile game: if the developers were truly trying to create an entertaining gaming experience for players, rather than simply attempting to pry money out of addicts’ hands, they would have created games good enough that consumers would be willing to pay for them outright.

Consumers understand developers need to make money; not everything can be given away for nothing. If freemium mobile games want to turn a profit then sell adverts, and if players don’t want them, then ask them to pay a premium. But generating half your total revenue by taking advantage of victims of addiction is a disgusting thing to be a part of.

World Bank to improve sanitation for poorest Egyptians

The region is home to some of the country’s poorest inhabitants and they desperately need better access to water, waste disposal, and health services. The World Banks’s $550m venture will help improve the situation for Egypt’s rural poor in the Nile Delta, along with addressing river pollution caused by untreated sewage.

Currently, the World Bank has 26 active projects in Egypt

“One of our strategic areas for supporting Egypt is improving service delivery especially for the poor”, said Asad Alam, World Bank Country Director for Egypt, Yemen and Djibouti. “The programme will improve the well-being of rural Egyptians who suffer from poor access to sanitation services and face serious environmental and health threats.”

The high ground water levels that are a characteristic of the Nile Delta cause sewage to run off into the river’s Al Salam Canal and Rosetta Branch, polluting freshwater reserves and endangering the health of millions of Egyptians.

“The programme is supporting the Egyptian government’s efforts to increase access to rural sanitation by shifting to a decentralised model that empowers the governorate level water and sanitation companies and makes them accountable to their citizens and stakeholders”, said Gustavo Saltiel, World Bank programme team leader.

Currently, the World Bank has 26 active projects in Egypt, which represents a $5.92bn commitment. These financial projects are designed to improve key sectors within the country including, energy, transport, water and sanitation, agriculture and irrigation, housing, social protection, as well as health and education.

ImmuPharma sets its sights high for drug development

ImmuPharma is one of the leading specialist drug development companies in Europe. It has been listed in London since 2006, and the company’s shares are also trading in Berlin, Germany.

The company was founded and is led by a commercially focused board and management team with extensive experience. Founded in Basel in 1999, ImmuPharma focuses on developing novel medicines with high sales potential in specialist markets with serious unmet needs. It has a number of drug candidates in development, two platform technologies and over 70 patents.

Lupuzor was licensed to US specialty pharmaceutical company Cephalon in 2009 in one of the largest deals
in Europe

ImmuPharma’s strategy is to capitalise on pioneering research, which takes place primarily at Europe’s largest fundamental research institution, the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (National Centre for Scientific Research, or CNRS). The CNRS was founded in 1939; it is a government-funded research organisation under the administrative authority of France’s Ministry of Research and has over 30,000 employees and an annual budget of over €3bn. The CNRS has received many prestigious awards and produced 17 Nobel laureates and 11 Fields Medal award winners. ImmuPharma has a significant collaborative research and development agreement with the CNRS that allows the company access to many scientists and doctors, keeping its costs low by avoiding the constant funding necessary for early stage research.

The company also has a collaboration with the Institut Européen de Chimie et Biologie (IECB): an international and interdisciplinary research team incubator, under the joint authority of the CNRS, the Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, and the University of Bordeaux.

Under development
ImmuPharma’s most advanced drug candidate is a treatment for lupus: a chronic, sometimes fatal, disease that attacks multiple organs such as the skin, joints, kidneys, blood cells, heart and lungs. According to some analysts and professional organisations, there are an estimated 1.4 million people diagnosed with the disease in the seven major markets alone (the US, Japan, Germany, France, the UK, Italy and Spain). The US Lupus Foundation believes the number is higher, estimating 1.5 million people just in the US. The rest of the world represents an additional market potential. There is no cure for the disease and only one new drug has been approved for the condition recently.

ImmuPharma’s own drug candidate, Lupuzor, has a novel mechanism of action aimed at modulating the body’s immune system so it avoids attacking healthy cells but also does not cause its own adverse side effects. It has the potential to halt the progression of the disease.

Lupuzor was licensed to US specialty pharmaceutical company Cephalon in 2009 in one of the largest deals in Europe. Cephalon paid ImmuPharma $15m before the results of the Phase IIb study for the exclusive option to enter into the worldwide licence. Following positive results of ImmuPharma’s Phase IIb study in early 2009, Cephalon exercised its option by paying a further $30m for an exclusive worldwide licence. This was part of a corporate deal worth over $500m in cash milestone payments, on top of high royalties on product sales. In addition, Cephalon assumed all responsibilities and costs for the development and commercialisation of Lupuzor.

In 2011, Cephalon was taken over by Teva Pharmaceuticals and, based on key provisions of the agreement between ImmuPharma and Cephalon, ImmuPharma requested and was granted the return of the rights for Lupuzor. This came at an exciting stage in the drug’s development: the FDA had granted Lupuzor approval to start Phase III with a Special Protocol Assessment with Fast Track designation, shortening the approval time by about a year.

Working together
ImmuPharma has appointed some of the world’s most eminent physicians to provide scientific advice and support for Lupuzor’s pivotal Phase III programme. The Scientific Advisory Board members are: Dr Daniel J Wallace, Associate Director of the Rheumatology Fellowship Programme at Cedars-Sinai Medical Centre in Los Angeles, Clinical Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, and Expert Reviewer for the Medical Board of California; Professor David Isenberg, Professor of Rheumatology at University College Hospital in London; Professor Vibeke Strand, Clinical Professor and Adjunct at Stanford University School of Medicine’s Division of Immunology and Rheumatology; Professor Cees GM Kallenberg, Professor of the Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology at University Medical Centre Groningen; and Dr Lee S Simon, Principal, SDG and former FDA Division Director.

The company has secured a £50m, five-year, Equity Financing Facility with Darwin Strategic, a majority-owned subsidiary of Henderson Global Investors’ Volantis Capital, which can be used to fund Lupuzor. In addition, in October 2014, ImmuPharma raised approximately £3.4m through the issue of new shares, at a premium to the share price.

ImmuPharma has recently signed a collaboration agreement with Simbec-Orion Group for the execution of ImmuPharma’s Pivotal Phase III clinical study of Lupuzor. Simbec-Orion is a full-service international clinical research organisation specialising in rare and orphan conditions, and has previous direct experience in Lupus trials. Simbec-Orion has revenues of approximately £25m, employs approximately 250 staff and has operations across Europe, Australia and the US, together with capabilities in multiple other territories.

Breakthrough treatments
ImmuPharma’s anti-cancer programme, IPP-204106, has a dual mechanism of action, acting both in preventing angiogenesis and proliferation. Data on IPP-204106 has been obtained that confirms the ability of the compounds to effectively control and stop the growth of a large panel of human cancer cell lines, both in vitro and in vivo. Collectively, the studies covered breast cancer, prostate cancer, melanoma, glioblastoma, leukaemia, colon cancer and pancreatic cancer cell lines.

The programme has been awarded grants of over €1m from the French national research agencies. In May 2011, the drug was chosen to feature on the front cover of Cancer Research, the prestigious medical journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. The key findings of the study published by the association were that the compound: inhibits growth of several tumour cell lines, xenograft models and blocks angiogenesis; rapidly localises selectively in tumour tissue; promotes apoptosis (the death of cells, a key approach in the treatment of cancer); and has a novel mechanism of action, acting on nucleoproteins on the surface of cancer cells.

Ureka, one of ImmuPharma’s fully owned subsidiaries, is a pharmaceutical R&D unit, with its internal research team based at the Institut Européen de Chimie et Biologie (IECB) in Bordeaux. Through its network, the IECB hosts 15 international and multi-disciplinary research teams. Among them is the CNRS team of Dr Gilles Guichard, one of the scientific founders of ImmuPharma and a leading researcher in peptides.

The long-standing collaboration with the CNRS under Dr Guichard and Ureka has resulted in the filing of a new co-owned patent controlling a breakthrough peptide technology called ‘Urelix’. The new technology makes it possible, in essence, to mimic long natural peptides – especially in the configuration used to bind their receptors and improve their stability to enzymatic degradation (i.e. breakdown of peptides into amino acids) as well as greater efficacy. The first therapeutic area being targeted is diabetes. Blocking the protein/protein interaction could also be used in fighting viruses (by blocking virus entry into cells), which could be further investigated.

The potential of this technology is substantial and diverse, and is one of the key reasons Ureka has established its own research team (some provided by Dr Guichard’s laboratory, others by other prestigious universities such as ETH Zurich), working in close collaboration with Dr Guichard and his CNRS team. Within this collaboration, the IECB’s incubator on the campus of the University of Bordeaux has provided ImmuPharma with access to state-of-the-art laboratories and a number of scientists.

The French region of Aquitaine (around Bordeaux) has awarded Ureka a non-refundable grant of approximately €400,000 to develop its Urelix technology.

Prestige and recognition
ImmuPharma was founded and is run by an experienced international management team of ex-big pharma and investment banking executives. They each previously held senior positions in the industry, including at GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Novartis, Bristol Myers-Squibb, UBS, Commerz Bank and ABN Amro. Since its foundation, the company has attracted interest from prestigious institutional investors, including ING Belgium, M&G, Gartmore, Jupiter, Aviva, Schroders Life Sciences, Legal & General, Close, Standard Life, Odey Asset Management and Pictet.

The company’s work has won recognition from a number of notable organisations. It was the winner of the Breakthrough of the Year 2009 European Mediscience Award, sponsored by Piper Jaffray, the Best Technology Award at the AIM Awards 2009, organised by the London Stock Exchange, and was named Best Drug Development Company in Europe by The New Economy Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Awards for 2010. And, in 2014, it was awarded the New Economy Award for Most Innovative Drug Licensing and Development Company.

Four tech writers we should be reading…

From the growth of the internet to robotic automation, to big data and apps, the pace of technological change seems to be faster than ever. The rise of Silicon Valley and its various products has given us a variety of new terms with which to describe the world we live in, from the optimistic idea of the ‘sharing economy’ to the ubiquitous ‘platform capitalism’ and the rather more cynical ‘cut-off economy’.

A similarly break-neck speed of technological change was experienced in 19th- and early 20th-century Europe, with the proliferation of rail, cars, industry and the growth of modern cities. Intellectuals such as Thorstein Veblen, Martin Heidegger, Max Weber and Georg Simmel, through their writings and reflections, helped people make sense of these scientific and technological advances. Today is no different. While the technology writers profiled over the next few pages may not reach the intellectual heights of the aforementioned names, in the same way, their writings provide interesting ideas and insights through which we can understand the constant technological innovation happening around us every day.

Nicholas Carr

Nicholas Carr came to prominence as a writer in the mid-2000s with essays such as “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” which raised questions about the impact of the internet on human cognition. His 2010 book The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains further elaborated upon this essay, arguing the fragmented nature of information found on the internet, removed from context, was detrimental to human intelligence. While he praises the internet for allowing us easier access to information, he expresses concern that the “flick and click” nature of the internet is altering the human brain, turning, what he calls, “the linear, literary mind” into “yesterday’s mind”; we learn to consume information in small flashes, rather than in long, thought-out narratives.

Carr’s latest work, The Glass Cage: Automation and Us, extends his critique to automation. His thesis is that increasing automation of tasks previously performed by humans is causing “an erosion of skills, a dulling of perceptions, and a slowing of reactions”. From word-processing spell checkers to autopilot on aeroplanes, delegating tasks to machines is inhibiting people’s cognitive abilities, he says.

Inspired by the work of psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Carr argues the increasing automation of activities by technology and computers makes people miserable. In a sort of inverted version of Karl Marx’s theory of alienation, he argues the replacing of some forms of human labour with automated machines alienates people from the world; idleness is alienating because humans find meaning in their work. Automation, he says, creates a frictionless world in which humans, bereft of certain work activities, struggle to find any meaning.

Any solutions derived from his critique seem rather lacking, with the suggestion of reclaiming tedious toil from robots unlikely to gain much support. Yet, in a world where automation is ever proliferating – every week it seems some team of researchers has developed some new technology to displace humans – it is worth considering Carr’s thesis. Neither Luddite nor tech-utopian, his writing provides a unique insight into the human implications of the automated world said to be coming.

Jeff Jarvis

Fellow tech critic Evgeny Morozov (more on whom later) dubbed Jeff Jarvis, the creator of online news site BuzzMachine, “the loudest guru on the internet”. In 2009, Jarvis published What Would Google Do? The book details the rise of the internet giant, along with similar technology firm success stories, and endeavours to show what other prospective internet entrepreneurs can learn from them. He postulates the heads of firms such as Google “think differently”, and are consequently changing the world. Anyone who wishes to get ahead in business, he says, should attune himself or herself to Google’s way of thinking.

Jarvis has since gone from quasi-religious praising of Google to making the case for what he calls “publicness” in his latest title, Public Parts: How Sharing in the Digital Age Improves the Way We Work and Live. In a world of clouds, big data, social media and anti-terrorism surveillance programmes, the death of privacy is much fretted about. Whether it’s Google and Facebook collecting large quantities of personal data, or the NSA and GCHQ tapping phone calls and monitoring emails, a technology-driven loss of privacy is a recurring news story. “Privacy advocates swarm in the media every time a new online service entices us to share something about ourselves”, writes Jarvis.

He contends democracy requires a level of “publicness”, and that the disclosure of information from individuals, businesses or governments and other institutions is beneficial. For Jarvis, privacy is for the selfish. Too much concern with privacy causes us to “lose opportunities to make connections in this age of links”. There is nothing inherently bad, he argues, with the internet’s blurring of the public and private sphere.

New technologies, he continues, allow a back and forth dialogue between consumer and producer, with the latter able to take into account the views of the former, creating a world where “people formerly known as consumers can move up the design, sales, and service chains to say what they want in a product before it is made”. Like so many who spend an inordinate abmount of time on the internet, he is a promoter of “open government”, claiming “there is no reason for public officials to hide what they know and do from their publics”. To address this he advocates the creation of a “Publicness Czar” to oversee openness in the US Government (though one would hope such a role wouldn’t suffer from mission creep, concerning itself with enforcing ‘openness’ for everyone).

Tim Wu

Tim Wu is many things: by profession he is a trained lawyer, having graduated from Harvard Law School and now teaching at Columbia University. In 2014, he tried his hand at politics, running for the Democratic Party nomination for Lieutenant Governor of the state of New York against the incumbent Kathy Hochul, and losing with a respectable 40 percent. He is also a regular contributor to The New Yorker.

He is most well known, however, for coining the term “net neutrality” in a 2003 academic paper entitled “Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination”. It has fast become a contentious issue. The basic premise is that internet providers and governments should treat all internet data as equal and not discriminate between certain web pages or information. For example, Comcast’s intentional slowing down of connection speeds for users engaged in peer-to-peer sharing violated net neutrality. The accusation that Google privileges its own products on web searches is also be seen by some as a violation of the same principle.

Many of Wu’s papers have had a significant influence. In 2006, he wrote a paper arguing censorship of internet content by governments should be regarded as a trade barrier by the World Trade Organisation, which is said to have inspired Google’s lobbying for China to be penalised for its internet censorship. His writings on net neutrality and internet censorship helped the Federal Communications Commission draft rules concerning the issue in 2006 and he served as a Senior Advisor to the Federal Trade Commission in 2011 and 2012.

Wu has also written more theoretical works concerning technology and the internet. His 2010 book The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires charts a pattern of how methods of disseminating information (termed “empires”) are subject to cycles of openness but inevitably become closed over time. Drawing upon the historical cases of telephone technology, the film industry, television broadcasting and the internet, Wu says that, while technological innovations at first result in increasing open flows of information, certain companies soon consolidate their positions in the new industries and increasingly exert control, ending their open nature. Soon, a new technology “disrupts” this closing, and the cycle repeats. Unsurprisingly, violations of Wu’s principal of net neutrality by corporations and governments are framed as the biggest threat to the openness of the internet.

Evgeny Morozov

Hailing from Belarus, but living in the US, Evgeny Morozov made a name for himself in the early days of the Arab Spring. With protests being mobilised through Twitter and other social networking sites, many saw the internet as the new harbinger of democracy. His well-timed book The Net Delusion: How Not to Liberate the World punctured the growing optimism that the internet would facilitate democratisation.

In the mid-2000s, he had been a hopeful advocate of the internet’s liberating possibilities, working for a Czech-based NGO called Transitions and giving talks on how digital media had the potential to improve politics in Eastern Europe. Yet, with the usual zeal of a repentant believer, his The Net Delusion argued the internet was actually a technology that could aid tyrannies and dictatorships.

He has now denounced his former faith as “a quasi-religious belief in the power of the internet to do supernatural things, from eradicating illiteracy in Africa to organising all of the world’s information… Opening up closed societies and flushing them with democracy juice until they shed off their authoritarian skin is just one of the expectations placed on the internet these days”. Morozov argues the internet could instead be used to track and arrest potential advocates of democracy and reform, extending – not diminishing or weakening – illegitimate leviathans.

Morozov has since widened his aim, taking on the personalities and assumptions that form the Silicon Valley nexus. In a slew of articles and in his 2014 book To Save Everything, Click Here, he criticises the oft-held view he calls “solutionism”. He defines this as a delusion that technological innovations can provide simple solutions to a host of problems such as politics and obesity, devoid of their social and political context, as well as the misconception that there is a solution to all problems in a liberal democracy. He has also taken issue with the casual use of the term ‘the internet’, consistently placing it in square quotes throughout his work. The reason for this, Morozov argues, is that, when people refer to the internet, they do not refer to just a collection of cables and material infrastructure. Rather, they refer to a set of ideas – such as solutionism and other tendencies he repeatedly critiques – about how the world works and ought to work, which he contends in no way flow naturally from the information sharing technology of the internet.

HAV Airlander 10 takes to the skies

The hybrid airship Airlander 10 is the world’s largest aircraft. At 92 metres in length, it is 21 metres longer than the best-selling Boeing 747-400 jet airliner. It can carry a payload of 20,000 pounds (or eight large elephants) and can take off from land, water or ice – all while burning a fifth of the fuel of a conventional aeroplane. Already this year, the craft has attracted a £3.4m grant from the UK Government, a €2.5m grant from the EU, and £2.4m in crowdfunding (almost £2m more than its target). It’s also being backed by Iron Maiden frontman Bruce Dickinson.

Though it’s a British baby, and though it’s stirring up interest among European investors, the Airlander 10 began life as a US military project. Back then, it was known by the decidedly more parade ground name of ‘Long Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicle’ (or LEMV to its friends). It was hoped the craft would carry out long-term surveillance and reconnaissance of America’s enemies.

Whether it’s a success or not, there’s no doubt the Airlander 10 is an impressive piece of engineering

The US Army invested over $154m in a prototype version created by British design firm Hybrid Air Vehicles (HAV) and US aerospace company Northrop Grumman (previously responsible for the B-2 stealth bomber). The LEMV made its maiden test flight in New Jersey in 2012. Though a success, the craft fell victim to military spending cuts, and languished unused until HAV bought the prototype for $301,000 in late 2013 and had it reassembled at RAF Cardington in England.

High hopes
Chris Daniels, HAV’s Head of Partnerships and Communications, says: “[The Airlander] was designed for military surveillance, which will continue to be one of its main markets, and that means it is also ideal for civil surveillance applications and for undertaking geo-surveys.” It could also be used for light cargo roles in remote locations (the fact the craft requires minimal infrastructure to operate is a big advantage over aeroplanes) and is, according to Daniels, “particularly good for carrying outsized loads such as wind turbine blades”. HAV hopes it will also be suitable for the traditional airship markets of ‘flightseeing’ and advertising – as Daniels points out, “it makes a very big billboard”.

Mike Durham, Technical Director at HAV, told The Telegraph: “The technological problems with airships that have stopped them ruling the skies have been gradually ticked off.” Daniels adds: “Material technology and computer-aided design have had a significant impact on being able to come up with a design that can robustly achieve this mix of aerodynamic and aerostatic lift.”

The ‘hybrid’ description comes from the fact the Airlander doesn’t gain all its lift from its helium envelope as airships do. Instead, up to 40 percent of it comes from the aerofoil created by its wing-like multi-hull shape, while the vectored thrust of the engines gives additional vertical lift, like a helicopter.

The future
HAV plans to undertake funded demonstrations of the Airlander 10 in the second half of 2016, with the expectation being that commercial operations will begin in 2017 or 2018. The company claims there is a market for over 600 Airlander units. Beyond that, HAV has plans for an even bigger hybrid vehicle: the Airlander 50, boasting a cargo bay of 500 cubic metres. This behemoth will, says Daniels, “address the remote cargo market at a lower operating cost, per tonne-kilometre, than ice roads or bush roads”.

Whether it’s a success or not, there’s no doubt the Airlander 10 is an impressive piece of engineering, and a reminder of the capabilities of a technology we’ve largely abandoned. It’ll be a fascinating thing to study, even if it doesn’t take off.

A closer look

B L I M P

Virgin on the extreme: businesses use wearable tech to spy on employees

It’s hardly revelatory to say that the collection of consumer data is big business. Facebook, Google and many other tech companies reap vast amounts of personal data from their users, often to be stored in the cloud. E-commerce giants make use of our search histories for targeted advertising while private companies sell algorithms to law enforcement agencies to track crime data and enable them to better predict and target crime patterns. Supermarkets, meanwhile, use loyalty cards to determine spending habits. Yet, despite all the hand-wringing, this data is often collected with the consent of customers, in a quid pro quo exchange where personal data is traded for the free use of services such as Gmail and social media membership.

Increasingly, employers are looking to do much the same with their employees, with an eye to monitoring and hopefully improving their health and productivity. Such concerns are not new, and date back to at least the early 20th century. Henry Ford campaigned against the consumption of alcohol, believing it impeded workers and reduced efficiency on the factory lines. The rise of health tracking, however, takes this further: rather than trying to prevent public access to a certain substance, as Ford did, health tracking concerns itself with small, seemingly unimportant elements of employees’ lives.

$92m

New funding announced for Virgin Pulse

56%

Are willing to wear a health-tracking device for their employer

Virgin Pulse
Over the last few years, firms such as Fitbit, Jawbone, Nike and Misfit have begun offering companies systems that allow employers to monitor employee’s health. One firm, Kronos, counts Apple, Starbucks and IKEA among its clients and pulls in $1bn of revenue a year. Virgin Pulse, meanwhile, (part of Richard Branson’s Virgin Group) is set to become an even bigger player in the market.

In May it was announced Virgin Pulse was to receive a boost in funding, with Insight Venture Partners and Virgin Group together injecting Virgin Pulse with $92m in new funding. The company describes itself as a “habits-focused well-being company” that has “revolutionised how businesses create healthier, more productive workforces while also building great places to work”.

In practice, it allows employers to track and make use of health data relating to their employees. Virgin Pulse offers companies a variety of personal fitness tracking systems, which can be synched with wearables and other electronic devices such as smartphones. Firms can track and record the eating, sleeping and exercise habits of their workers and promote a so-called healthy lifestyle. Employees are given a personal wearable device known as ‘the Max’, which records data such as daily steps taken and the number of calories burned. Through a linked online portal, users can enter data concerning meal nutrition, weights lifted and hours of sleep per night.

The idea that your boss might know when you’re asleep is a bit creepy, but the raw data is not accessible to employers. Rather, it is turned into points. As The Boston Globe reported: “An employer cannot see how many calories a worker burns or how often she cheats on her diet. All the company knows is how many points she collects over the course of a month. Since there are many ways to amass points, the total doesn’t reveal much detail about what she’s been up to.” These points are then used to determine which incentives and rewards will be given to employees, such as insurance rebates.

Worn with problems
Harikesh Nair, Associate Professor of Marketing at Stanford University Graduate School of Business, told Fast Company the rise of health tracking through wearables and other technology is “definitely an incredible revolution… in workplace measurement”. He noted firms already recorded data from transactions – think of Amazon’s customer profiling or coffee shop points – to entice sales and stoke customer loyalty. Employers tracking employees’ health, he says, is merely an extension of this.

The comparison, however, has one clear flaw: while firms using health tracking say it is a voluntary scheme, it is not the same as choosing whether or not to shop at certain data-hungry retail giants. Where people shop is essentially a choice, with no compulsion involved; it might be inconvenient to stop shopping at large stores and e-commerce websites, but it is possible without penalisation.

Daniel Cooper, head of the data privacy team at law firm Covington, told the Financial Times there is a risk employees in a workplace where health tracking is used on a voluntary basis will still feel implicit coercion to take part. “Historically, European regulators in the data protection area have been very sceptical you can ever get a valid employee consent – they feel that, for existing employees, [the relationship] is almost inherently coercive”, he said.

Other than the fear of compulsion, there also remains the issue of employers intruding into their employees’ private lives. The line between the work and private sphere – already blurred by email on smartphones – is further degraded. From what a worker eats to when they sleep and what they do in their spare time is turned into a concern of employers, meaning vast parts of an employee’s life are colonised by their place of work, to be subjected to analysis and assessment.

The use of health monitoring is often framed in altruistic terms: Virgin Pulse claims to make employees “happier human beings”, while one of its clients, Ascend, insists “employees know we care about them”. Underlying this concern, however, is the view that such initiatives will improve employee productivity and reduce costs. Wearable and health-tracking providers pitch their services to prospective customers on the basis of either healthy workers being more productive and engaged in the work place, or (particularly in the US) as a way of lowering employee insurance premiums.

Despite these concerns, data (gathered through traditional surveys, not 24-hour wearable surveillance) suggests a large number of people are more than comfortable with their employers tracking their health. According to PwC research released in April, 40 percent of working UK adults would happily wear a health-tracking device for their employer. When it was specified information gathered would be used to “improve their wellbeing at work”, the number prepared to allow bosses to monitor their health rose to 56 percent.

The French philosopher Michel Foucault wrote: “To be efficient and productive workers, biopolitics is deployed [by the state] to manage population; for example, to ensure a healthy workforce.” A similar idea is at work with health-monitoring wearables, but with the political part of “biopolitics” removed. Let’s call it ‘bio-HR’.

Nok over yet: could Nokia’s fortunes be about to change?

A decade ago, the mobile phone market was roughly split between two leading players. The leading maker of smartphones – handsets that weren’t anything like as popular then as they are now – was Canada’s Research In Motion, with its BlackBerry phone. Dominating the consumer, lower-end of the market that accounted for the majority of sales was Finland’s Nokia.

The Finnish telecommunications giant had a long history of building various communications technology, but had captured a huge portion of the newly widespread mobile phone market by the turn of the millennium. With simple and cheap phones – and long-lasting batteries that would be unthinkable today – Nokia dominated a very different mobile phone market.

However, things slowly started to change around 2005. BlackBerry’s popularity among business people started to spread into the consumer market, with customers keen to utilise the advanced online features of the phones. While Nokia began offering its own similar products, it never quite achieved the obsession BlackBerry managed to stir up in its customers.

$15.6bn

Amount paid by Nokia for Alcatel-Lucent

Then, in 2007, the entire industry was shaken up by the arrival of Apple’s iPhone. Blending many of the high-end services found in smartphones with a consumer-friendly design, the phone made Nokia’s previous efforts look incredibly old hat in just a matter of months. From a 62.5 percent share of the market at the end of 2007, Nokia fell to 40.8 percent 12 months later. The steady decline continued apace in the years to come, with new entrants such as Samsung using Google’s new Android platform. Market share fell to 32 percent by the end of 2010.

Today, the smartphone business is dominated by Android-based phones made by companies such as Samsung and Huawei, Apple’s iPhone, and, to a lesser extent, Microsoft’s Windows Phone. Nokia no longer features, while BlackBerry continues to flounder in its efforts to recapture its lost audience.

Changes afoot
Nokia has undergone a profound change over the last year. It welcomed a new CEO in 2014 – Rajeev Suri – and has begun to shed some of its less profitable businesses. It has also started to focus on its business-to-business operations, bolstering its networking capabilities. The three main operations of the company will be its Here mapping service, the infrastructure networking business Nokia Networks, and its development arm Nokia Technologies.

Suri told telecoms industry magazine European Communications the company was also looking at selling it’s little used but industry praised mapping service Here. The service could prove to be an extremely valuable one to other companies reliant on the likes of Google or Apple’s mapping products. It’s thought Here has received considerable interest from German car manufacturers keen to embrace the internet in their new designs, with a consortium of BMW, Mercedes-Benz and Audi rumoured to be putting together an offer. Chinese carmaker Baidu has also expressed an interest, while Taxi app Uber is also reportedly looking at the service; the company has grand ambitions in a number of transport-related businesses. However, Siro has also said the company is in no rush to sell Here, and will only do so if it makes sense to the whole of Nokia’s future operations.

Another big change at Nokia was announced in April, when it revealed it would be acquiring French telecommunications equipment company Alcatel-Lucent for around €15.6bn. One of the leading developers of fixed, mobile, and converged networking hardware, Alcatel-Lucent represents a non-consumer-facing new string to Nokia’s bow. It will also bring one of the industry’s largest research and development facilities, Bell Laboratories (a subsidiary of Alcatel-Lucent), into Nokia’s stable, helping the company continue its position as a key industry innovator. However, while the company has been busy bolstering its corporate services operations, the consumer business has lain dormant. As part of the deal, a new development centre for 5G technologies will be based in France, and the company will create an investment fund worth €100m.

Announcing the deal, Suri said in a statement: “Together, Alcatel-Lucent and Nokia intend to lead in next-generation network technology and services. Our innovation capability will be extraordinary, bringing together the R&D engine of Nokia with that of Alcatel-Lucent and its iconic Bell Labs. We will continue to combine this strength with the highly efficient, lean operations needed to compete on a global scale. We have hugely complementary technologies and the comprehensive portfolio necessary to enable the [Internet of Things] and transition to the cloud. We will have a strong presence in every part of the world, including leading positions in the United States and China. I firmly believe that this is the right deal, with the right logic, at the right time.” If the deal passes the various regulatory hurdles, it will be confirmed by early next year.

Comparing contracts
Just last year, Nokia seemingly retreated from the consumer smartphone business when it announced it would be selling that part of its operations to Microsoft. The deal came three years after a strategic partnership was announced between the two faltering companies – a partnership that was seen more as a marriage of convenience than one of genuine desire. However, with the US tech giant rebranding the phones as Lumia Windows Phone, Nokia’s once-ever-present name no longer had a presence in the mobile phone market.

Rumours emerged in April that Nokia would return to the smartphone business in 2016 but were quickly quashed by the company. The reports suggested the company had begun hiring staff in its smartphone business in anticipation of the expiration of its exclusivity deal with Microsoft, which barred it from selling smart devices until the end of 2015. However, Suri acknowledged in an interview with Germany’s Manager Magazine the company was “looking for suitable partners” in the smartphone market.

In what form a new Nokia smartphone will emerge remains to be seen. It ceased development of its own Symbian mobile operating system in 2014, having primarily used Microsoft’s Windows Phone OS for the previous three years. While developing its own software might differentiate it from the competition, it seems unlikely Nokia would want to cut itself off from potential customers so used to Google’s ubiquitous Android platform, or former Windows-based clients.

Suri has since said the company would not look to manufacture phones, but instead license its designs and brand name to third parties. By utilising its expertise and experience, Nokia could offer a third-party manufacturer the chance to develop a truly unique rival to the dominant Apple and Samsung handsets.

What Nokia will do next remains unclear. It holds a strong position in the network infrastructure market, while its reputation for innovation is still relatively intact. While Apple and Samsung’s dominance of the smartphone business seems insurmountable, Nokia knows all too well that once-dominant players can be easily booted out with the emergence of an innovative upstart.

China profits from pollution

On an almost daily basis, fresh photographs appear of the haze enveloping China’s city streets, and the number of premature deaths linked to pollution edge ever higher into the millions. Tens of thousands of rivers have run dry, and there are some scientists who have likened the country’s chronic air pollution to a nuclear winter. It’s well known that China’s economic might has grown at a ferocious rate – far beyond that of its Western counterparts – but the repercussions of this breakneck transition to a modern industrialised economy have only recently been discussed openly by the country’s government.

Last year, a jar of clean air fetched the equivalent of $860 at auction, and while the bid was more to illustrate a point than anything else, it did show how much of a much sought-after commodity clean air has become. “I don’t want to open my mouth because I’m afraid you’ll see that I’m toothless”, said one local Chinese environmental official, who, in Chai Jing’s blockbuster documentary Under the Dome, lifted the veil on the authorities’ powerlessness to act on the issue. Here, in the world’s second largest economy, spiralling energy demand is largely satisfied by coal, and waste from steel production, chemical manufacturing and landfills is routinely tipped into either the atmosphere or shrinking water supplies.

Some scientists have likened China’s chronic air pollution to a
nuclear winter

Anti-pollution opportunity
Elsewhere, Inge Thulin, Chief Executive of the Minnesota-based manufacturer 3M, sees China as a shining opportunity, with sales there set to outstrip total revenue growth threefold, due to demand for its health and pollution-control products. While millions have suffered the adverse health effects of China’s rise, the same issues have brightened the complexion of companies such as 3M, for whom pollution is fuel to their fire. “If you think about it from the big mega-trends, there’s air pollution, water and food safety”, said Thulin, speaking at 3M’s Shanghai offices in March. “There are big opportunities for us in those areas.”

In 1984, 3M became the first wholly owned foreign-invested enterprise in China, and has since invested over $1bn in the country. Sales there now account for a significant share (20 percent) of 3M’s global revenue, and it has fast become a crucially important market. Some analysts have gone so far as to suggest 3M ranks alongside the most powerful brands in the emerging world, and, while a worsening pollution problem has inflicted heavy losses on the population at large, 3M, has happened upon a multimillion-dollar opportunity.

US multinational Honeywell has also seen its sales surge, so much so that China became its largest market outside the homeland in 2013, buoyed by the anti-pollution opportunity. From 2004 to 2012, Honeywell’s sales expanded fivefold and, according to Honeywell China’s President and CEO Stephen Shang, the company “will continue to support the Chinese government’s extensive efforts to improve the environment”.

Noting rapid urbanisation and industrialisation have brought about change, Shang says: “Macro trends, which include sustainable urbanisation, the environment and clean energy, and industrial upgrading, provide Honeywell with unprecedented trend-driven opportunities and a strong tailwind for growth in this dynamic marketplace.”

Chris Buckley, owner of the Beijing-based Torana Clean Air Centre, China’s official distributor of Blueair air purifiers, says a growing awareness of the issues at hand has been “very important” in boosting sales: “When we first began selling, 90 percent of our sales were to foreigners. Now the large majority of our sales are to local customers.”

The benefits go beyond just a handful of companies. Facemasks, in all their iterations, having become a fixture of China’s city streets – so much so that in December 2013 3M exhausted its supply. CKGSB Knowledge reported nationwide sales of facemasks on Taobao and Tmall were up 900 percent on the previous December, despite the complaints standards and oversight were lacking. And, while not necessarily the cheapest, the Chinese population has come to see 3M’s products not as a luxury but a necessity.

Ignorant no more
“The Chinese public are far more aware of the scale of China’s pollution problem now than they were a few years ago”, says Matthew Collins, Project Manager at the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs. “It is now much easier to access information on things like air and water quality due to government monitoring and reporting initiatives. Technology, in the form of mobile apps, social media and internet tools, has also played a significant role in allowing people greater access to information.”

Buckley adds: “There has been a steady trend towards growing awareness and decreasing tolerance of environmental pollution amongst the Chinese public over the last few years. This isn’t just a matter of air pollution (though this is part of it), it affects all aspects of life, including food safety and awareness of the urban environment generally.” He points to Chinese advertising, which has recently embraced ‘natural’ imagery as a major selling point.

Studies show this awareness has not necessarily translated into progress, and the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) 25 microgram per cubic metre Air Quality Index upper band, introduced so policymakers might more easily detect dangerous levels of pollution, has been repeatedly ignored. In 2010, the then-500 microgram recording was labelled “crazy bad” by Beijing embassy staff, but the figure surpassed 1,000 in 2013 – a year in which 1.2 million people died prematurely as a result of pollution, according to The Lancet.

Not until the death toll strayed into seven-figure territory did the government change tack, and the following year kicked off with Li Keqiang’s now-infamous “war on pollution” speech. The Premier pledged to pay heed to “nature’s red-light warning against inefficient and blind development”, and, in doing so, reduce the population’s exposure to pollution.

China’s emissions could decline within the decade

But the problem is not just one of government inaction. Studies conducted by the China Consumers Association last year showed most facemasks were failing to provide basic protection for wearers. Of the 37 models included, only nine were found to protect against hazardous particles, as defined by WHO, and the higher end models, priced at CNY 199, were no more successful at shutting out pollution than the one yuan disposables. The US Food and Drug Administration also entered the discussion, saying the effectiveness of any one product depended chiefly on the brand and fit in question. The problem is that many of the masks worn in China are surgical masks, designed only to protect against spattering blood and not smaller particles that can easily bypass loose-fitting masks.

The findings are yet to make a measurable impact on China’s facemask sales, though the focus on fighting pollution, both on Chinese and foreign fronts, raises an important question for those in pollution control. Chinese sales have come to constitute a considerable chunk of the overall figures, and, should the government clamp down on the issue to the degree they say they will, sales for a whole host of related technologies could suffer.

Turning point
The news in May that China had slashed emissions by five percent in the first four months of the year hailed the first leg of the country’s historic war with pollution, with the reduction equivalent to that of the UK’s total emissions throughout the same period. The findings, reached by Greenpeace and Energydesk China, followed a decision to shutter over 1,000 coal mines, and underline the country’s real and growing commitment to clamp down on pollution.

China’s successes on this front fall in line with a number of similar steps taken recently to improve its standing in the climate change debate. In May, China and India issued a joint statement acknowledging climate change and that its adverse effects constituted the “greatest global challenges of the 21st century”. They also underlined the importance of international cooperation in arriving at a solution. China also took the opportunity late last year to sign a bilateral agreement with the US, in which it acknowledged the two have a critical role to play in combating climate change, while also stating its intentions to achieve the peaking of CO2 emissions around – and preferably before – 2030.

Another report, this time from the London School of Economics, speculated China’s emissions could decline within the decade, adding the country’s war on pollution could spark momentum in the global market for clean goods and services. Whereas a longstanding dependence on coal has given rise to a chronic pollution problem, a switch to low-carbon alternatives could improve the world’s chances of keeping to the two degrees Celsius goal set by the UN.

“While China has historically been used as an excuse not to act on climate change, now we are beginning to see China as the example of why we should act on climate change”, says John Sauven, Acting UK Executive Director of Greenpeace. “The drop in emissions from coal shows that the progress made on alternative energy and energy efficiency is beginning to kick in. While some of the drop may be caused by slower GDP growth, the majority is clearly government action to curtail coal use and rebalance the economy.”

Industrial waste is regularly dumped into China’s rivers, polluting water sources and killing fish
Industrial waste is regularly dumped into China’s rivers, polluting water sources and killing fish

Too green to be good
By all estimates, the progress made on this front is a positive sign for China, though there are fears that those with a stake in pollution control could suffer greatly as a result. Buckley, for example, admits the war on pollution “could certainly impact at some point”, though goes on to remark, “at the moment, expectations are rising as fast or faster than improvements in the environment”. For air purifiers, facemasks and a number of similar consumer products, the effects of reduced pollution are unlikely to materialise for quite some time, though, once they do, they could conceivably push affected firms to the brink of collapse.

All things considered, the situation is not enough to trouble those outside industry circles. Yet were the same pattern to emerge in China’s energy sector, the fallout would extend far beyond a few million in lost product sales.

The downfall of consumer pollution-control products concerns relatively few, but the situation could be seen as a precursor to the situation soon to grip those in coal. Whereas, on the one hand, less pollution would mean less demand for pollution-control products, it might also mean the coal industry, and its accompanying advanced coal technologies, could come crashing down.

A crackdown on dirty plants has handed technology firms the impetus they so desperately need to think up fresh solutions, and, by some estimates, 90 percent of the country’s coal-fired plants are now equipped with basic pollution controls. As the number-one contributor to climate change, China’s reputation as a gluttonous coal consumer is well deserved. Recent developments have been such, however, that the country’s compliance in regards to conventional pollutants is nearing that of the US and even Europe.

China’s reputation as a gluttonous coal consumer is well deserved

Advanced coal technology and CCS are perhaps the two leading branches of development on this front, and their implementation will no doubt occupy a great deal of China’s focus moving forwards. Alongside measures to shrink coal’s carbon footprint, investors are beginning to shun the black stuff in favour of cleaner alternatives, casting doubts on coal’s place in China’s energy mix. Coal consumption fell in 2014 and fell again in the first quarter of this year. The idea of funnelling billions of dollars into coal is looking, increasingly, like a lost cause, and China’s changed energy policy has done little to extend the resource a lifeline.

Representatives at China’s Energy Research Institute and the National Development and Reform Committee believe China, which is already the largest renewables market on the planet, will commit still further to the cause in the coming years. In a recent report, the two argued renewables could account for 57 percent of the country’s energy mix before 2030 and 86 percent by the midpoint of the century. What’s more, looking at investment in clean energy in 2014, renewables and efficiency improvements clocked in at a record $89.5bn – 32 percent greater than the year previous and over 40 percent greater than in the US.

Pollution control companies have profited as a result of China’s worsening pollution, and technologies to reduce emissions have been well received. However, now the country is cracking down, those same names would do well to worry for their futures. The speed and scale of China’s transformation into a modern industrialised powerhouse has been like no other in world history, but the pollution problems hanging over it mean the age of coal is coming to an end, and swiftly. With this, so too is the anti-pollution opportunity of days past, and, while the most immediate casualties won’t concern many of us, the diminished opportunities in clean coal could bring a halt to opportunities elsewhere.

FarmLink sows the seeds for technological advances in agriculture

Farmers have driven incredible progress in agriculture around the world. And yet, the productivity gains made in recent decades are not enough to feed a growing world population while conserving natural resources. The next wave of innovation necessary to meet this challenge will not come from improved genetics or agronomics alone. Farmers and agribusinesses across the planet will rely on advances in data science and associated technology to unlock new productivity potential.

“It’s an exciting time in agriculture because, while the challenges are great, the opportunities to create the necessary solutions are even greater”, says Ron LeMay, Chairman and CEO of FarmLink, a data science and technology company at the heart of US ‘ag’ technology. “We have a new vision that uses an unprecedented and irreplaceable data set to create innovative tools and services. Using data science, technology and our passion for innovation, we see a myriad of possibilities for solving global challenges across the food system.”

Making big data actionable
In recent years, farmers have begun using precision farming technologies to improve productivity (including GPS and variable rate planters), but these devices are only as good as the data available to them. And while farmers are drowning in data on weather, soil, yields, commodity prices, etc, they are thirsting for ways to make information actionable. In other words, they are looking for ways to convert data into better decisions and better farm management practices, and measuring subsequent results for continuous improvement.

372

Additional yield potential for farm operations in Kansas

The industry now stands at a tipping point, where advancements in data science, connectivity and computing power can revolutionise crop production, farm profitability and food chain sustainability. Companies such as FarmLink are determined to help transform agriculture by using data science and new economy business models in the same way telecommunications and energy have.

“FarmLink brought together seasoned professionals from leading industries and young ag experts to literally change the culture of agriculture”, says LeMay. “As a start-up, we want to respond to the need for urgency with the energy and passion of entrepreneurs. New technologies, empowered by our advanced analytics platform (which combines machine learning models and human insight), can speed the pace of progress, and benefit farmers, agribusinesses and others across the food chain in multiple ways.”

The origins of FarmLink go back 15 years, when MachineryLink began leasing quality equipment to farmers at a fraction of the cost of ownership. Five years ago, the company began equipping its fleet of 200 combines with proprietary data recorders to collect yield data on millions of acres of corn, soybeans and wheat. The company then correlated that yield data with 62 different soil and weather variables from public data sources. The result is one of the world’s largest agricultural data sets, which underpins its sophisticated data analytics platforms. This platform is the engine behind FarmLink’s growth and, the company believes, a key to transformation in agriculture.

In 2014, FarmLink introduced TrueHarvest, the industry’s first and most sophisticated yield benchmarking tool. In the same year, it launched FarmLink Analytical Solutions, an entire division dedicated to working with public and private organisations to solve the most complex problems related to agriculture and natural resource management. These include how to maximise yields, how to optimise inputs and how to minimise environmental degradation. By combining the power of agronomic knowledge, an irreplicable data set and next-gen technology, FarmLink is able to uncover key insights needed to make a meaningful impact.

Changing the culture of agriculture
FarmLink brought together a team with extensive backgrounds in and outside agriculture that share a passion for making a difference in the world. FarmLink’s team boasts decades of experience from innovative and transformational industries, including telecommunication, energy, manufacturing and technology. Other leaders bring deep roots in agriculture. In fact, several managers are frontrunners in ag tech, bringing experience from large agribusiness and successful ag startups. Together and with partners across the industry, FarmLink’s team is uncovering new ways to think about the problems and solutions they are faced with.

“Agriculture has unique challenges, but the lessons and opportunities other industries have capitalised on through data science are still very applicable”, says Dave Gebhardt, FarmLink’s Chief Strategy Officer of Data Products and Agronomy. “The key to truly transforming global agriculture will be ensuring our new data tools and insights are based on precise, accurate data driving measurable results. With analytical platforms grounded in complex yet accurate data, the opportunities for those with vision, experience and innovation are limitless.”

Improved precision
While benchmarking has been widely utilised in other industries for decades, it has only recently become available in agriculture. The TrueHarvest benchmark provides precise, objective data that allows farmers and their crop advisers to pinpoint opportunities for profitable and sustainable farm management. In essence, the benchmark allows farmers to compare the yield performance of any given field or zone with the yield performance of thousands of others with comparable soil and weather conditions. With that information, farmers can determine how their land is performing relative to the benchmark. If a field is producing at the 25th percentile, for example, a farmer and his crop advisor can identify improvement opportunities and develop a specific plan to improve yield on that field.

And, because TrueHarvest is based on data snapshots taken every 150 square feet during harvest, farmers can identify improvement opportunities down to the ‘micro field’ level. This is what proponents of precision farming have always envisioned but, until now, haven’t been able to realise.

“When it comes to actionable yield data, we have only seen the tip of the iceberg”, says Matt Darr, Associate Professor and expert on precision agriculture at Iowa State University. “We’re not limited to yield data, but rather by our ability to synthesise that information to help drive more effective on-farm decision making.”

As global economic pressures challenge farms of all sizes, experts believe precision technology must come with actionable precision data to realise the full benefits. FarmLink’s 2014 benchmark of American corn and soybean production showed US land was capable of producing even more if investment in inputs and resources were targeted to underperforming acres. For example, if land at the 50th percentile had performed at the level of peers producing at the 75th percentile, American farmers could have harvested and sold nearly $10bn more in corn and soybeans in 2014.

Kansas farm cooperative MKC recently partnered with FarmLink to offer a benchmarking service to their farmer-customers. TrueHarvest benchmark data from 2014 shows an additional $372m in yield potential for farm operations in Kansas.

“Benchmarking is a strategic tool for our customers”, says Dave Spears, Senior Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer for MKC. “TrueHarvest allows our field marketers and precision ag specialists to help producers optimise the yield and return on investment on every acre. And because FarmLink takes extra care to ensure the veracity of the data set, we trust that the information is actionable.”

“Precision farming is evolving to ‘decision farming’, and that is largely being driven by the need of farmers to have data-driven input management decisions that address key issues of performance and profitability”, says Gebhardt, who led a similar effort at Land O’Lakes. “What’s particularly exciting about FarmLink is that our benchmarking and advanced analytics enable the industry to measure and increase not only the true value and sustainability of new technologies in farmers’ fields, but also those under development in R&D labs of the largest agribusinesses.”

Advanced analytics
While data science brings a new level of transparency and decision-making abilities never before seen in agriculture, the industry is far behind others in applying modern tools to solve problems. Today, data science and benchmarking provide a common language for agribusinesses and farmers around the world to use in taking production to the next level.

FarmLink’s data analytics platform could be invaluable in further improving the quality of soybeans in Brazil, enhancing the consistency of canola production in Canada or increasing rice yields in Asia. It can even be deployed to assess the value of range or pasture restoration, or to make decisions about whether specific pieces of land would be more valuable for agricultural or non-agricultural uses.

“This is a transformational time when the combination of human knowhow and insight, coupled with the robust data science and analytics, will change the productivity, profitability and sustainability of agriculture”, says LeMay. “At FarmLink, we call it Ag 3.0. The innovation pipeline we’ve created will fuel this transformation.”

Equipment transformed agriculture once before, and now machine learning, created using sophisticated computer models, is poised to accelerate the pace of change. FarmLink’s data science team has uncovered a wealth of opportunities to extract even greater return from data already collected. Correlations between key variables can be found in days instead of the years needed for human computation. As the need for new solutions increases, machine learning coupled with human insight can help refocus R&D investments on tools that farmers need today. FarmLink is partnering with leading agribusinesses to bring its unique data set together with proprietary data to uncover insights.

FarmLink’s benchmarking tool helps farmers, agribusinesses and public sector leaders identify the potential yields of their land
FarmLink’s benchmarking tool helps farmers, agribusinesses and public sector leaders identify the potential yields of their land

The Uber of ag
Another transformation on the farm is a change in traditional thinking around equipment ownership and management. In a dynamic ag economy, retailers and growers are rethinking one of their biggest capital expenditures: farm equipment. A combine costs about $350,000, but the average farmer needs it less than 30 days a year.

FarmLink launched the industry’s first equipment sharing programme this year, giving equipment owners the chance to keep returns flowing even during the off-season, and farmers’ access to equipment at a fraction of the cost of ownership. Leasing and sharing offers farmers more options and frees up capital for other on-farm investments, while potentially generating additional revenue.

“Combines typically represent one of the most costly, yet least utilised, pieces of equipment on the farm”, says Jeff Dema, President of Grower Services at FarmLink. “MachineryLink Sharing by FarmLink offers a unique way for owners to generate cash from a combine or other equipment that otherwise would be sitting in the barn. This creative business model is another way we are helping farmers generate cash flow and improve the business of farming.”

A transformational time
Agriculture must continue to create new systems for greater productivity and sustainability around the world. FarmLink is at the forefront of transforming ag by introducing new economy models – connecting combines to sharing economy machinery solutions six years ago, and now advanced data analytics. Entrepreneurs such as those at FarmLink will drive the next wave of innovation that is vital to meeting the world’s food challenges ahead.

By solving key challenges around data science and agriculture, the learning happening right now will have applications for production around the world. With access to technology through connections and innovations on the rise, there is an unprecedented opportunity to empower future farmers. Global food security can only be achieved if the pace of innovation increases, and the tools and innovation that are created get into the hands of farmers around the world who need them.

“We know that modern ag knowhow isn’t enough”, says LeMay. “To feed the world, we have to rethink our approach to agriculture and speed the pace of change. 10 years ago, we couldn’t imagine what’s possible today. I’m pleased to be part of finding solutions for tomorrow.”

WTO seals landmark trade deal

The World Trade Organisation has secured a landmark trade deal to eliminate tariffs on a reported $1trn of information technology products. Negotiations on the IT Agreement started as far back as 2012, and it took representatives of the organisation’s 54-nation membership until July 18 to reach a consensus on the expanded list of items.

Negotiations along the way have been less
than smooth

“This is a big deal”, said the WTO’s Director-General Roberto Azevêdo in a statement. “The trade covered in this agreement is comparable to annual global trade in iron, steel, textiles and clothing combined. By taking this step, WTO members will help to provide a jump-start to the global economy and underline the WTO’s role as the central global forum for trade negotiations.”

Negotiations along the way have been less than smooth, with Beijing accused of trying to exclude too wide a range of items in order to hand its industries an edge in global trade. The agreed upon deal will see the list of products expanded to 200, including advanced microchips, new generation semiconductors, video games consoles, MRI machines, and a range of items that were scarcely invented last the deal was made in 1997.

Now that the product list and declaration have been approved, the WTO will take the next few months to arrive at the specifics of the revised agreement, including a timetable for tariff elimination.

Major industry names are expected to benefit greatly as a result, as trade of the 200 items is made both cheaper and simpler. Consumers, as well as manufacturers, may also benefit, with the price of imported goods expected to fall.

What’s next for nuclear power in the developing world?

“Access to secure, sustainable and affordable energy is of prime importance for socio‐ economic development”, began IAEA Deputy Director General Mikhail Chudakov’s opening address at a conference on energy and nuclear Power in Africa, hosted in Kenya on April 15 2015. “Nearly every aspect of development, from reducing poverty to raising living standards, from improving health care to increased agricultural productivity, requires reliable access to modern energy source.”

The need for energy
Energy – or, more accurately, the ability to harness it – has always raised human living standards, be it through making the production easier and cheaper, reducing the burden of production for humans, or providing greater mobility through transport. Cheap, abundant energy made life in the 20th century more prosperous in North America and Europe than generations before could ever have imagined. In the 21st century, the rest of the world is – with some exceptions – going through this process. The “rise of the rest” is no secret: across the developing world economic growth rates are soaring, people are migrating to cities to work modern-waged labour jobs, living standards are rising and technology is proliferating. All of this leads to a higher demand for energy. According to Exxon Mobil, energy consumption is set to increase by 35 percent from 2010 to 2040.

Western nations have become increasingly sceptical about nuclear power

Projections of the bulk of growth in world energy use will come from the developing world, while energy use in the developed world will remain relatively stable, contributing only 0.5 percent of energy demand growth, according to the US Energy Information Agency. Some of this growth can be attributed to population growth in the developing world. However, it also reflects increasing personal energy consumption. People of the developing world – quite rightly – want access to cars, electronic devices and climate control either for themselves or for the comfort of their homes, just as the developed world has.

Nuclear goes East
Meanwhile, Western nations have become increasingly sceptical about nuclear power, beginning in the 1980s. In his book The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of Ethics for the Technological Age, philosopher Hans Jonas dismissed nuclear energy as increasing people’s “energy gluttony”. A decade later the sociologist Ulrich Beck claimed that the risk of nuclear power “completely evades human perspective abilities.” Under the influence of a mix of a newly emboldened environmentalism increased safety fears, compounded by accidents such as Chernobyl, many developed nations slowed down the growth of nuclear energy or stopped it altogether.

Despite such Western anxieties, to plug the gap between rising energy demands and supply, many developing nations are opting for nuclear power. In total, reports the Global Post, projections show that developing countries will “account for 40 percent of total global nuclear power generation by 2035, up from 17 percent in 2010.” The increase of nuclear power in the developing world provokes mixed reactions, with many questioning it as a suitable means through which developing countries can satisfy their growing energy demands. Today 45 countries are seriously considering the adoption of nuclear power; 37 of which are classified as developing nations by the World Bank. In the beginning of 2014, 72 nuclear reactors were under construction, the highest number in 25 years, reports the International Energy Agency.

It is no surprise that China and India, the two largest developing economies, are at the forefront of nuclear power growth. Nearly 70 percent of reactors currently under construction, the Global Post reports, are located in China, Russia and India, with China itself contributing 40 percent to that number. In 2010, China and India were together building 26 nuclear plants, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. China also, far from simply adopting nuclear energy, is contributing to its technological development. As James Woudhuysen and Joe Kaplinsky write in their book Energise: A Future for Energy Innovation, “China’s work in ‘fourth generation’ (4G) nuclear technology has already drawn significant interest in the US, and might one day figure in a revitalised nuclear program for that country.”

While China and India have both used nuclear energy for a considerable amount of time, other developing countries looking to the nuclear option often lack the adequate infrastructure, skills and funds. “A nuclear power generation programme not only requires financial resources necessary for acquiring reactors and constructing plants, but also necessitates institutional and human resource capacities, including operational expertise, regulatory expertise, spent fuel management plan and site, non-proliferation commitment, among others,” says Jane Nakano a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies. Malcolm Grimston of the Centre for Environmental Policy at Imperial College London also agrees, telling World Finance that the main disadvantage of developing economies pursuing nuclear power is that it is “highly capital intensive” requiring “government access to large investment funds.”

Right for some
Faced with rising demand, Vietnam regularly experiences brownouts – an unintentional dim in electricity voltage. The country currently relies upon its oil reserves for much of its electricity. According to The Economist, it is seeing a rise in energy growth of 14 percent a year, which, ceteris paribus, will lead to the country becoming a net-energy importer by 2015. Although right now remains a net exporter, World Bank figures show, but as a recent report by the IEA looking at the future of energy in South East Asia underlines: Vietnam is seeing a “shift towards imports.” Since 2006, Vietnam has had plans to build nuclear power plants. According to Oil Price, Vietnam has plans to “build 13 NPPs [nuclear power plants] generating 15,000 megawatts, accounting for 10 percent of the country’s projected total power output.” This has largely been due to the help of Russia and Japan, two of the world’s leading nuclear nations, both through practical assistance and providing training. Vietnam also has a fairly strong centralised government, through which it should be able to enforce strict regulation and power-grid maintenance.

Bangladesh is also currently in transition from a rural to industrial economy, fuelled by constant migration to town from country. As a result, Bangladesh is seeing a rapid increase in demand for electricity; the 2013 financial year saw a rise in demand of 13 percent. Bangladesh is reliant upon natural gas for its energy needs. To lessen this dependence, its government hopes to construct two nuclear power plants, with assistance from Russian companies.

The lack of expertise in countries such as Vietnam and Bangladesh, according to Woudhuysen, should not be viewed as an issue. In a telephone interview, he makes clear that any skill deficiency in developing nations is a political barrier that can be overcome. Lack of skill is a result of lack of investment in the relevant education. If a nation is serious about nuclear energy, it can make the decision to allocate relevant resources towards relevant training, through subsiding study abroad. All countries have lacked nuclear expertise, until they have it; China in the 1940s had no nuclear expertise, but acquired it in the 1950s through Soviet training. Many developing nations looking towards nuclear have had personnel receive training from nuclear-savvy nations such as Russia, Japan and South Korea. This is a cost, but a cost that can be made in the face of weighing up the potential of a nuclear energy programme.

Geography also plays an important role. Professor Raminder Kaur from the University of Sussex doubts the wisdom of building nuclear power plants in a country such as Bangladesh “with an extremely vulnerable environment subject to flooding, cyclones, you name it.” The Fukushima disaster in Japan was primarily due to the plants location, in an area prone to natural disaster. Other developing nations, by accidents of geography, can more easily and cheaply, harness other sources. For instance hydro-electric power, which Ana Pueyo, a research fellow at the Institute of Development Studies, tells World Finance provides Brazil with 75 percent of its power. Solar panels can play some role for meeting energy demands. However, for rapidly industrialising economies, with growing factories, cities and industry, these panels alone do not suffice.

Construction of Kenya’s first nuclear plant is planned to begin in 2017

African nations have also started to set in motion plans to build nuclear power plants. Kenya’s National Economic & Social Council recommended in 2010 that the country attempt to utilise nuclear power by 2020 in order to meet rising electricity demands. Construction of the first plant is planned to begin in 2017. While uranium, the raw material upon which nuclear power runs, is sourced from a variety of locations, Namibia holds seven percent of the world’s reserves and is capable of supplying 10 percent of world uranium needs. As a result – along with rising energy demands – the government “has committed to a policy position of supplying its own electricity from nuclear power”, according to the World Nuclear Association.

Without strong financial backing and assistance from countries with nuclear expertise, these purported plans will fail to get off the ground. Many of these countries will also face the problem of a government strong enough to enforce required safety regulations and maintain a power grid. However one option that should be explored for developing nations, Woudhuysen tells World Finance, is the use of small modular reactors. These small nuclear reactors can be massed produced, he says. According to the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, they can be easily adopted by technologically-deprived developing nations. They can then be easily installed with minimal technical skill. Refuelling these reactors is also carried out by the manufacturers, reducing the need for a country to maintain an expensive army of nuclear engineers.

The nature of small modular reactors means that minimal capital investment is required compared to what is required for conventional nuclear plants. Likewise, countries with poor regulatory systems can also safely use them to provide for their power needs, as they use a “passive safety” system in which any threat to safety sees the reactor automatically shut down. Being a sealed unit sold ready for use, they are also resistant to weaponisation.

“[T]he decision to embark upon a nuclear power generation should not be taken lightly.  Nuclear power generation is not for every country, developed or developing,” Nakano says. As the IEA notes, “[n]uclear can play a key role in lowering emissions from the power sector, while improving security of energy supply, supporting fuel diversity and providing large-scale electricity at stable production costs.” Yet some countries lack the necessary infrastructure, regulation capabilities, capital and technical skill. While technical skill can be imported or nurtured through education investment, and capital can be coveted from abroad help, many developing economies should consider if their nation itself is suited for conventional nuclear energy. That is not to say they should be denied access to abundant and cheap energy, but rather, cheaper options such as hydro-electric power, if geography allows, or new technologies such as small modular reactors, should be considered. Though as Professor S. J. Tol of the University of Sussex tells World Finance, the source of energy which the developing world opts for is up for them to decide, not Western governments, international agencies, or indeed professors.

Uber wins important victory over zealous New York

A long-running battle between Uber and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio reached a swift conclusion – at least temporarily – on July 22, as the city agreed not to impose a cap on the number of cars it operates in exchange for the firm’s cooperation in a four-month study. The resolution marks a victory for the ride-sharing app, in a time where disgruntled taxi drivers and cities across the globe are challenging its legitimacy.

With approximately 20,000 cars on New York’s streets, Uber cars now outnumber the city’s infamous yellow cabs

The Uber victory follows a successful lobbying campaign, in which celebrities took to social media to criticise de Blasio’s proposed cap, and users plugged into a feature, called “de Basio mode” that showed how long taxi waits would be without the ride-sharing service.

The original deal called for a one percent cap on Uber’s growth and its cooperation in a yearlong study into the impact of its cars both on traffic and pollution in New York, and climbdown, which will see the firm partake in a four-month study, comes a day before the city council was scheduled to vote on the original motion.

“We’re pleased to have reached an agreement with Mayor de Blasio’s administration and the City Council to collaborate on a joint transportation study and to work together on ways to continue expanding economic opportunity, mobility and transportation access in the city”, said Josh Mohrer, Uber’s general manager for New York City, in a statement.

With approximately 20,000 cars on New York’s streets, Uber cars now outnumber the city’s infamous yellow cabs, and while the numbers contribute some to congestion, thousands of new residents are tuning into the app every week to make use of the ride-sharing service.

New York’s deputy mayor Tony Shorris, who oversaw the agreement in de Blasio’s absence, said that the administration was glad of Uber’s cooperation in reaching the new deal.