Archive for March, 2010

Is Next big thing going to be Mobile commerce

March 30, 2010 Leave a comment

I think next big thing would be mobile commerce as we see grow no of users mobile phones than the computers . I can see that from years how internet came along from dial up to Broadband doing business on Internet .Past three years the trend has changed such way that people can work using mobile phone like Email,IM and internet right in our palm using these smartphones. after looking at it stats from past

I feel that mobile commerce will grow tremendously going forward I would buy a recent study shows Ebay Expects to sell $1.5 Billion Dollars worth of goods through Mobile commerce .What I see in this is Mobile commerce would be a next big thing .

It is worth reading this article on

Categories: Business Related

Why nations should pursue “soft” power Like India

March 28, 2010 Leave a comment

Shashi Throor Member of Parliament describes how India can be come super power in the world but   not just through trade and politics, but through “soft” power .

I really like this video it is really worth spreading such kind of encouraging and proud thoughts.

Categories: I read on Internet

Ipad Vs Iphone, which one will bring more revenue to apple the most

March 27, 2010 Leave a comment

Ipad created lot of buzz around technology people. I like Ipad than Iphone lot of my friends use Iphone they said so many times to get one for me. But I always addicted to Blackberry and easy to use keys and email technology I also know blackberry does not serve rich content as Iphone keeping all pros and cons between Iphone and Blackberry I was using Blackberry all the time because I was not so comfortable using that touch keyboard on Iphone.

After I saw Ipad launch video on internet I am showing little interest to get one Ipad for me but before I do that I also have lot concerns on Ipad I would like to get Ipad with 3G so I can browse internet in most places .And Ipad key board is larger than Iphone keyboard so I can use it easy.

When I was thinking which device will bring more revenue to apple I clearly see Ipad would bring more revenue over next two years. Reason for my thinking is simple. Iphone market is captured and today  people who uses Iphone already bought.

Ipad is created a new breed between phone and laptop, people like me who are not willing to go for Iphone due to various reasons may show interest on Ipad not only that it can be carried easily and used easily.

On top of all this All most every Iphone app would work on Ipad and there are more apps would come to Ipad as well.

If there are apps to make Voip calls over 3G network from Ipad with Bluetooth connected I really feel Ipad can be used rather than phone with an exception of size compared to Iphone or normal phone.

Iphone features are replicated in so many other phones over the time there are more smart phones will come in the future .Today in the market has the New Technology of Ipad is just starting which is a new breed between Phone and laptop it may take some time to compete in this area for others.

Although I have seen some of the products already in the market like from Geremany.

Google is working Chrome OS this OS work on cloud and using Chrome OS google is thinking to release a netbook in the future but those are not yet come it will come to market in an year, But before that Ipad will take over the market.

I strongly feel that those entrepreneurs who look ahead and react earlier than others with vision those people are winners.

I am thinking what are those apps which will be good suitable for Ipad but not Iphone. I shall wait to see what are those.

one last point to note is Ipad does not have camera I am not sure why they have not added the feature. I am sure they have very good marketing idea to release one another version of IPad with Camera to create another Buzz.

Categories: Business Related

Why India did not produce Innovative Enterprises like Apple,Google,Microsoft,GE or IBM

March 26, 2010 1 comment

I keep thinking why India did not produce any innovative companies like GE or Google

After thinking for few minutes keeping in mind that I am from India and lived in USA for a quite some time now.

I understood few reasons why India could not produce such great Innovative companies. This is purely my view of thinking.

In India every one cares about how much profit they make by starting a business. of course any businessman thinks like that, But In India there are very very low number of people who does the business as passion and takes innovative thinking as Investment. You name any company today out of India none of them are Innovative companies that I know but there are so many companies who can provide best in any services on existing technology.
All this comes from our childhood I hope . Normally Indian Kids spends great deal of time in a day studying and depending on parents ,teacher guidance  there is very little time for the kids to think out of the box . But the same kid can do wonders in repeating the task . I really feel the same concept comes in real life. Of course I also know lot of successful entrepreneurs and scientist  from India my point here is those very small no when compared to USA.

Thats where Infosys ,HCL,Wipro ,Reliance or any  company in India today are doing. India is very good in repeating the task and they do it in great way.

For example first time offshore model : developing software offshore in india for a client started the same thing repeated over and over again and gain so today all these companies .

I really feel one day I can see an Innovative company born out of India and do miracles as Bill gates say there is always some one who is making a dream machine in garage. May be some one India is doing that now.

The reason for having such confidence about India  is the present educational systems ,kids thinking power and life style in India.

Categories: Business Related

If any dificult task can be turned into simple , comfort and less time consumption repeating the process can be a best business case

March 26, 2010 Leave a comment

I really feel any business Idea which comes in mind has to be realistic and should solve any one day to day challenge.Either by reducing the time to the task or reducing the cost for task or both together with comfirt.

any such idea which is end user based will always win the game and go into success path.

Few years back when I was told by one of my friend who lives in india about this website where he booked his ticket.
I was really wondering how they make money and that too in a country like india it is very difficult to keep all bus operators in loop. But these guys did it. Today when i found this article on one of the website I thought of sharing .

It really makes a great company by the founders.

Silicon Valley and India have a cozy relationship, but a big question has resulted in friction, failed companies and millions in losses: When will the Internet catch on in India in a big way?

A few companies have done well and a few more are coming up, slowly but surely. But there are hardly any true breakout hits.

RedBus is pretty close. It’s essentially an Expedia for bus tickets in India. It sells about 3,500 bus seats per day, is the fourth most-trafficked Web site in India and has at least tripled its revenues year-over-year. The company sells seats for roughly half the bus operators in India, and that’s saying something: This is an insanely fragmented market that had next to zero centralization just a few years ago.  All of this has been built in three years on about $1 million in venture funding. (The company raised another $1.3 million in 2008, but it’s still in the bank. Investors include HelionInventus andSeedfund.)

I can vouch for the company being cheap. Having spent my morning in the plush eight-acre Infosys headquarters, the offices of RedBus were a marked contrast. They are split among two buildings located in one of those very chaotic Indian neighborhoods where vendors are shouting, cows are wandering and smell of open sewers is not too far off. It feels far from the sanitized, steel-and-glass rows of multinationals.

None of this is intended as an insult– co-founder and CEO Phanindra Sama is proud of his cheapness. (Sama is pictured above, sorry it’s so blurry. My camera was having issues.) We met in a no-frills, un-airconditioned conference room. He didn’t turn on the air conditioning for famed Silicon Valley Indian entrepreneur Kanwal Rekhi, when he visited last month either—and Rekhi is an investor in RedBus.

Despite the sweat trickling down my forehead, arms, legs and back throughout the interview, I didn’t want to leave. What Sama and his two founders have pulled off in a short period of time with little funding in India is impressive.

Background for Americans: There are two kinds of buses in India—those that make stops and have ticket-takers on board and that go to one destination only and sell pre-paid tickets only. There are some 3,000 operators of the latter category and, before RedBus, there was no way to contact them directly. To get a bus ticket, you went to an agent. That agent only had inventory from a few bus lines. To book the ticket, he or she would call one person who was in charge of booking every seat on that particular route. There was a long wait time, and frequently the routes the agents knew about were sold out – meaning you had to change your travel plans, or find another agent who had different sources. Meanwhile there was no standardization on pricing and commissions. The agent simply wrote the cost on a piece of paper and if you wanted to ride, you paid it.

Now, RedBus has a central database that gets seats from half of India’s bus operators. It has done so well that it powers the bus ticket applications for most of India’s more general travel sites like It also sells an OpenTable-like software-as-a-service product to help bus companies manage their own inventory and better integrate their inventory with RedBus. In terms of seats, it sells less than 1% of the 750,000 rides taken daily, but with several channels and few other easy options, there’s a ton of room to grow a big company.

Sama didn’t set out to build a company. I know that’s a cliché with startups these days, but it’s a rarity in Bangalore where the glamor of being a Web entrepreneur runs high and plenty of TechCrunch-reading kids save up money, quit for a year, try to start a company, and go back to a multinational if it doesn’t hit quickly. When RedBus’s mentor first suggested the company raise $1 million, Sama gasped. He hadn’t even thought in those amounts. His only immediate thought was: “If I had $1 million, I’d put it in the bank and make interest.”

That mentor was Sanjay Anandaram formerly of Neta, Wipro and other ventures known between the Silicon Valley and Indian entrepreneur communities. Sama met Anandaram throughTIE’s JumpStartUp program. Despite the reach, influence and press of TIE—the uber-Indian networking organization started in the Valley— Sama is the first entrepreneur I’ve met in India who gives it this much credit for his company’s survival.

Specifically, he cites Anandaram’s advice. When RedBus was trying to sell software to the bus lines, it was Anandaram who said: Don’t keep trying to sell the same thing, ask what they need and build that. The bus lines needed to sell seats. So RedBus built a site, and bought the inventory itself from the bus lines to list on the site. Once it proved it could move seats, the operators were happy to pay the company a percentage of seats sold.

Once the company could prove results, it was Anandaram who warned them to undersell expectations: Tell an operator you can sell one seat for them a month, even if you think you can sell fifty. If you sell two, you’ll be a hero, not a disappointment. RedBus has carried that over to fundraising, admittedly forgoing higher valuations because it didn’t want to oversell and under-deliver.

That’s harder than it sounds for an entrepreneur, who is usually the single most bullish person on his company. And it is absolutely shocking in India’s startup culture. I had a blog network tell me on my last morning in India – with a straight face – that it would be doing double the revenues of Gawker in a few years. I like to give entrepreneurs the benefit of the doubt, but I also know the media business. Forgive the generalization, but Indians just love to over-sell. It’s deep in their trader heritage. “You have to sacrifice your ego,” Sama says.

But, especially for a startup in India, the most important piece of advice Sama and his co-founders got from Anandaram might have been this: You are not an Internet company.Because the Internet isn’t more widespread in India, there has to be a core mindset that the Net is an important channel, but just a channel. Just under 50% of RedBus’s business comes from the Net, much of the rest is via mobile phones.

And the company invested early in two expensive ways of skirting that Web limitation. The first was building its own network of bike couriers to deliver tickets and take payments, ala the hugely successful Chinese online travel company, CTrip. The second was investing in seven different call centers throughout India, not one central call center. Says Sama, if you don’t localize a call center to local slang, languages, and customs the customer service won’t work.

Seriously? An Indian in Bangalore arguing a centralized, remote call center can’t give good customer service? That has about as much globalization-irony as China’s BYD refusing to outsource any of its manufacturing.

For Anandaram’s part he noted the founders’ willingness to listen and learn from someone who’d been there. He says the biggest mistakes he sees Indian startups making are not seeking advice, being too obsessed with retaining control and not valuing sales, marketing and partnerships.

The RedBus story squares with something I’ve been noticing more in my travels to emerging markets—frequently when entrepreneurs complain about a lack of angel investing or venture capital, what they are really lacking isn’t just the money, it’s the mentorship. This came up inmy recent conversation with Pierre Omidyar, whose philanthropic effort, the Omidyar Network, seeks to fund both non-profit and for profit entrepreneurs specifically those in the poorest areas of the world. Omidyar Networks has money it can gives these entrepreneurs, thanks to eBay and the dot com boom—lots of money. But what the organization is increasingly finding so lacking is that horrible buzz word “human capital.”

In Omidyar’s own experience, eBay never touched the $3 million it raised from Benchmark in 1996. But the mentorship he got was well worth giving up 25% of the company. “That’s what is so hard to find around the world,” Omidyar says. “We’re increasingly looking at whether $500,000 worth of human capital could help more than $500,000.”

I know that the idea the VCs bring more than money is ridiculed by most entrepreneurs today, but those are usually entrepreneurs operating in a scene that has had an explosion of startups—both failed and successful ones—in the last fifteen years. Even the shiest, most awkward or most unconnected entrepreneurs in the Valley can find a mentor with little effort. Sometimes we take for granted that that’s not the case in much of the rest of the world.

Lucky for RedBus’s founders, they were an exception.

Different Types of Entrepreneurs (Replicators ,Innovators and Bill Gates)

March 26, 2010 1 comment

As I always read articles written by Vivek this article is simply great. Where he explains difference between Innovative Entrepreneurs and Replicated Entrepreneurs   As I feel replicated Entrepreneurs with innovative thought process to grow their business more than average percentage in the same Industry would be considered as Innovative entrepreneur simply  because replicated entrepreneur not only replicated the business model from existing methodologies but he put his innovation in shaping the business with risk and grown the business more than average percentage in the same industry. This makes that Entrepreneur as  Innovative in Vivek’s Example below jaipur rugs such as rug making is traditional business with replicated model but the innovation came from the implementing the frame work and making it success and grow the business more than average in the industry.

Read below article By Vivek  .He always writes great articles like below

by Vivek Wadhwa on Mar 6, 2010

My last post triggered some interesting debates in the blogosphere about whether entrepreneurs were a product of nature or could be nurtured. It’s not black or white. People are a product of their upbringing and education. Average humans can achieve extraordinary feats when they really try. I’ll concede that, like some great athletes, some great entrepreneurs may have something different about them that gives them a special advantage (this is a topic that I am presently researching). But not every entrepreneur needs to reap the same fortune as Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg to qualify as a success. You can build a good lifestyle business that pays the bills, or that does good for the world, and be considered a successful entrepreneur. (And you’ll probably be happier and gain more respect than most billionaires do.) Entrepreneurship isn’t all about the IPO.

I hold steadfast to my belief — based on my experience in building two great technology companies and in mentoring around 200 entrepreneurs over some years and on what I’ve learned from my academic research into the background and motivations of entrepreneurs — that entrepreneurs can be made. People born into entrepreneurial families may have the advantage of knowing the ups and downs of business, and, all else being equal, people from entrepreneurial families are certainly more likely to become entrepreneurs than others are. But the skills required to build, manage, and grow a business can be learned, and this education can level the playing field. VCs who judge entrepreneurs based on age, sex, ethnicity, or family background are doing their limited partners, and society, a great disservice.

There was one criticism of my last post that caused me to do serious introspection.  The question: was Bill Gates’s dad an entrepreneur? I cited Gates Jr. as an example of an entrepreneur who didn’t come from an entrepreneurial family. A number of readers, includingJason Calacanis, pointed, out that Gates Sr. was a partner in a law firm, and so an entrepreneur, arguing that my citation was therefore faulty.

I’ve debated and written about this issue before. The broader question is whether anyone who starts a business, whether it is a law practice, a computer consulting firm, or a dry-cleaning store, is an entrepreneur. Management guru Peter Drucker would have answered with a definitive No. He wrote, “Not every new small business is entrepreneurial or represents entrepreneurship… entrepreneurs innovate. Innovation is the specific instrument of entrepreneurship.” Drucker didn’t mince words.

When I told this to some of my friends, I heard loud protests. Murali Bashyam, who started animmigration-law practice, insisted he was as much an entrepreneur as Bill Gates and his dad. Murali threatened, “if you decide that I’m not an entrepreneur, I might decide that the daily stress of growing and running a business, financial risks involved, and all the other headaches that come with creating something out of nothing is just not worth it. Maybe I’ll close up and go work for someone, where I can earn a steady and high salary and go home at 5 pm”.

milarly, Sue Drakeford, who was Miss Nebraska 2001, had started a production company to host its own pageants and teach other African American women like her to gain the confidence and skills to compete in the real world. She wanted to provide a wholesome alternative to what she called the “cold-blooded cutthroat world of modeling and beauty pageants”.  But Sue was working full-time at a bank and ran this business on the side. Was she an entrepreneur?  Sue insisted she was.

After agonizing over this for weeks, I went to my friends at the Kauffman Foundation, and they referred me to their book titled “Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism”. Carl Schramm and Bob Litan wrote that all who take the risk are entrepreneurs, but that there are two types of entrepreneurs: “Replicative entrepreneurs”, who constitute the vast majority of small businesses (such as restaurants and dry cleaners), and “innovative entrepreneurs” — the rare few who bring new products/services to market or who pioneer new production methods (such as Walmart, eBay, and Dell).

Under the Kauffman definition, Sue would qualify as an “innovative entrepreneur”, because she is developing new services and pioneering new methods. In contrast, Murali would be a “replicative entrepreneur”, because he delivers a standardized service in a field that charges primarily by the hour for its time. Murali could well end up running a huge law firm and be worth many millions, but that doesn’t make him particularly innovative in his business model.

So Bill Gates Sr. was a “replicative entrepreneur”, and Gates Jr. was an “innovative entrepreneur” — whom Silicon Valley calls an “entrepreneur”. TechCrunch founder, Mike Arrington, who used to be a lawyer for Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, would qualify as an “innovative entrepreneur”, because he created a new product (a blogging site) and was a pioneer in the new-media world.

n bring innovation to “replicat” fields as Arrington did. Take the example of SunRun. The company installs solar cells — which is as mundane or “replicative” a business as you can get. But its CEO, Edward Fenster, developed a new business model under which his company installs solar panels on a customer’s house for little to no upfront cost and only charges for the power that customers use.  SunRun also insures, maintains, repairs, and monitors the system, and provides a money-back guarantee on the system’s energy production. This has made solar power available to the masses at an affordable cost and the company has become largest residential solar company in the country, operating in five states, and growing at more than 400% per year.

Another great example I’ve seen of an entrepreneur who has innovated in a replicative industry is Nand Kishore Chaudhary. He brought automation, supply-chain management, and professional business practices to the mundane process of carpet weaving and distribution in the desert state of Rajasthan, India.  By implementing modern production practices and ERP technology, he was able to grow a small business,Jaipur Rugs, that he’d run from his home into a world-class production and distribution company, which employed 40,000 workers and generated $21 million in revenue in 2008. This is in a land where PCs were, until recently, as scarce as rainwater.

What’s the moral of the story? Don’t listen to the naysayers who are simply defending their informed views and biases by telling you that it’s nature or some special DNA that makes entrepreneurs or leads to entrepreneurial success. Don’t even be discouraged if you’re in a mundane, replicative industry. You can learn the skills needed to become a successful entrepreneur, and you can innovat

Categories: Business Related, Personal

Integrating Ethics Into The Core Of Your Startups: Why And How

March 20, 2010 Leave a comment

BY Vivek Wadhwa on Mar 20,2010

When I came to the U.S. in 1980, I was young and naïve. I used to think that corruption and ethical lapses were just a third-world ill. Eventually, I became a tech CEO and learned the harsh realities of American business. Yes, standards are much higher, and breaches are punished, but the temptations are just the same here as they are in any other country. Ethical lapses (which are a form of corruption) are quite common.  You watch stories about these on TV every other day and read about them on TechCrunch.  It was the ethical lapses of our financial institutions that threw our economy into a tailspin, and for which we are paying the price, after all.

It is best to be aware of the temptations and to prevent the lapses from occurring. As Enron, Bernie Madoff, and LehmanBrothers have shown, it’s a slippery slope. Once you start compromising your values for short-term gains, there is no turning back. Business ethics are not something you need to start worrying about when your company reaches a certain size; they need to be sewn into the fabric of your startup from the get-go. The lessons are the same for tech businesses as they are for investment banks and for third-world economies.

Harvard Business School professor Michael Beer researched the difference between companies that perform at high levels for extended periods and those that implode when they reach a certain size. When analyzing the spectacular failures in the recent financial meltdown, he found that:

• Of the original Forbes 100 (named in 1917), 61 had ceased to exist by 1987.  Of the remaining 39, only 18 stayed in the top 100, and their return during the period 1917 to 1987 was 20% less than that of the overall market.

• Of companies in the original Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index of 1957, only 74 remained in 1997; of these, only 12 outperformed the S&P 500 in the period 1957 to 1998.

• The average CEO tenure in the U.S. is 4.2 years, less than half the 10.5-year average in 1990.

Beer posited three core reasons for the failure of so many Wall Street firms in the fall of 2008: the firms lacked a higher purpose (in other words, they were focused on short-term gains, profits, and bonuses); they lacked a clear strategy; and they mismanaged their risk. Companies like Charles Schwab and US Bancorp were able to avoid the fallout by having a laser-like focus on customer service and on honesty and transparency. Neither company touched the subprime mortgage securitization market, because they saw it as risky and simply not the kind of business that served the company’s long-term interests.

Even outside Wall Street, companies like Cisco Systems, Southwest Airlines, and Costco Wholesale, with the strongest sense of higher purpose, achieved the greatest success. Take Costco. Wall Street analysts have long chastised Costco’s management for paying high wages and keeping employees around for a long time, because this results in higher benefits costs. But the company’s CEO, Jim Sinegal, lives by his belief that keeping good employees is strategic for Costco’s long-term success and growth. The company’s per-employee sales are considerably higher than those of key rivals such as Target and Wal-Mart; customer service at the stores is phenomenal and fast; and Costco continues to expand, both in number of warehouses and in products and services for business and consumer customers. The culture of the company flows downward from Sinegal and his focus on employees and, by extension, to customers.

One of the problems that Beer found with the failed banks was that their employees lacked the ability to “speak truth to power”. Employees felt intimidated by superiors; the institutions’ internal voice of conscience and purpose was silenced by a maniacal focus on short-term profits and whatever scheme would bring them in. The silencing of employees who sought to challenge strategy and risk-management practices likely also undermined the banks’ moral authority and emboldened those who already felt inclined to do the wrong thing. With a muted internal voice, these organizations lacked a moral compass. As a result, they drove off a cliff with astonishing speed.

The same things happen in Silicon Valley companies.  I asked management guru — and head of the CEO Institute of Yale School of Management — Jeff Sonnenfeld for his advice on how startups can sow the seeds for building a Cisco or Costco. Here is Jeff’s advice:

1)  Create a culture of openness and welcome dissent – Internal constructive critics are your best friends — too often, founders are blinded by their own enthusiasm for their creative vision and then are surrounded by sycophants, kissing up. Founders who fall out of touch rapidly lose their ethical bearings. At Intel, founder Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore did not look for sycophantic followers in selecting the brilliant, contentious, but relentlessly honest Andy Grove as their colleague and successor. Similarly, Craig Barrett and Paul Otellini have consistently fought for different points of view internally — without undermining the enterprise, and always reinforcing Intel’s self-critical core ethic.

2)  Lead by example.  The authenticity of the leader’s character is essential — if colleagues don’t believe you, they will not take needed risks on your behalf — such as training subordinates to be able to do their own jobs.  Startups are often defined by the hip clichés of VC firms, adoring press, and HR consultants — but the startups don’t really practice what they preach.

3)  Learn from immediate peers or distant models. Too often, founders atrophy because they believe that the unique quality of their business or technological mission means that they too are truly unique in leadership values.  Steve Jobs has patterned himself after Polaroid founder Ed Land — and tried to learn from Land’s strengths and weaknesses.  Henry Ford regretfully once claimed “History is bunk” but in reality revered Thomas Edison.  Michael Dell put legendary tech entrepreneur (Teledyne) and educator Dr. George Kozmetsky on his board right from the start to learn from this brilliant then septuagenarian.

4)  Recognize your own fallibility as a leader, know your limits, and beware of the myth of immortality.  Entrepreneurs often are horrified at the thought of leadership succession. The founders of great firms such as Google, Cisco, Amgen, and Microsoft have known that they would need to prepare for a day when they no longer could be the lone day-to-day internal boss, primary external ambassador, and symbolic cultural icon. The founder of the original (pre-Starbucks) coffee house chain Chock-Full-o-Nuts started his first café on Broadway 43rd Street in 1923 and was a great national success.  Sadly, sixty years later, as a dying man who had been flat on his back for two years at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, he still clung to the job of leader of the enterprise, his full-time physician serving as acting president.

5)  Remember that institutional character — like a liquid cupped in your hand — is fragile; easily lost; and hard, if not impossible, to regain. Egomaniacal moves, personal grandiosity, greed, and deception create impressions that are hard to erase.  Whole Foods founder, John Mackey, sabotaged the integrity of his own exalted brand, damaging the company’s internal pride and customer admiration far more badly than any competitor could have, due to his self-inflating and his misleading “anonymous” blogging, hiding his identity through an anagram of his wife’s name, “rehodab.”

I’ll add another very important point: Establish an independent board. Venture firms often demand a majority of board seats as a condition for their investments. Conflicts invariably arise. The board begins to serve the needs of VCs and management, rather than of the company itself, which loses the independent voice to warn it not to do the wrong things. The inconvenient truth is that all board members have a fiduciary duty to act in the interests of the company, and not in their own interests. Board members must not engage in transactions in which they or their partners stand to gain. They are legally required to avoid these conflicts of interest.

Finally, remember that in business, you have to make tough choices at every juncture. Though business decisions usually have clear consequences and outcomes, ethical decisions are always hard. Making the right choice doesn’t always bring success, but ethical lapses almost always lead to failure. No matter what the consequence, doing what’s ethical and right is always the better long-term strategy.

Categories: I read on Internet